So the overriding question becomes, "Is it ever morally right to cause someone a burden just so that they can overcome the burden, in the name of some positive like "growth"? In other words, At point X, no burden took place for Johnny. At point Y, Sammy came along and created a burden for Johnny because he thought Johnny would have some "good" come from this burden he has placed in Johnny's lap. Johnny cannot escape the burden Sammy has placed for him at point Y, and must overcome the burden. He may or may not overcome the burden, there is no choice except overcome the burden or fail to overcome it. Is there ever cases where Sammy is justified in causing Jonny a burden that does not violate some notion of ethics (mainly deontological ethics of autonomy, non-harm, etc.)?

A case where this might be justified would be what I referred to in the OP as necessary burdens. These are ones where a person cannot survive without them. Education might be one of these. Also there seems to be an element of "already existing" to the burden. That is to say, circumstances made the burden "already exist" for the person, and you are offering a lesser burden for them so they can overcome the greater burden placed on them.

However, this is not the case in the example above scenario. In this case, it is not the case that the person is already in that circumstance already. Johnny didn't have the burden before Sammy came along. Sammy created the burden for Johnny based on his (Sammy's) own desire and will to see Johnny overcome it. Rather, the circumstance of the burden was created wholly by someone else, just to see that person overcome the burden (for some reason or another). This seems unnecessary, and thus intuitively wrong.

@BC, @unenlightened @plaque flag, @Jamal, you're it!

I think it is an Indian tradition, but it describes my own theory of child rearing — that the way to treat a child is as a distinguished emissary from a distant land to be at all times respected and deferred to, and allowance to be made for their unfamiliarity with local customs and language. Toughening up is for a young Rhinoceros, not a human. No human is self-sufficient nor should they be. One seeks to understand ones' child, and in that mutual learning from each other there is only the burden of an expanding self.

So, 'no', is my answer. The difficulty I have experienced, though, has always been in trying to discourage my children from education. It takes the resources of a government to manage that!

We're animals, get over it. Few are capable of deliberately defying our deep programmiing by not proceating; some have no opportunity to breed, and others are physiologically incapable. That leaves the vast majority of the locquaciously horny human herd. After all, species imperatives necessarily constrain organisms' ideals. H. sapiens will not extinguish itself by "anti-natalism", not when quite a few other self-inflicted and potential exogamous extinction events are very much live prospects. Just look at the fossil record, schop – before you know it, we'll be somebody else's dinosaurs and dodo birds. :smirk:

The thread title can be taken three ways:
a) the ethics of imposing burdens on others for one's own personal growth
b) the ethics of imposing burdens on others for their personal growth
c) the ethics of imposing burdens on children by producing them in the first place

a) An example would be parents who set very high standards for their children's performance to enhance the reputation of the parents now and in the future. This is a "family investment" strategy. There may well be a substantial pay-off for the high-performing children, but like being born, the children likely had little say in the long years of pressure to perform (from dance classes for pre-school or very little league hockey practice, on up to graduate school and climbing the corporate ladder).

b) An example would be a social milieu where others are expected to visibly engage in personal growth activities. This is a "personal investment" strategy. Whether the performance is in meditation, difficult yoga positions, reading the right books, training for the next ultra marathon, ever deeper into Hegel, Schopenhauer, whoever....., most nouvelle cuisine, noisiest Ferrari, etc. There may be personal satisfactions in all this, but at least a substantial portion of reward is in social approval, bought at considerable expense in time, if not money.

A lot of us slobs have avoided being born into very highly motivated families and have not settled into urban/suburban milieus where a lot of competitive personal growth is going on. We don't achieve a whole lot and nobody is surprised.

Is all this packing of expectations onto the backs of others ethical? I propose a split decision 49/51 or 51/49, depending. Imposing high expectations on children, even "gifted" children who allegedly have unusually great potential, is worse than merely overlooking the child's wishes and native talents and interests -- it may actually crush their own desires. "Support" is different than "imposing". Mozart's father supported little Wolfgang's musical talents. Maybe young Wolfgang would have made a perfectly fine tailor, but he seemed to like music more.

Imposing very low expectations on others' personal growth is also detrimental, and is probably more common. Low expectations are at least, if not more, unethical.

But then, it's all a wash since being born is the ultimate imposition, according to the antinatalist view. It's even worse from the antifatalist view: being born brings the mixed and varied blessings of existence, but then we are expected to actually drop dead, sooner or later, either by somebody's deviant agency or just the ingravescent inimicalities of the cosmos.

Fuck! It's a raw deal, all round.

Sporting and play and exploration often have some burdens to them. I remember being taken rafting, hunting, sailing, surfing, hiking, fishing, all while surrounded by many dangers, often without wanting to, and I wouldn’t trade any of it for the minor comfort of non-harm.

Sporting and play and exploration often have some burdens to them. I remember being taken rafting, hunting, sailing, surfing, hiking, fishing, all while surrounded by many dangers, often without wanting to, and I wouldn’t trade any of it for the minor comfort of non-harm. — NOS4A2

So much to unpack knowing your political stance regarding non-interference and impositions...

But first off, does the outcome matter when considering whether it's permissible to violate someone's autonomy and puts someone else at risk? Let's say that you knew that the activity was going to cause some harm. It wasn't even doubtful?

a) the ethics of imposing burdens on others for one's own personal growth
b) the ethics of imposing burdens on others for their personal growth
c) the ethics of imposing burdens on children by producing them in the first place — BC

Yes, with all of these do ethical considerations of using people's as ends come into the equation? What of the idea of "aggressive" paternalism? Is that itself inherently a wrong stance to take towards others? I want to see BC go through X, Y, Z burdens as I want to see someone, perhaps someone I have a hand in molding, overcome such burdens. Put that way, it doesn't seem so innocuous....

So the overriding question becomes, "Is it ever morally right to cause someone a burden just so that they can overcome the burden, in the name of some positive like "growth"? In other words — Schopenhauer 1

I think it's fine to cause a burden that can be endured without undue harm for the sake of nurturing the kind of character that can endure greater burdens. Telling a child they have the family duty of taking out the trash daily isn't going to kill them, but it might teach them the experience of enduring hardship for a certain goal, i.e., not living amongst piling trash.

The second scenario you offered seems quite "Spartan," which would not be appropriate in a society where trash collection is sufficient. We don't really need survivalist as much as we need people who can pick up after themselves. I don't really want to defend that last point; I just mean we need people with the kind of character suited for our society. If we were Spartans it might call for different skills, I guess.

I just meanwe need people with the kind of character suited for our society. If we were Spartans it might call for different skills, I guess. — public hermit

Indeed, so putting this together with my scenario in the OP, you think the trash-pickup belongs to Example 1, whilst hardcore survivalism belongs to Example 2...

However, I guess the question starts ballooning when the kind of circumstances that are foisted onto the person is unknown as to the number and intensity of the burdens.

So for unknown harms.. Let us say, you burden someone with a very large set of variables that can cause immense harms. You know of some harms that befall a person and you are willing to foist that onto someone because you think it is okay to handle, but then you realize that there are contingencies you didn't account for, I'll call them "known unknowns" that come along with your imposition.. that starts to change things.

However, even beyond this, there is a more fundamental problem then the known unknown problem. There is the very idea of burdening someone in the first place. Is this a kind of error to want to burden someone to see them overcome the burden? I know we use innocuous things like picking up trash and going to school, and sports, but just the mere concept itself- is there something of a boundary that is crossed when we presume for others that we need other people to struggle when a struggle did not exist in the first place? What is it about this that doesn't sit right?

The problem with high achievers is that they inevitably impose burdens on others. IF the high achiever is actually saving the world from destruction, we might excuse the temporary burdens placed on others. In fact, 99.9% of high achievers are not aiming to save the world. They are focused on accumulating wealth, fame, power, and so on for themselves. In extreme cases, they are as likely to threaten the world with destruction as save it.

No body is burdened by a single person who does yoga and meditates at home, alone, goes for an hour long run, or swims a half mile.

The problem is individuals (and groups) who exploit the many to achieve their ends. Adolph Hitler was the exploiter par excellence, but so are thousands of other, less crudely malignant politicians around the world. Capitalists from Andrew Carnegie to Mark Zuckerberg have ruthlessly exploited employees and customers alike to achieve immense business success.

We judge the costs, the downsides, the sacrifices of the many as entirely worthwhile IF it brings about success, even for a vanishingly small group of people.

What goes in business, politics, science, the arts, sports, criminal activity, etc. also exists in individual families. The parents establish very high expectations for their children to fulfill, whether the children really want those achievements or not. After the driven child becomes the famous surgeon, all may be forgiven. "My life totally sucked for the first 30 years, but look at me now!"

I'm not against self-motivated striving to achieve goals that are within one's own capacity to achieve.

So much to unpack knowing your political stance regarding non-interference and impositions...

But first off, does the outcome matter when considering whether it's permissible to violate someone's autonomy and puts someone else at risk? Let's say that you knew that the activity was going to cause some harm. It wasn't even doubtful?

There is legitimate and illegitimate authority. Parents are a legitimate authority, meaning they can justify it, whereas political and government authority cannot. So there is not much to unpack.

As a child I had no problem submitting my autonomy to their superior knowledge, strength, and experience.

- is there something of a boundary that is crossed when we presume for others that we need other people to struggle when a struggle did not exist in the first place? What is it about this that doesn't sit right — Schopenhauer 1

Yes, I suppose there can be a boundary crossed when we presume struggle is needed and so we create struggle. Let's say I decide to cut holes in the bottom of the trash bags to make the task of carrying out the trash even more difficult. That seems unnecessary and mean.

But carrying out the trash, in and of itself, is just something that needs to be done. Whether it is experienced as a struggle or not depends, in part, on the one doing the job. Taking out the trash was one of my jobs as a kid. At first, it was kind of great because I had a responsibility, then it became a struggle because I had to do it whether I wanted to or not, and then it just became something I did because it needed doing and it was my responsibility to do it. I take it that is how things like that are supposed to build character. Gratefully, no one thought they needed to make it harder on me by cutting holes in the bag; although, I'm glad no one suggested that to my older sister. :)

How about if it’s a friend who decides you need some burdens to overcome. You’re stuck on the contingencies and not the underling principle. This isn’t meant to be about parenting. It is just the most readily associated with this.

Yes, building character and all that. But my question at the end there what about wanting to see other people struggle and maybe even suffer and to overcome that: that doesn’t sound quite right. In other words, it sounds like an overlooked morally questionable feature about human wants. And specifically, what is it about assuming or presuming for others and making it happen so that others have to struggle that doesn’t seem quite morally right? Why does this seem morally dubious? And mind you, I don’t mean that somebody is in a situation, and you need to cause some smaller harm for them to overcome to get through it because there’s no other way out, but putting them in a bad situation in the first place. So the situation did not exist but you wanted to see it exist so that this game can be played out. You can call it the character building game if you want but what is it about wanting to see this in the first place and not just as an already occurring situation you are helping mitigate?

It's pretty clear that the answer is no.

Sammy can't simply impose a burden on Johnny just because Sammy "felt like it," or even because they thought Johnny would benefit from it. It's an act of force - a violation of Johnny's autonomy as a human being.

Though, in the context of parenting: the parent has already made the morally questionable decision of throwing a child into this world, and insofar as the further burdens put on the child by the parent are effective at lessening its suffering, I'd say that's not necessarily unethical. The unethical deed was done earlier. What comes after is people trying to cope with the broken pieces.

The unethical deed was done earlier. What comes after is people trying to cope with the broken pieces. — Tzeentch

I’m going to come back to your reply but I’d like to show this reply to start thinking about the differences between mitigation and wholly wanting to create burdens for someone else in the first place.

I’m going to come back to your reply but I’d like to show ↪public hermit this reply to start thinking about the differences between mitigation and wholly wanting to create burdens for someone else in the first place — Schopenhauer1

So the idea is to not bring children into the world so they won't have to learn how to navigate an existence that entails struggle and suffering? I can sympathize with that position (assuming I understand the point). Yes, not having children would eliminate the need to teach them how to endure this existence that entails difficulty.

That being said, I reject the idea that someone's autonomy as a human is being violated when it comes to teaching children how to be responsible humans, if that's the argument. Yes, there is a point where one can place undue burden on a child, but proper rearing need not entail undue burdens. To the contrary, I would argue it's a violation of their humanity to not teach children how to be an autonomous human. We cannot be a law unto ourselves without the discipline and experience that allows us navigate life in some meaningful way. Put a child on the street, completely on their own and say-Go be a law unto yourself and flourish! If they survive they'll hate you for neglecting your duty to them as a human.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of this thread, but the idea that a child with no education in how to navigate life is going to flourish as an autonomous human is a pipe dream. If one ends up flourishing as an autonomous human because they figured it out on their own through trial and error, then the undue burden was placed on the front end by the adult who neglected to train them.

That being said, I reject the idea that someone's autonomy as a human is being violated when it comes to teaching children how to be responsible humans, if that's the argument. Yes, there is a point where one can place undue burden on a child, but proper rearing need not entail undue burdens. To the contrary, I would argue it's a violation of their humanity to not teach children how to be an autonomous human. We cannot be a law unto ourselves without discipline and experience. — public hermit

Yes, and hence my point here:

Example 1: A child needs education informally (at the least) on how to navigate society and formally (for industrialized "modern" societies). Thus one can say that for the sake of the child, it needs to be burdened with ever increasing and varying challenges to overcome. This, most people would say is a necessary imposition as it prevents the child from struggling and dying from lack of enculturation and knowledge. — schopenhauer1

I am not disputing this in other words.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of this thread, but the idea that a child with no education in how to navigate life is going to flourish as an autonomous human is a pipe dream. If one ends up flourishing as an autonomous human because they figured it out on their own through trial and error, then the undue burden was placed on the front end by the adult who neglected to train them. — public hermit

Yes that is not the point of this thread. Similar misinterpretation of NOS as the first example I gave in the OP explains that this is not what I am talking about. Although, I get it that the point is subtle, and often the boundary is unclear.

But you seem to have it here:

So the idea is to not bring children into the world so they won't have to learn how to navigate an existence that entails struggle and suffering — public hermit

But that is more an example of this type of thinking and not the underlying principle itself. The underlying principle is something akin to these:

"I want to burden someone so I can help them overcome the burden." But no one needed to overcome the burden in the first place until YOU created it for them.

"Someone needs challenges so that they can overcome challenges". But no one needs challenges. Why do they need that?

A: "Because suffering and struggle is good for people".
B: And you want to bring that situation about for someone else?
A: Yes, someone else needs to struggle and suffer so they can feel good overcoming it.
B: What happens if they don't overcome it? But more to the point, why is struggle itself the summum bonum?
A: Because life is not interesting without struggle, so we need to bring about states of affairs of struggle. In fact it is our duty. At the least it is supererogatory. If they don't overcome it, then the attempt should still have been made. Oh well, collateral damage in the pursuit of the greater good, which is to experience the overcoming of struggle. People should be grateful for the burdens they get to overcome.
B: But isn't the dignity of a person, and the idea that it is not okay to use people for your gain something to consider?
A: No, struggle is more important than someone else being used. To experience overcoming struggle is more important than violating some principle of non-harm or autonomy.
B: But why bring about struggle when there is none to begin with?
A: Didn't you hear me? Struggle is important. Someone has to experience this.
B: Why do you think it is your job to make them struggle?
A: ............................(crickets)
B: Hello?
A:...............Because..... People... struggle... good...
B: Huh?

That is how this argument goes...

There is something morally odd about this. In fact, it has implications for Philosophy of Religion and the "problem of suffering", but we can just leave it at normal human behavior.

Edited the above.

The unethical deed was done earlier. What comes after is people trying to cope with the broken pieces. — Tzeentch

:up:

I added this little dialogue here:
A: "Because suffering and struggle is good for people".
B: And you want to bring that situation about for someone else?
A: Yes, someone else needs to struggle and suffer so they can feel good overcoming it.
B: What happens if they don't overcome it? But more to the point, why is struggle itself the summum bonum?
A: Because life is not interesting without struggle, so we need to bring about states of affairs of struggle. In fact it is our duty. At the least it is supererogatory. If they don't overcome it, then the attempt should still have been made. Oh well, collateral damage in the pursuit of the greater good, which is to experience the overcoming of struggle. People should be grateful for the burdens they get to overcome.
B: But isn't the dignity of a person, and the idea that it is not okay to use people for your gain something to consider?
A: No, struggle is more important than someone else being used. To experience overcoming struggle is more important than violating some principle of non-harm or autonomy.
B: But why bring about struggle when there is none to begin with?
A: Didn't you hear me? Struggle is important. Someone has to experience this.
B: Why do you think it is your job to make them struggle?
A: ............................(crickets)
B: Hello?
A:...............Because..... People... struggle... good...
B: Huh?

That is how this argument goes...

There is something morally odd about this. In fact, it has implications for Philosophy of Religion and the "problem of suffering", but we can just leave it at normal human behavior.

So do you think that dialogue is close to the reasoning going on?

I don't believe people genuinely think it is their duty to make other people (their children) struggle.

It sounds more like the mental gymnastics that happens when people's previously unchallenged notions about child-having get called into question.

I find it unconvincing from A to Z (as I'm sure you do too), and honestly can't be bothered to engage with views that I am certain people don't genuinely hold.

I don't believe people genuinely think it is their duty to make other people (their children) struggle.

It sounds more like the mental gymnastics that happens when people's previously unchallenged notions about child-having get called into question.

I find it unconvincing from A to Z (as I'm sure you do too), and honestly can't be bothered to engage with views that I am certain people don't genuinely hold. — Tzeentch

So you don’t think people feel they have a mandate to create “opportunities” of struggle for others? We can call this the “aggressive paternalism” stance. That perhaps it is their job to create burden-overcoming?

So you don’t think people feel they have a mandate to create “opportunities” of struggle for others? — schopenhauer1

I think people saying as much are fooling themselves. Likely their motivations are a lot more selfish, and what they're putting forward is an attempt to rationalize their selfishness, and disguise it as altruism.

As for child-having, I don't believe people genuinely hold the view that the point of having a child is to create opportunities of struggle for them.

Either way, I don't take the argument very seriously.

After all, it could be turned from an unethical imposition into a consensual act by simply asking the person rather than imposing blindly. That is obviously impossible in the case of child-having, which makes that matter more complicated.

As for child-having, I don't believe people genuinely hold the view that the point of having a child is to create opportunities of struggle for them. — Tzeentch

Isn't that part of the reasoning behind child-having? The interplay between mentor and those to be mentored? I want to mentor someone, thus I need a recipient. It is permissible in this society to create my own recipient who will need a mentor, so I thus do so.

A justification might go something like:
1) In order for truly fulfilled humans to exist, struggle needs to exist.
2) Truly fulfilled humans are an inherent good and I can bring that about.
3) I create struggles to bring this about.
4) I have created states of affairs of truly fulfilled humans and thus inherent goodness.

4a) Collateral damage of burdens that only bring about suffering and not fulfillment may come about, but this collateral damage is permissible in the pursuit of the inherent good of fulfillment.
4b) Collateral damage of burdens that bring suffering, may be useful in some grander sense anyways, so not so bad. Maybe it has been helpful, but unknown to the sufferer how the burden was helpful.
4c) Violating the non-harm principle and autonomy principle are less important than the possibility of bringing about inherently good states of affairs of fulfilled humans.

Is character building more important than non-harm or autonomy? Does the pursuit of virtue and the meaning that comes from being burdened and suffering trump deontological principles of non-harm and autonomy and not using people?

Even more interesting, is the notion that one is bringing about good states of affairs by creating humans that need to overcome burdens even accurate? Rather, perhaps is creating negative states of affairs of deficits that didn’t exist that now need fixing.

@NOS4A2 @public hermit @BC

Isn't that part of the reasoning behind child-having? — schopenhauer1

I don't think reason plays much of a role.

The idea that child-having is good simply goes unchallenged, and is affirmed by a biological desire to procreate, and an ungodly amount of wishful thinking that goes into envisioning the life of one's future child.

It simply doesn't occur to most people that their child may end up a criminal, a drug addict, suicidally depressed, chronically ill, etc. - and that they, the parent, may actively contribute to causing these things!

I want to mentor someone, thus I need a recipient. — schopenhauer1

There are plenty of already-living recipients*, so it's quite easy to assume some ulterior motive if someone were to present this as their reason.

Again, reason is hard to find in the motivations behind child-having.


*whose lives one may positively contribute to without having to impose anything!

I wouldn't say struggle and difficulty are good for people; therefore, we should construct opportunities for struggle in order to benefit people.

I would say struggle and difficulty are inherent to human existence. What is needed are the skills to navigate human life in such a way that one can have a relatively good life given the struggles and difficulties that invariably obtain for the vast majority (the privileged few who don't have to work at living are acknowledged, but even they will experience some kind of difficulty inherent to human existence).

As I said above, I have sympathy with the idea that one avoids all of this by not bearing children. I think anyone thoughtful enough to plan on whether to have a child should consider the basic fact they will bring another person into this vale of tears. Unfortunately, folks often (probably) have children for all kinds of reasons wholly unrelated to the interests of the one who is born. That's an unfortunate reality. Nonetheless, once that new, human life starts sucking air, a whole set of responsibilities obtain that can't be discarded on account of the fact it might have been a bad idea to breed.

It is of course never justified. As the wording itself says personal development rather than interpersonal development. Despite pushy parenting or good intentions

Again, reason is hard to find in the motivations behind child-having. — Tzeentch

Sorry, probably not your quote? Lost it now :D

Not in the slightest. We have one life. Having children is an experience we can have. It is difficult and fulfilling to have children. People generally enjoy life and wish others to enjoy life too, hence having children is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as well as being part of a biological process.

I would say struggle and difficulty are inherent to human existence. What is needed are the skills to navigate human life in such a way that one can have a relatively good life given the struggles and difficulties that invariably obtain for the vast majority (the privileged few who don't have to work at living are acknowledged, but even they will experience some kind of difficulty inherent to human existence).

As I said above, I have sympathy with the idea that one avoids all of this by not bearing children. I think anyone thoughtful enough to plan on whether to have a child should consider the basic fact they will bring another person into this vale of tears. Unfortunately, folks often (probably) have children for all kinds of reasons wholly unrelated to the interests of the one who is born. That's an unfortunate reality. Nonetheless, once that new, human life starts sucking air, a whole set of responsibilities obtain that can't be discarded on account of the fact it might have been a bad idea to breed. — public hermit

:up:

It is of course never justified. As the wording itself says personal development rather than interpersonal development. Despite pushy parenting or good intentions — invicta

Can you unpack that?