Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) I think the very foundation of your logic is deeply flawed. You seem to forget that society is made up of many individuals and that the value of life is even more inherent on the person, than those around him/her (essentially, even when no one values a life, there is still one person who values it: the person whose life it is). My child might be far more valuable to me because I care about her but another person's child does not have less value to society just because the parent loves her less.Society values the life of the individual because each individual (who, en masse, composes society) is assumed to value their own life (as such a need for self-preservation is encoded into our biology). There might not be "equal" valuation on how much one's life is valued by indviduals around them but society should always value all life within this baseline at the minimum.
I agree with what you just said when it comes to its logic.
The point of contention is here: "there is still one person who values it: the person whose life it is". That assumption is not always true and the concept of self is not fully developped at early stages of human life. I'm not saying society shouldn't respect or protect these lives, I'm just pointing out we are working from a principle.
I believe that in an ideal society abortion shouldn't exist.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
The difference between the lack of agency between slavery and raising kids is that children are incapable of making their own choices because they are unable to understand what they are doing or are fully unable to function on their own thus someone needs to guide them in order to preserve their life/safety/mental health (essentially, we teach our children and we discipline them to protect them and make teach them how to survive). While slaves are aware of their choices and their choices are simply taken away by force.
This is an interesting topic but I feel it somewhat strays from what we want to discuss since I conceeded already that we do treat kids as a valuable entity of sorts.
Infancy is somewhat of an historical novelty since previously mortality rates were pretty high for kids and they were considered differently. I don't believe we have fully strayed from the bad habits from that traditional model.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Kinda like how the choice to life is taken away from an aborted child.
Well, I'm not sure if Life can be considered a choice from the children's perspective without a conscience or responsabilities. It's certainly a biological imperative. Ultimately it doesn't matter to our discussion though, even if the embryo actively desired death we wouldn't let it because "we know better".
(We wouldn't let a slave kill himself either if we can avoid it, that's non agency for you)
Originally posted by Nibedicus
3) And thus their value of life is seen (at times) as even greater than that of full grown adults w/c is what I have been saying.
If the value of life is social then it makes sense for it to be highly dependant on context.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
4) Perhaps your methodology is flawed? Because the very premise of it is flawed? From what I am seeing above, that may well be the case.
The thoughts I'm sharing are not meant to be incompatible with our current moral principles which I believe to be mostly on point. I'm simply of the opinion that principles cannot be the end of ethics because in practice there will never be perfect responsability.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree. Death is always intrinsically bad, to the individual. The need for self-preservation is hard-wired to our biology (and I would argue this is one of the things that make a life, a life).
And we are also hardwired to make off-spring but the planet suffers from overpopulation and we are mass killing animals due to our quest for individual wellbeing. What is good for every individual is not always good for society as a whole.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
How so? Be specific, give examples and statistics as well as long term projections
Maybe this will interest you:
https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth/
You could fit the entire population of Earth into Texas.
Originally posted by Bentley
1) I agree with what you just said when it comes to its logic.The point of contention is here: "there is still one person who values it: the person whose life it is". That assumption is not always true and the concept of self is not fully developped at early stages of human life. I'm not saying society shouldn't respect or protect these lives, I'm just pointing out we are working from a principle.
2) I believe that in an ideal society abortion shouldn't exist.
3) This is an interesting topic but I feel it somewhat strays from what we want to discuss since I conceeded already that we do treat kids as a valuable entity of sorts.
4) Infancy is somewhat of an historical novelty since previously mortality rates were pretty high for kids and they were considered differently. I don't believe we have fully strayed from the bad habits from that traditional model.
5) Well, I'm not sure if Life can be considered a choice from the children's perspective without a conscience or responsabilities. It's certainly a biological imperative. Ultimately it doesn't matter to our discussion though, even if the embryo actively desired death we wouldn't let it because "we know better".
(We wouldn't let a slave kill himself either if we can avoid it, that's non agency for you)
6) If the value of life is social then it makes sense for it to be highly dependant on context.
7) The thoughts I'm sharing are not meant to be incompatible with our current moral principles which I believe to be mostly on point. I'm simply of the opinion that principles cannot be the end of ethics because in practice there will never be perfect responsability.
8) And we are also hardwired to make off-spring but the planet suffers from overpopulation and we are mass killing animals due to our quest for individual wellbeing. What is good for every individual is not always good for society as a whole.
1) The exceptions are those that fall inside mental illness or those who are undergoing suffering worse than death (or a combination of both). What other exceptions can you cite w/c would make this assumption "not always true"? I would like to know because I cannot think of any.
And even when sense of self isn't fully developed, you cannot deny that our biology WANTS us to live. That is why we breathe, eat, drink, etc. That is why the fetus will consume nutrients from the mother. If anything, the choice to live is the very first and greatest choice we ever make.
2) It shouldn't. There are extreme cases where it is medically necessary but beyond that, no. But of course, I am willing to concede on rape/incest/etc. as I do understand that there is always a chance I can be on the wrong here so I feel that it is a compromise I can live with.
3) "Of sorts" is simply downplaying the obvious IMO. They have the same value as you and I.
4) I really don't know why you use downplay language in describing children ("of sorts", "novelty" and "animal"😉. I find this kind of language rather disengenuous. If one believes in what they are doing then they should not try and decieve themselves over the truths behind their beliefs. One is free to be pro-choice but at the very least one should grant the victims of abortion their humanity.
You actually go one step further and use downplay language on actual children (see 3). Can't even begin to grasp where your logic is coming from.
Overpopulation or no, valuing life is not a "bad habit" (that's psychopath logic). You would want society to put as much value to your life as you do and society should expect the same from you towards your fellow members.
5) Embryos aren't naturally hardwired to desire death unless there is some huge tragical mishap in the pregnancy. Again, arguing extremes/abberations shouldn't really be a foundation for logical thought IMO.
Again, a slave wanting to kill himself is due to his suffering. A slave owner's power over his slave is an injustice, something we do not want in a just society, I'm assuming. I find the premise where you are using an injustice as a reference on how value of life is measured in (a supposedly just) society to be deeply deeply flawed.
6) No, the value of life is biological, philosophical, spiritual and ethical and more, it is not just one thing. Life has been discussed in far more than simply social sciences. Society is only relevant in our discussion because we are discussing mutual respect of life.
7) Why is "perfect responsibility" required? Why can't we can just start with the golden rule (do unto others and all that) and move on from there? Mutual respect for value of life should be our benchmark, everything can come after that.
8) That is a problem for those who have choice and agency to solve. But such should not include methods that tear the choice away from others when there are better choices available.
Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe this will interest you:https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth/
You could fit the entire population of Earth into Texas.
I know the population/Texas model. I also know the effects of negative population growth on "economic growth" (deflation models etc). I guess it just depends on what kind of a world you want. Did you know that humans are the ONLY species of mammal, and this includes rats and mice, that are currently increasing in number? and 95% of mammal biomass on earth is for agribusiness. Most other non mammal species are on the decline as well.
Taking non humans out of the equation the world already has a serious problem with potable water, a situation that is only projected to seriously get worse in the coming decades, then there's rising sea levels which will displace some 2 billion over the next century or so. It goes on and on. But, I guess Mars is an option. 😮
Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe this will interest you:https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth/
You could fit the entire population of Earth into Texas.
As the video pointed out, you could even fit them all inside Texas with their own houses. Fact is , you could fit the entire earth's population inside city of Jacksonville, Florida although it would be quite crowded and uncomfortable lol.
Usually though, those who think the world is op think that because of supposed resource shortages (i,e, not enough food to feed everyone) but that is a lie also.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) The exceptions are those that fall inside mental illness or those who are undergoing suffering worse than death (or a combination of both). What other exceptions can you cite w/c would make this assumption "not always true"? I would like to know because I cannot think of any.And even when sense of self isn't fully developed, you cannot deny that our biology WANTS us to live. That is why we breathe, eat, drink, etc. That is why the fetus will consume nutrients from the mother. If anything, the choice to live is the very first and greatest choice we ever make.
Life is not a thing that "wants" anything it just "needs". As I said it's a biological imperative and no one can be responsible for what it entails. Calling it a freedom it's a misnommer, it's a circonstance that allows life and as much as an elment of life.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
3) "Of sorts" is simply downplaying the obvious IMO. They have the same value as you and I.
Our discussion has led me to believe there are several kinds of values that affect our perception of life so I don't want to draw a hard conclusion just from our exchange. Hence my unwillingness to assume a hard position there.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
4) I really don't know why you use downplay language in describing children ("of sorts", "novelty" and "animal"😉. I find this kind of language rather disengenuous. If one believes in what they are doing then they should not try and decieve themselves over the truths behind their beliefs. One is free to be pro-choice but at the very least one should grant the victims of abortion their humanity.You actually go one step further and use downplay language on actual children (see 3). Can't even begin to grasp where your logic is coming from.
Overpopulation or no, valuing life is not a "bad habit" (that's psychopath logic). You would want society to put as much value to your life as you do and society should expect the same from you towards your fellow members.
It seems I wasn't clear at all regarding this whole combo. This is a separate discussion about agency and the place of children in our society. The "bad habit" I brought up is treating children as disposable/objects instead of fully developped individuals. The novelty is about the fact as caring for children like we do in modern society is something that wasn't practiced through most history (children used to work when they were young, enroll in armies etc.).
I do believe we downplay children a bit by our interactions with them and that we should treasure them more by caring for them differently.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
5) Embryos aren't naturally hardwired to desire death unless there is some huge tragical mishap in the pregnancy. Again, arguing extremes/abberations shouldn't really be a foundation for logical thought IMO.
See my answer to point 1: saying embryos wants anything is semantics.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Again, a slave wanting to kill himself is due to his suffering. A slave owner's power over his slave is an injustice, something we do not want in a just society, I'm assuming. I find the premise where you are using an injustice as a reference on how value of life is measured in (a supposedly just) society to be deeply deeply flawed.
This is because injustice exists. I agree it shouldn't but ignoring it won't make it go away, we have to aknowledge it and disassemble it in order to move society forward.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
6) No, the value of life is biological, philosophical, spiritual and ethical and more, it is not just one thing. Life has been discussed in far more than simply social sciences. Society is only relevant in our discussion because we are discussing mutual respect of life.
Mmmmh… This might be one of the biggest sources of disagreement/confusion in our exchange. I agree there are many ways of valuing life besides society (we discussed biology briefly) but ethical frameworks are agreed upon and are de facto conventional. What I'm trying to describe in this discussion is a paradigm shift that could lead us towards a more responsible take on how we accept and treat life/death situations in general. My end goal is that the path towards a more fair society is clearly defined: life has value but we don't define it through death. We stop taking life's value for granted and we seek new ways to make it more important in how we build its relevance in society.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
7) Why is "perfect responsibility" required? Why can't we can just start with the golden rule (do unto others and all that) and move on from there? Mutual respect for value of life should be our benchmark, everything can come after that.8) That is a problem for those who have choice and agency to solve. But such should not include methods that tear the choice away from others when there are better choices available.
But what if it's not possible to avoid stealing the choice from others without imposing something terribly unfair? I deeply agree with these two comments and it's precisely the direction I've decided to take here. If I wanted to dismiss the humanity of an embryo I would just say it cannot suffer nor has a conscience so there is no objective reason to even feel bad about it's death. I do not feel that's the case. Perfect responsability supposes everyone will have the material and mental resources to make the right choice given a dilemma. In actual experience that won't be the case and we can only do so much to accomodate these misgivings.
Originally posted by Bentley1) Life is not a thing that "wants" anything it just "needs". As I said it's a biological imperative and no one can be responsible for what it entails. Calling it a freedom it's a misnommer, it's a circonstance that allows life and as much as an elment of life.
2) Our discussion has led me to believe there are several kinds of values that affect our perception of life so I don't want to draw a hard conclusion just from our exchange. Hence my unwillingness to assume a hard position there.
3) It seems I wasn't clear at all regarding this whole combo. This is a separate discussion about agency and the place of children in our society. The "bad habit" I brought up is treating children as disposable/objects instead of fully developped individuals. The novelty is about the fact as caring for children like we do in modern society is something that wasn't practiced through most history (children used to work when they were young, enroll in armies etc.).
4) I do believe we downplay children a bit by our interactions with them and that we should treasure them more by caring for them differently.
See my answer to point 1: saying embryos wants anything is semantics.
5) This is because injustice exists. I agree it shouldn't but ignoring it won't make it go away, we have to aknowledge it and disassemble it in order to move society forward.
6) Mmmmh… This might be one of the biggest sources of disagreement/confusion in our exchange. I agree there are many ways of valuing life besides society (we discussed biology briefly) but ethical frameworks are agreed upon and are de facto conventional. What I'm trying to describe in this discussion is a paradigm shift that could lead us towards a more responsible take on how we accept and treat life/death situations in general. My end goal is that the path towards a more fair society is clearly defined: life has value but we don't define it through death. We stop taking life's value for granted and we seek new ways to make it more important in how we build its relevance in society.
7) But what if it's not possible to avoid stealing the choice from others without imposing something terribly unfair? I deeply agree with these two comments and it's precisely the direction I've decided to take here. If I wanted to dismiss the humanity of an embryo I would just say it cannot suffer nor has a conscience so there is no objective reason to even feel bad about it's death. I do not feel that's the case. Perfect responsability supposes everyone will have the material and mental resources to make the right choice given a dilemma. In actual experience that won't be the case and we can only do so much to accomodate these misgivings.
1) I feel arguing semantics on want or a need is irrelevant here. We want to have things we need because we want to survive. Needs are stronger than wants because you can say that it is desired from within our biology but they are still a choice because humans have at times been able to deny the things they need (like sleep, food, water and even breathing) to a certain point. I find the fact that you moved the debate to one of semantics while not addressing the gist of my statement (where I pointed out that each individual values their own life intrinsically and the exceptions are in the extremes) to be a bit of a red herring. Personally, I feel this entire debate we are having is essentially just one big fat red herring (one after another) tbh. But I guess I'll try and see where you are trying to take this.
2) I do not see how stating that children having value "of sorts" (w/c implies a conditional value) as "not having a hard stance". I see it as quite the opposite tbh.
3) And slavery was acceptable at some point so was rape/murder during wars, etc. Our society has grown thru the centuries for the most part. Sadly, there is some slippage to be expected in our moral growth it seems.
4) We are talking about their value of life here not them "as a person" (w/c can be quite subjective).
The semantics of want and need is irrelevant in our discussion. It is about the want/need to live and how each person has a strong sense of it and how society should treat this want/need equally across the board to be a just one.
5) Your answer does not address my point. Just because injustice exists doesn't mean we position our logical foundations on top of it. That is not "disassembling" injustice, that is embracing it.
6) Life HAS value and we already do not need to define it thru death (we value it thru much more than that). There is no paradigm shift to be had and if this was your intention at the very begining I have to say that I'm seriously not getting it. Maybe it's just too deep? You will need to explain why you feel that descibing kids as valuable "of sorts" and calling them "animals" and using "slave-metrics" valuation of life helps this logical path you are trying to take. Maybe it would be best for you to start trying to properly elaborate on what you are meaning here? Because I do not see how your language helps you get to this shift you are talking about.
7) You already stated that injustice exist and we should acknowledge it. Unfairness always exist as life isn't fair. But the beauty of choice and humanity is that we need to make the choice that is the least unfair and most humane. Abortion (for me) is essentially the temporary loss of choice for one (who was the initiator) and the absolute loss of choice for another (who can only be defined as the victim). I feel the choice should be clear but it is the use of dishonest dehumanization language that has made such clear injustices acceptable to many.
Of course, I agree that pregnancy is hard and so is parenting (altho parenting is a choice). It is a HUGE impact to one's life due to a very hard to avoid error. There is no win-win or best solution here. This is a hard and heavy and difficult burden to bear. But killing an innocent child to avoid such a responsibility is just reprehensible to me.