Absolutely?absolutely no case — schopenhauer1
In the scenario in question the choice is between 100% chance of severe suffering (and death) or a slight chance of severe suffering for someone else. In this case it is permissible to procreate.
The way I read it, he is saying there is absolutely no case he can find where someone should put another in a situation where they are more at risk than a less risky alternative when there is no consent to be had (I would have said maybe "impossible" to have). You don't have to answer the question, but that is his claim. I guess the challenge is more like, "Hey, I'll entertain your exception if you have one, but this is the case". — schopenhauer1
Even if I decide not to even contemplate possible exceptions, his premise would remain unwarranted. — S
Well, he is claiming this is a hard and fast rule it seems. Don't put people in riskier situations if there is an alternative when you have no consent. That seems reasonable. If you think not, then explain why. — schopenhauer1
Because under consequentialism that's irrelevant. — S
There are lots of things that children can't consent to, and which carry risks, some of which are severe, like with almost any medication or surgery. It can be open to argument which course of action is the bigger risk in these situations, but anyway, the legal guardian should make that call, and that's not simply right or wrong just because of the risk involved or because they can't obtain consent. There are important considerations entirely missing from that analysis. — S
Another example would be undergoing chemotherapy. There might be a slim chance that it would be relatively successful, but it would be a hellish experience, and it might not pay off, whereas no chemotherapy would most likely mean a reduced life expectancy. Even if the legal guardian ends up opting with the "riskier" option, it's right that that's their decision to make. Khaled's analysis is overly simplistic, not thought through properly, and it is definitely not necessarily true of all cases. It is also not an impartial analysis, which is important in terms of method, and explains why it's hardly a surprise to find that there are problems with it. — S
However, again, the riskier option as presented to the parents is obviously letting the disease slowly eat away at the child. — schopenhauer1
However, this is really a debate about consent. — schopenhauer1
It can be worse than the alternative for some, not that that's always clear at the time, which is kind of the point. — S
No it's not, though! Because consent is irrelevant. How many times... — S
What you're doing doesn't get us anywhere either. Refusing this statement but not providing an alternative. I can't convince you of this premise. It's a premise for a reason. If you don't share it then at least you wouldn't be a hypocrite for having children. — khaled
I'm pretty sure one can say that consciously deciding to get pregnant and have a baby is "determining" the existence of the baby. And I'm saying we shouldn't do that. Also I don't get what determinism has to do with this. — khaled
I don't see a reason why that would be the case. Can you think of any othere scenarios when this "special case" comes into play? Or are you just treating birth differently? — khaled
That if an action results in harming someone in the future, it doesn't matter whether or not that person existed at the time the action took place. Example: Implanting a bomb in a fetus and setting it to blow up when the baby reaches 18 is just as bad as bombing an 18 year old (the age is besides the point here). — khaled
I can't "convince you" of this. There is no logical argument for it. It's a starting premise. Although if you don't believe in it you'd have to say that implanting a bomb in a fetus and killing someone that way is ok or at least less wrong than just killing someone, which I find to be ridiculous — khaled
However, this is really a debate about consent.
— schopenhauer1
No it's not, though! Because consent is irrelevant. How many times...
— S
Even if it is, that is not khaled's argument. His argument is that one should not put someone in a riskier situation if they cannot consent. — schopenhauer1
That is why I bring up guardianship in this case and the asymmetry of no one being born and someone being born and having their life at stake. — schopenhauer1
You dont understand, antinatalists are against existence because existence means suffering. You cant deny that. — Baskol1
Not for everyone maybe, but for many it actually does. — Baskol1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.