The Ethics of Burdening Others in the Name of Personal Growth: When is it Justified?
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.
Example 2: A parent believes that their child needs to toughen up and learn to be self-sufficient. They decide to give their child a difficult challenge by leaving them alone in the wilderness for a week with only a small amount of supplies. The parent believes that this will teach their child valuable survival skills and independence.
Many might object that this is indeed abusive because it is overly challenging. But besides this tangential point, I think the main difference is not the intensity but kind of burden. The first scenario of general education can be considered necessary as without it, the child will face even harsher consequences. There is no way around it. They are already here and thus, cannot escape the burden of the ever-ongoing and interative enculturation process.
However, example 2 seems different because it is imposing an unnecessary burden onto someone to see some outcome (perhaps some "growth" experience). This seems prima facie wrong to do onto another person for deontological reasons of autonomy and principles of non-harm. This is an unnecessary burden, and wrong. It creates the burden in the first place to see someone overcome the burden. It was a burden that didn't need to be created at all.
Example 2: A parent believes that their child needs to toughen up and learn to be self-sufficient. They decide to give their child a difficult challenge by leaving them alone in the wilderness for a week with only a small amount of supplies. The parent believes that this will teach their child valuable survival skills and independence.
Many might object that this is indeed abusive because it is overly challenging. But besides this tangential point, I think the main difference is not the intensity but kind of burden. The first scenario of general education can be considered necessary as without it, the child will face even harsher consequences. There is no way around it. They are already here and thus, cannot escape the burden of the ever-ongoing and interative enculturation process.
However, example 2 seems different because it is imposing an unnecessary burden onto someone to see some outcome (perhaps some "growth" experience). This seems prima facie wrong to do onto another person for deontological reasons of autonomy and principles of non-harm. This is an unnecessary burden, and wrong. It creates the burden in the first place to see someone overcome the burden. It was a burden that didn't need to be created at all.
Comments (97)
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!
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!
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.
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?
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....
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 its a friend who decides you need some burdens to overcome. Youre stuck on the contingencies and not the underling principle. This isnt 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 doesnt 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 doesnt seem quite morally right? Why does this seem morally dubious? And mind you, I dont mean that somebody is in a situation, and you need to cause some smaller harm for them to overcome to get through it because theres 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?
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.
Im going to come back to your reply but Id 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.
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.
Yes, and hence my point here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I am not disputing this in other words.
Quoting 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:
Quoting 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.
: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?
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.
So you dont 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?
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.
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 didnt exist that now need fixing.
@NOS4A2 @public hermit @BC
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!
Quoting 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 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.
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.
:up:
Can you unpack that?
Just in general creating an artificial environment to emulate real life situations ends in disaster as youre not creating a soldier but raising a child.
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.
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 whos 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:
Quoting schopenhauer1
@schopenhauer1
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)?
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 theyve been through in life as its made them into better people, so such violations are seen as for their benefit in the long run.
@schopenhauer1
Nothing in the worldindeed nothing even beyond the worldcan possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will [/quote]
@schopenhauer1 does Kant above help you at all ?
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? Its 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.
Its also called tough love.
[quote=Hamlet]
I must be cruel only to be kind
[/quote]
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?
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.
Its 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, were assuming the initial point, which is that life is a burden and birth is an imposition. Its 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. Its like saying planting an acorn is an imposition on an oak, and we shouldnt burden it by watering it. At any rate the narrative just doesnt square with the world as far as ethics is concerned.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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?
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 dont know; its just all too confusing for me.
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.
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.
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.
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
Oh the irony.
I am sure @Tzeentch can appreciate it.
Quoting 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.
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
Ha, well, I was referring to his statement here:
Quoting 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.
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 cant 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 childs well-being if we didnt 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. Thats why its so unconvincing.
Red herring. The argument doesnt revolve around when the person is said to exist, just that it occurs.
Which act is the imposition, then?
Being born is the imposition. Doesnt matter how you define its origin.
Being pushed out of the womb? But if he isnt pushed out of the womb, wouldnt suffering and death occur?
Not sure what youre getting at. Suffering and death doesnt occur if not born. Again doesnt matter how you define that. Its slowly moving the argument to when life starts which doesnt need to be established for it being true that someone is born but there can be a counterfactual where this is not the case. In, fact, death and suffering result directly from the imposition of birth. Its a main feature of this imposition.
The only way to stop birth is abortion or death of the child, which is an imposition on the child.
I'd say conception is the point, and I've already pointed out why I disagree with your objection..
At the point of conception there is no human being yet, however the first step has been taken in creating one.
As such, our behavior needs to be seen in relation to the future states it causes, which, as I argued, is a perfectly suitable basis for moral evaluation, since all our behavior is aimed at future states.
I appreciate the arguments. Im going to make my case anyways.
We do worry about the future states of others, the burdens, the impositions. Life can be tough. Its difficult to justify having a child in these interesting times, to be honest. There is loss and suffering in many conceivable future states. But someone could just as easily conceive of future states containing joy and pleasure and make the same sort of leap that birth causes pleasure. I wont do that.
My main contention is the ethics angle. I just cant see how refusing to have a child is anything but a self-satisfying endeavor. I cant see that this behavior is ethical and moral insofar as it protects someone or alleviates anyones suffering, because one can do it alone without interacting with a single person his entire life. Just looking at this behavior is enough to prove that the suffering they are concerned with is forever their own. It all seems like a glorified justification for jerking off into a napkin. But worse, implying that parents are harming their child by conceiving him, birthing him, and nurturing him for a prolonged period of his life is unjust. I cant abide by it.
As for the imposition of conception, looking around at the biological processes involved in it I cant find anyone imposing anything on anyone else. Everything appears to be doing what it is willing to do. The same is true for gestation and birth. The only imposition that could arise, I think, are the ones threatening to halt this process.
Anyways, its probably too far off topic to go on about it.
True. The problem is that we dont know, which is a serious issue if one believes child-having to be an imposition. Not only are we putting someone in a position that they themselves didn't ask for, but we also don't know if what we're providing them with is actually going to benefit them.
Quoting NOS4A2
In my view, there's nothing self-serving about it, considering the above-mentioned dilemma.
In addition, if one from an ethical standpoint wishes to do good onto other people, there are plenty of opportunities for it in life. Opportunities that will allow one to alleviate the suffering of already-existing people in a consensual manner.
Quoting NOS4A2
If one were to accept that child-having is immoral, then refraining from it isn't necessarily a moral deed, but rather neutral, in the same way as for example 'not stealing' is. You probably wouldn't consider someone a moral person simply for 'not stealing'.
Quoting NOS4A2
The sad reality is that there are plenty of individuals to whom this may apply.
We simply don't know who they will be before they've lived out their lives, and that's essentially the gamble that a parent takes.
There's a lot of suffering in the world, and while I haven't made up my mind one way or the other, I defend these positions without a shred of joy or satisfaction. It might be a very uncomfortable truth.
Quoting NOS4A2
Suppose I plant a time-bomb at night on a busy street.
The next day it blows up and kills a random person.
That person was nowhere to be found when I planted the bomb.
Was it therefore not an imposition?
Avoiding responsibility is basically what I think he is referring to. No responsibilities means you cannot be blamed for anything or have the burden of guilt.
Actual LIVING is not a burden. Life is an assault of problems and you frame these problems is quite often due to personal attitudes. Attitudes can be altered.
We could all be paralysed by the idea of stepping foot outside fearing some calamity may fall upon another. The very same can be argued for NOT stepping outside. Being paralysed by fears, guilts or whatever is to refuse to live it is akin to performing a zombie state of existence where you abscond from any sense of responsibility and dress it up as ethical.
Needless to say I think it is a faulty position to hold. I should add that having a child is not a choice anyone should make lightly. Equally so, it is certainly not a selfish ploy although it has countless positives with the responsibility it brings. Only someone evil would purposely bring a life into this world and focus on burdening such a life rather than focusing on the potential for joy and engagement in the world.
I also dislike the characterization of people as fearful, 'refusing to live', 'zombie state of existence' for asking the question - I think those amount to little more than thinly-veiled personal attacks.
And it is a little ironic, when in the next sentence you say this about procreation:
Quoting I like sushi
Selectively extending the benefit of the doubt to people who you agree with and not to those you disagree with won't make for a fruitful discussion.
I could just as easily flip it around: I am taking my responsibility towards my fellow humans (including my would-be children) by deliberating on how my actions (could) impact them. And in doing so, I am not afraid to ask hard questions, and face unwelcome realities.
@NOS4A2
:up:
Quoting Tzeentch
I think this is the strongest argument for many people, because it is a prevalent belief (in everyday ethics, not politics) to think in terms of probabilities and not in terms of "rights" or "not treating people as a means to an end". But, though I 100% agree with the gambling argument (you don't know the outcome of that which you will cause for another), it's important to remember the deontological aspect- that you are playing with other people's lives. That is to say, YOU (the potential parent) will be imposing your will onto something that ANOTHER person will incur (rather permanently, and until they die). This is not a light decision, even though the evolutionary mechanism for its cause makes it so easy to bring about.
Bringing this back to the OP regarding burdens, is it ever okay to burden someone if you think you are doing good either by
a) from the burden itself (e.g. character building/ struggle overcoming), or
b) the burden is simply collateral damage for an intended good (happy experiences of life).
My proposal was that only if it is necessary is it ever justified. And necessary was defined as mitigating a greater harm with a lesser harm for that person who is being so imposed upon. This seems appropriate if we believe in the following:
a) individuals are the locus of ethics (not some vague notions of society or utility). That is not to say people aren't shaped by society, or that the two aren't linked, or that doing well by society cannot increase the individuals' well-being, but rather that experiences only ever happen at the individual level. There are no (as far as I know outside the Borg in Star Trek :smile:) trans-experiential experiences (mind you that should not be read as "no interpersonal exchanges" or there is no "theory of mind", there is a difference!). When I am suffering, it is "I" who will suffer. That is to say, there is something about the dignity of a person that is being overlooked when causing them suffering for whatever reason, if it is unnecessary.
b) It is believed that people should not be used as a means. (This one is tricky because there is a misconception that because the parent is intending to create a child so that it can have good experiences, that this negates that the child is being merely used in any way. However, it would seem that principles of non-harm and autonomy are always being violated by such intentions, and thus is self-defeating. The goal is brought about by questionable means that did not need to be brought about in the first place)
It doesnt imply that. You read that into the words I wrote.
Quoting Tzeentch
Nothing thinly veined about it. It was a direct attack on someone espousing the idea that life is merely to be viewed as a burden.
Quoting Tzeentch
I never used the term procreation once. I merely stated that it is highly questionable (repugnant if genuine) to claim it is selfish to have children. Does this imply that it is selfless to not have children and/or a morally superior stance?
As for the claim to be looking out for humans (that do not exist) and assuming that if you view this position as ideal - which I would doubt greatly even if you insisted.
The topic is whether or not it is moral to unnecessarily burden someone. The contingencies don't get to be, "I can burden someone if I myself also bear a burden". That doesn't justify burdening someone else because you too will be burdened.
It is perfectly justifiable to have children for people who wish to, see it as mutually beneficial and/or want to. There, no morals involved whatsoever.
Is it justifiable to create unnecessary burdens? That is a ridiculously loaded question but you have already used the term necessary to describe the burden. If you had asked to what degree is it justified to creat burdens for others then you have a chance of a reasonable discussion. If that it what was meant I can only answer with it depends.
I laid out my definitions of all this. So if you dont think the argument apt, youd have to reference where and why. Otherwise, it is you gesticulating distaste without arguments.
To repeat. Loaded question. Clearly if something is unnecessary it is unnecessary.
Teaching and learning are burdens. They are necessary burdens. Think of a courtroom where someone is being sentenced for committing murder the judge takes into account the circumstances before sentencing there is not a universal sentence for the crime of murder because it depends on the situation.
Someone imposing burden X on someone for reason Y is nothing to go off. It is like saying person X committed crime Y then asking whether or not it is just to send them to prison for 20 years. It makes no sense to argue against or for this sentence as we have no idea what it is we are talking about.
So you are red herring here. I asked to go back to my arguments presenting what unnecessary means. You skipped that it appears.
Quoting I like sushi
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/805941
As a hypothetical it is a point worth exploring privately. How do I feel about having a potential child in terms of the burdens it will bring them. I am completely fine about that. It is necessary for life (which I am fond of). If you are talking about projecting this into the future (some imaginary being to be born) then are you willing to project further and admit it is necessary to have children to continue human life? Or would you rather robots produced children to maintain human populations to make you feel better about inflict the gift of life upon the world?
I do like the hypothetical of all people living a good life whilst one suffers utterly and eternally. That makes you think about how powerful an influence ethics can have over something previously deemed ideal/good.
This overlooks the person themselves for some abstract notion ("I am fond of life, so I shall burden someone else. Prior to X time, there was no person with burdens to overcome, now after X time, there shall be burdens, and I was that cause from Prior to X to After X time that there shall now be burdens. The burdens exist until death."). It's simply not as simple as "I shall do X to someone because I am fond of a notion and that other person shall be the one thus affected/effected."
Quoting I like sushi
I don't get this question. Why would I want a robot to inflict burdens any more than a human would?
Edit: I think you are saying what if robots made things less burdensome..
I don't think that is realistic, but if we live in a complete utopia where even the human condition is not its own worst enemy (boredom leading to more strife), sure. I wouldn't want to burden people to get to a utopia though.
Quoting I like sushi
Still unsure what you are saying here, and could be besides the point of the argument.
Let me give you a scenario:
There exists states of affairs where no people are burdened. From this state, you can create states of affairs where there are people that will have deficits to overcome.
I get that you favor seeing these deficits enacted for others because you are "fond of it" (as compared to no people experiencing anything at all). But the question is not whether you are fond of something, but whether it is moral to be fond of creating burdens for others (even if that means you are creating them de novo), out of a state of affairs where there was no people thus burdened. MIND YOU, you are not "mitigating" harm for a person by giving them burdens to get over the already-existing harm, you are creating harm DE NOVO, so that they must overcome it, or for some other reason (like you are fond of something).
Yes. This is called extinction. Life without burdens is NOT life. You are imagining something impossible over and over (even rights of people who have not been born!) and acting like it is perfectly fine to do so why do you have this mere notion?
I have never heard of anyone being imprisoned for planning to kill someone who does not exist. People who do not exist have no burdens and those that do have burdens. Is this hard for you to grasp?
Again. Imposing your view onto others. You are fairly unique in your pessimism.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Of course. You hate guilt/responsibility. You are not willing to do mar your perfect soul.
It is wrong in your opinion. It is not justified in your opinion.
I cannot really take your opinion that seriously. Yet if you are expressing this as if it is a solid position to hold and holds logical weight, alongside being justifiable, I will just keep saying no until you give something other than raw subjective opinions.
At the end of the day this is what it boils down too. That and the difficulty of trying to measure/rate suffering and balancing such out against probability and such. I think we all accept that suffering is a necessary part of living. If one truly wishes to eradicate ALL suffering then extinguishing ALL life would be the best route to take only a zealot would go down that road though.
No dude, that's not how ethics works. If you want to debate meta-ethics, cool, but not what this particular argument is about. It is arguing for a specific normative standard (not burdening others unnecessarily), and explaining why and how and when it is justified to give someone else burdens.
You may say that this is not an ethical point or doesn't matter, but if I forced upon you burdens you could not get rid of, you did not want, and said that I'm doing it for character building reasons, or because I want someone to mentor, or because I didn't intend to burden you but I knew it would come with burdens- in many circumstances this seems to be prima facie wrong. If you say no still, then you wouldn't mind if I burdened you with stuff without your say. But see, you would indeed take umbrage at that, I am sure.
The statement that is it flat out wrong to burden anyone with anything is ridiculous.
But I did qualify it and explained it. Now, it seems you are just putting up some defense by incredulity as if I didnt explain it in detail. Again, I point you here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/805941
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/804589
Either youre unwilling to address the argument because you cant be bothered or because it actually makes sense. Either way, thats a problem on your part if you want to be a good faith interlocutor, and not my argument.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So burdens that are permanent, inescapable, the other person had no choice, the burdens didnt have to be started in the first place are unjustified as they are unnecessary. That was my contingency. Also, starting any of the above for reasons like bringing about good states of affairs or to see someone overcome struggles, are not justified as it is violating non-harm and autonomy principles of the person being affected. That person was not in a bad situation that the burden would make better. Rather, without having the ability to consent, the burden-giver took upon themselves to create someone who will thus be burdened that didnt have to be for various unnecessary reasons, overlooking the person being burdened (e.g. wanting to mentor, wanting to see someone overcome adversity, intending good bit knowing inescapable bad). Again, it is unjustified as it revolves around unnecessarily creating burdens that did not need to be created in the first place.
I explained why character building and wanting to see good states of affairs dont get a pass.
You are not really saying anything. I know the point stems from some extreme antinatalist stance so I am safe to guard against it and prod you to provide some actual reasoning that is not merely an empty opinion.
Harm is a term that has relative meaning. Wrong too. It depends. Fin.
WTF doesnt count as an empty opinion to you? I just gave you the reasoning again and you didnt address my response. That is bad faith argumentation.
X Provides reasons..
Y claims no reasons provided
Repeat
There is nothing here then. Just you expressing an opinion.
If something is unnecessary it is unnecessary. It depends. Not much to talk about then. We could go back and forth proposing various theoretical scenarios and argue why one is necessary and another is not so what?
X states an apple is an apple then claims that an apple is an apple.
Y asks what the point of this is.
That is a basic breakdown of the exchange we have had.
So, YES an unecessary burden is unnecessary what is or is not considered as necessary or unnecessary is a matter of opinion. Specific examples can be expanded upon and explored via hypothetical scenarios. The abstracted the scenario is from reality the lower the resolution.
From a purely natalist perspective there are undoubtedly situations where one ca argue that it is not particularly viable to have children and others where it is. Necessity used in this realm is a slippery term.
It's about necessity in whether or not to burden someone. When is it ever okay to burden someone
a) without their consent
b) when there is no dire situation you are mitigating?
Would you be okay if someone went around causing unasked for burdens upon people and with no reason tied to mitigating a dire circumstance for that person? I doubt you can think of a circumstance like this.
Also, we are not talking about trivial or weak burdens either. We are talking major burdens. In fact, it is the burden of "Set of all sets of burdens".
If you are framing certain kinds of burden as unnecessary and then asking people to name an unnecessary burden that is necessary well, you can see the problem.
I would add that it is also better to burden some people with somethings and others with other things to lessen the burden for both - each being more or less accustomed to said things. As an extreme example one might ask someone to kill for food and in this circumstance some people are more able to carry this burden than others whilst if the tsk was different those more able to handle the burden of killing would be less able to deal with other tasks.
So that person (as you put it) is not society at large nor a community. The individual exists as part of not apart from.
So,
Quoting schopenhauer1
It depends. As for examples of circumstances I just laid out the frame work for endless examples of this. It was not difficult.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
:rofl: oh really? How does this not fall under
Quoting schopenhauer1
Youre just casually burdening someone to hunt food for you? How are you not arguing out of bad faith? Youre so interested in trying to prove me wrong you cant argue anything of substance. Keep trying though.
Anyway, bye bye. You just did away with any future interaction from myself and, I strongly suspect, many MANY others.
Youve been arguing nothing these last posts and this last one now proves it. Ive been waiting for you to stop responding since you started with your nonsense.
Quoting schopenhauer1