Just in general creating an artificial environment to emulate real life situations ends in disaster as you’re not creating a soldier but raising a child.

Just in general creating an artificial environment to emulate real life situations ends in disaster as you’re not creating a soldier but raising a child. — invicta

Oh gotcha, you are referring to Example 2 in the OP and the "Spartan" burden. Yep, I'd agree there. But how about this idea that character building is above and beyond such notions of deontology like not causing harm or not imposing on someone else?

Again personal growth is a personal journey, but the closest way to achieving your aims would be through sport.

Again personal growth is a personal journey, but the closest way to achieving your aims would be through sport. — invicta

So I'm not sure you are answering my main inquiry here. The main inquiry is thus:

1) If you create a burden for someone, presumably (in some circumstances) you can be violating their autonomy and you could be causing them harm (stress, pain, negative experiences).

2) If you create a burden for someone, presumably (in some circumstances) you can be creating opportunities for some sort of growth or character development.

It seems 2 is at odds with 1. Which takes priority and why would you think that?

Also I was asking if there is something morally suspect about 2, if it is the case that someone didn't need to experience burdens to begin with and you feel in some reason "duty-bound" to create states of affairs of character building.

Without delving into the morality of exposing someone who’s lived a sheltered life to the many manifold harshnesses of life (of which there are many)

The type of burden imposed would I assume be done for creating some sort of resilience or wanted future character trait or competence in the individual.

If consent is given by the person then 1 and 2 are not at odds.

You seem to be describing army conscription in a sense, sport would have a better desired effect IMO.

Maybe this quote from a few posts back can help you understand more what I am getting at:

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. — schopenhauer1

The outcome of goodness is not guaranteed in the individual despite the pain and suffering one is put through irrespective of the moral dilemma of putting one through such suffering and the morality of depriving them of autonomy (liberty-freedom)

@schopenhauer1

The outcome of goodness is not guaranteed in the individual despite the pain and suffering one is put through irrespective of the moral dilemma of putting one through such suffering and the morality of depriving them of autonomy (liberty-freedom) — invicta

Ok, so how is that answering the question of whether character or deontology is more important?

I will condense it more for understanding's sake:

Is creating burdens (with the goal of character building) more important than deontological principles of non-harm and autonomy (if consent cannot be had let's say).

Follow-up. If you do think creating burdens is more important, if there was a scenario where there did not have to be someone who experienced burdens, is it better to thus create burdens because this is somehow a better state of affairs (to have someone who experienced burdens to overcome)?

It’s worth the sacrifice for such ends.

Although the technicality of creating such situations artificially would perhaps mean the end result would also be artificial.

In any case, some people are grateful for the suffering they’ve been through in life as it’s made them into better people, so such violations are seen as for their benefit in the long run.

@schopenhauer1

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will — Kant

@schopenhauer1 does Kant above help you at all ?

does Kant above help you at all ? — invicta

Nope. Not particularly as applied to these questions.

Then your question is simpler in nature and can be formulated thus: Do the ends justify the means? It’s a moral question.

See my prior post to the Kant quote. You will see from that, that your question is fully answered.

Someone might be doing it out of a good will. They could really feel that they are creating good states of affairs by creating burdens where there were not any.

1) A person who is harmed and autonomy violated but has the possibility of being a truly fulfilled person exists

2) No person exists and no possibility of a truly fulfilled person

They think bringing about 1 is best. Better harmed and forced beings that can be fulfilled with opportunities to overcome burdens than no people at all.

It’s also called tough love.

I must be cruel only to be kind — Hamlet

It’s also called tough love. — invicta

Is it ever okay to create situations of burdened persons when you don't have to create that situation at all. What makes burdened persons in and of itself good or better?

People generally enjoy life and wish others to enjoy life too, hence having children is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, ... — I like sushi

It's fine that you think that way, but this is obviously what is up for debate, so simply saying it is reasonable isn't really partaking in the discussion.

The argument presented seems rather slippery.

When I enjoy something and wish for others to enjoy it too, can I just impose it on them?

That doesn't seem to hold up anywhere else in ethics or life in general, biological processes or no.

It's fine that you think that way, but this is obviously what is up for debate, so simply saying it is reasonable isn't really partaking in the discussion.

The argument presented seems rather slippery.

When I enjoy something and wish for others to enjoy it too, can I just impose it on them?

That doesn't seem to hold up anywhere else in ethics or life in general, biological processes or no.

It’s just difficult to believe that feeding, educating, clothing, housing, playing, and caring for someone for the better part of their life is a burden or imposition on the child, when it is the parent who is spending the time, resources, and energy to do so.

Either way, we’re assuming the initial point, which is that life is a burden and birth is an imposition. It’s just not convincing. Procreation suggests that a child is created, and not taken against his will and forced into some realm not of his choosing. It’s like saying planting an acorn is an imposition on an oak, and we shouldn’t burden it by watering it. At any rate the narrative just doesn’t square with the world as far as ethics is concerned.

It’s just difficult to believe that feeding, educating, clothing, housing, playing, and caring for someone for the better part of their life is a burden or imposition on the child, when it is the parent who is spending the time, resources, and energy to do so. — NOS4A2

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. It can be both a burden on the parent and a burden on the child. It further begs the question why the parent chooses to set this all in motion.

Procreation suggests that a child is created, and not taken against his will and forced into some realm not of his choosing. — NOS4A2

To me the difference between the two is semantical.

The parents choose to have a child. That child has no say in whether it is born. That's an imposition by the parents on the child.

It’s like saying planting an acorn is an imposition on an oak, and we shouldn’t burden it by watering it. — NOS4A2

That's not quite what I'm saying.

It's the ethics of having a child ('planting the acorn') which I am questioning. When that child is conceived, we have passed that stage and we're in a new situation.

I'd actually say the questionable nature of their initial action makes the ethical burden on the parents to ensure the well-being of their child ('watering the plant') even heavier.

The child has no say because it is not born. There is no child. So how can we behave ethically towards what amounts to a thought?

In the same vein, would it not be an imposition to deny the spermatozoa and the ovum the purpose of their existence?

So how can we behave ethically towards what amounts to a thought? — NOS4A2

All our behavior is aimed at a future state, which in essence is no more than a thought.

It sounds like guesswork. I suppose we can confirm whether we were being ethical, whether we should or should not have had a child, by asking our offspring if he would have wanted to be born or not were he able to choose. I don’t know; it’s just all too confusing for me.

I gave a reasonable explanation why people choose to have children.

There are perfectly reasonable reasons that motivate people to have children. The main one being enjoyment of life in general. It is not a hard sell.

As a purely hypothetical investigation - to explore motivations for having children - the whole antinatalism thing is reasonable too.

The parents choose to have a child. That child has no say in whether it is born. That's an imposition by the parents on the child. — Tzeentch

No. This does not logically follow. I may think about killing people yet that thought does not make me a murderer.

The potential ability to commit murder is something we all possess yet it is not a reason to send everyone to prison.

The same goes for taking antinatalism to this degree of seriousness. It is a ‘tool’ to question the ethics involved on parenthood NOT a sensible argument against having children. Those who take antinatalism seriously to this degree are what I guess you would frame as ‘unethical’.

No. This does not logically follow. — I like sushi

How does that not logically follow?

An imposition happens when we knowingly bring about a set of circumstances that affect another human being without their say in the matter.

That applies to child-having, regardless of where one stands on the ethics question.

I’m not going to get stuck in some semantic mess. The root of this whole anitnatalist view is useful for self-reflection on the ‘why’ someone may choose to have children. Nothing more.

If children were created by some randomised process absent of parents then it would not be a question of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ at all. Let us say some machine. Let us go further and say a biological system. Further still, some biological reproductive system by creatures that have a primary instinct to reproduce. Such creatures may then evolve to have something they refer to as ‘choice’ … it is here where you seem to think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ overrides any personal perspective on life being ‘good’.

You do not have to agree but you would be wrong to imply an ‘imposition’ completely detached from an ethical stance. Words are related and I fear you are being far too liberal with their use to suit your means - the folly of ‘debate’ (which I have strong dislike for being nothing other than a political weapon used to bend people to your will).

Bye bye

the folly of ‘debate’ (which I have strong dislike for being nothing other than a political weapon used to bend people to your will). — I like sushi

Oh the irony.

I am sure @Tzeentch can appreciate it.

If children were created by some randomised process absent of parents then it would not be a question of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ at all. Let us say some machine. Let us go further and say a biological system. Further still, some biological reproductive system by creatures that have a primary instinct to reproduce. Such creatures may then evolve to have something they refer to as ‘choice’ … it is here where you seem to think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ overrides any personal perspective on life being ‘good’. — I like sushi

Also, this can be said about any ethical statement.

If someone died but it wasn't a decision that someone made that led to this, it wouldn't be a moral issue.

If someone's property was destroyed but it was not a choice someone made for why it was destroyed, it would not be a moral issue.

I went over these distinctions a long time ago but...

One doesn't have a tendency to take a shit, one has to shit or probably dies in the long term.

One doesn't want to take breath, one has to take in breath or dies.

People can tend to like unhealthy foods because of taste bud receptors but not actually eat unhealthy foods. It is harder to do. But this doesn't affect other people so much. However, one can argue if it leads to a heart attack, and you are a caretaker, perhaps there is a moral element...

We may have a tendency to lie, cheat, be selfish at inopportune times, bully, discriminate, and a whole bunch of things. That doesn't make them "right" as that of course would be the naturalistic fallacy.

More gibberish. We shit and breath without choice. We may try not to do either but they are both inevitable until death comes.

The rest is more unrelated drivel. I am assuming you take ‘imposition’ to be wholly unrelated to choice? Like I said, semantics. Convenient ways to bend anything anyone says to suit your needs to ‘win’ a debate.

No idea what lying and cheating have do with this? Both are natural and neither are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Join a religion or start one if you want. Boring!

Bye bye

I'm not sure if I'd use the word 'appreciate', but this is what I've come to expect - people losing their shit over some simple questions, probably because they realize they lack a good answer to them.

Ha, well, I was referring to his statement here:

Words are related and I fear you are being far too liberal with their use to suit your means - the folly of ‘debate’ (which I have strong dislike forbeing nothing other than a political weapon used to bend people to your will). — I like sushi

He is trying to invalidate the whole category of "debate" as simply "bending people to your will", the exact point this debate is making against child-having. I thought that was amusing in its irony.

And yes, people tend to lack a good answer, so don't want to deal with the implications, as it's depressing. It's also basically being too honest. It is something people rather not have said out loud.

An imposition happens when we knowingly bring about a set of circumstances that affect another human being without their say in the matter.

That applies to child-having, regardless of where one stands on the ethics question.

We are knowingly bringing about a human being. For the most part the circumstances parents try hard to provide, often with great sacrifice and effort, are knowingly designed to be protecting, nurturing and life-saving, the absence of which is suffering and death. I suspect that if the child could choose between nourishment and care and none of the above, he would welcome the former before the latter.

Which act in particular is the imposition? At what point are we forcing an unwelcome act upon another human being?

It can’t be conception because there as yet no human being to impose upon. It cannot be in gestation because the child is being nurtured and nourished in a life-sustaining environment, without which is suffering and death. Should the mother worry about his consent as he dines on her placenta? Is it the cutting of the umbilical cord? It goes away naturally anyways. Breast feeding? Diaper changing? Imagine the child’s well-being if we didn’t do any of the above.

Anyways, if there is any imposition, any unethical act upon the child at any point it should at least be apparent. We should be able to say “Look, that person is imposing on another”. But it is never apparent. That’s why it’s so unconvincing.