For example, if we're creating some sort of slave caste, because we'd like others to serve us as slaves, this seems like "bad" motivation regardless of the fact that no slaves are yet around. Should we act with the intention to make other sentient being serve us? I'd say no. — Echarmion
For example, you may want children so you can help create a new generation of compassionate and capable humans. — Echarmion
I am essentially saying that you do not account for a future child who will exist — schopenhauer1
you do not seem to like the idea of generalizing the idea that suffering exists — schopenhauer1
and a child will be born that will almost certainly suffer — schopenhauer1
Here you seem to be placing the child's wellbeing ABOVE the desire of the parents. So creating a slave caste is wrong because everyone in said caste will hate it, even if its creators will love it. — khaled
No that does not follow. — schopenhauer1
Starting existence, there is no person to be harmed — schopenhauer1
If born, they will be harmed. — schopenhauer1
And yes, you can have it such that suffering is sufficiently bad enough to never have been, but life sufficiently good enough that once born, would not want one's interests obliterated. — schopenhauer1
Here you seem to be placing the child's wellbeing ABOVE the desire of the parents. So creating a slave caste is wrong because everyone in said caste will hate it, even if its creators will love it. — khaled
What if for example, you knew your next child was going to be severely disabled, would it still be ethical to have them? They WOULD contribute to making a generation of compassionate humans in all likelyhood, but does that justify the harm they will go through? Why or why not? — khaled
As I already said, it doesn't imply that such actions cannot be considered wrong or immoral. Only that the moral weight cannot come from the will or interest of the non-existent child. We haven't actually excluded that there is an overarching moral principle hat says to not have children when you cannot adequately support them. — Echarmion
You don't control the outcomes though. — Echarmion
I don't have a problem with admitting that there are some things I still need to figure out regarding the moral weight of future people. But I nevertheless feel very confident that tying yourself into knots trying to somehow attribute personhood to unborn children while maintaining that they don't exist is the solution. — Echarmion
It'd be wrong even if we also genetically engineer the slaves to like it, on the basis that the motivation is immoral. — Echarmion
So long as you could honestly judge having the child is in line with the maxim, having it would be ethical. — Echarmion
I'm not trying to attribute personhood. There's no need for it.
I'm challenging your suggestion that because a child is not yet born, one can do whatever they please in regards to its future. — Tzeentch
I think most people would say that I do NOT have a moral duty to steal and murder. — khaled
Had I been a moral objectivist I wouldn't have included the bolded area. I would have just outright said that you have a moral duty not to steal and murder. — khaled
I could work from a commonly held premise to undermine a conclusion that does not follow from it by showing inconsistencies, or connections people have not noticed. Or I could show that some commonly held premises lead to contradictory conclusions. — khaled
We also have a moral intuition that ending the human race would be wrong. — Isaac
You*. As I said, we don't agree here. — khaled
It is taking into account what will logically come about as a consequence of one's actions. — Tzeentch
One could come to the conclusion that the consequences of their actions cannot be sufficiently understood. A good reason to refrain from such an action, — Tzeentch
What are such overarching moral principles based on, other than the well-being of would-be children? — Tzeentch
Indeed. Isn't that a great reason to think twice before having children? — Tzeentch
I'm not trying to attribute personhood. There's no need for it.
I'm challenging your suggestion that because a child is not yet born, one can do whatever they please in regards to its future. — Tzeentch
Isn't it as simple as taking into account the consequences of one's actions prior to carrying them out?
It seems we're playing dumb, pretending that individuals decide to have children and when the child is born and has a will and well-being, we scratch our heads and wonder where all that came from? — Tzeentch
So the motivation is the only determining factor?
So someone who is millions in debt with no home, who has a drinking problem, and 15 inheritable genetic disease should have children in his current state as long as he intends to try his best to raise them? — khaled
So as long as I can judge that the child will fulfill my arbitrary desire of them (in your case to create the next generation of compassionate people) then having them is ethical? Might as well say it's ethical in every situation, which I strongly disagree with, and you don't even have to be an AN to disagree with that one. — khaled
Why? Since inaction can have no less of a consequence in a dynamic environment, I don't see why you'd favour it over action in the face of uncertainty. — Isaac
Notwithstanding that, hasn't your argument previously been exactly that we can satisfactorily predict the consequences of our actions? — Isaac
"Intending to" isn't enough. You also need to be able to actually being the goal about. Which includes considering other outcomes. — Echarmion
Nothing I said had anything to do with "arbitrary desire". I said your reasons need to be moral. That's the opposite of allowing your arbitrary desire to rule. — Echarmion
Not only is one forcing an individual to do something that has great consequences without their consent, but one is also incapable of estimating the outcome. — Tzeentch
without their consent — Tzeentch
Some things can be satisfactorily predicted. Other things cannot. I think the possible quality of life of an unborn child belongs to the latter category. — Tzeentch
What I am saying is that unborn children cannot have standing as moral subjects. — Echarmion
What you can - indeed must - do is to predict the consequences of possible decisions. In this sense, you can also predict that the child will have a will and interests. It'd just be a mistake to treat this prediction as current fact. — Echarmion
Where is this individual who's being forced? — Isaac
This whole argument arose from you claiming that issues over consent were unnecessary. — Isaac
Consent cannot possibly be given, there's no entity capable of consent. — Isaac
In all other situations where consent cannot possibly be given we make an assessment based on a weighing of the consequences. Why are you advocating a different course of action here? — Isaac
Then how do we know that it will contain any meaningful degree of suffering? — Isaac
I do not see how you justify causing suffering on a third party for your own desire, knowing full well they may not share your goal of creating the next generation of caring and capable humans, and knowing full well that they may come to despise their existence. — khaled
Are there many other situations where you impose harm on an innocent party for your own goals? — khaled
Where is this individual who's being forced? — Isaac
Who knows? — Tzeentch
Then how do we know that it will contain any meaningful degree of suffering? — Isaac
We don't. We know next to nothing about the quality of their life. It'd be nothing less than an experiment. — Tzeentch
So just like Isaac, the only reason inflicting harm by having children is acceptable for you is because there is some "more worthy" goal which apparently justifies causing unwarranted harm. — khaled
I do not see how you justify causing suffering on a third party for your own desire, knowing full well they may not share your goal of creating the next generation of caring and capable humans, and knowing full well that they may come to despise their existence. — khaled
Are there many other situations where you impose harm on an innocent party for your own goals? — khaled
An unborn child developing into an individual with a will and well-being is (generally speaking) a logical consequence once one makes the decision to have children, thus should be taken into account prior to this decision. I don't see why this is controversial. — Tzeentch
What kind of answer is that? You said an individual was being forced into something. Now you're saying you don't even know where they are? — Isaac
Then an assumption that they'd absolutely love it is as reasonable as an assumption that they'd hate it. Since we're in a position where we're uniquely unable to ask, what's wrong with taking a guess? — Isaac
So your own answer to that question would be "no - it's nit that simple because the central issue is consent, not consequences"? — Isaac
What's controversial is treating this prediction as if it was the state of affairs. To use another analogy: Let's say I developed a new flavor of ice-cream. Any given selection of ingredients will taste good to some people and bad to others. These are predictable consequences. But if I hand out my ice-cream to random customers, I cannot possibly attempt to only give my ice-cream to people that will like it. — Echarmion
no one is born voluntarily. — Tzeentch
Would you jump out of a plane knowing there's a 25% chance your parachute wouldn't work? If not, what's wrong with taking a gamble? 75% chance for a positive experience. — Tzeentch
What I sought to point out with that comment is that the question whether a child's will, well-being and ability to consent should be taken into account prior to the decision of having children, is a matter of considering the logical consequences of childbirth, which are them coming to be as an individual with those faculties. — Tzeentch
No one breathes voluntarily either. Is that a problem you feel we need to address? — Isaac
Basic risk assessment. The experience would have to be really good. And yes, people who find the experience really good do take that risk for exactly those reasons so I'm not sure what you think that example shows. — Isaac
So we go back in time or what? How do we take into account a child's will and ability to consent when both of those things only come to exist after the decision we're supposed to be taking them into account in? — Isaac
No one forces you to breathe, so I don't think this is a good comparison. — Tzeentch
Well, everyone is free to make such an assessment for themselves. Things get complicated when we force someone else to jump out of a plane with those odds, no? — Tzeentch
You cannot, which is exactly the issue. — Tzeentch
At those odds yes. You'd previously admitted you have no idea what the odds actually are in life so why would you think such a comparison relevant. — Isaac
Why is it an 'issue'. — Isaac
It is not.
It is taking into account what will logically come about as a consequence of one's actions. — Tzeentch
I'm challenging your suggestion that because a child is not yet born, one can do whatever they please in regards to its future. — Tzeentch
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.