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
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
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 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
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?
- 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
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 ↪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
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
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
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
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
The unethical deed was done earlier. What comes after is people trying to cope with the broken pieces. — Tzeentch
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? — schopenhauer1
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? — schopenhauer1
I want to mentor someone, thus I need a recipient. — schopenhauer1
Again, reason is hard to find in the motivations behind child-having. — Tzeentch
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
It is of course never justified. As the wording itself says personal development rather than interpersonal development. Despite pushy parenting or good intentions — invicta
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.