You’re still evading the question. In order to find out whether any given prospective partner is someone I want to marry, I have to invest a lot of time in them.
Yes, but surely not all your prospective partners always look equally promising. If the most promising person around happens to non-white, then go ahead and date them. Who knows how long it might take to find someone as equally promising?
Are you trying to say that you believe in soulmates or something equally freaky, such that restricting my dating pool one iota more than strikes my selfish whim might cost me my One True Love™? It certainly sounds like it—if you think that my investing time in the pursuit of Sorta Brownish Person A over White Person B is that important that you’ll give me a green light to do so, and marry A if all goes well, even though I’ll wind up with a Sorta Brownish Kid who might be the target of racism throughout his or her life, surely it must be profoundly important on the order of soulmate-hood for A.
Yes, if you think Person A is potentially a good match, then I will give you a green light to date him (or her). This green light does not entail a belief in soul-mate-hood, only a belief that Person A is more promising match, and an acknowledgment that a non-white person might end up being a better match than any eligible white partners you might meet in a convenient time window. Even if you didn’t know either very well, I consider it rather unlikely that you would feel exactly the same way about both of them, if you were meeting them at the same time. All else being equal, potential parents probably should choose potential partners with traits that are more likely to result in positive outcomes for the children, and less likely to result in negative outcomes. Yet all is is rarely equal.
If that’s the case, then you’re outright rejecting my premise that I could find a satisfactory spouse given certain dating pool restrictions (e.g. if I restricted the pool to men or whites or both).
I am not rejecting your premise that you could find a “satisfactory” spouse given certain dating pool restrictions. But surely you want a spouse that is more than merely satisfactory. While perhaps not likely, it is plausible that out of the potential satisfactory mates that you might meet during your lifetime, some of the best matches for you might be non-white. Even if you are surrounded by eligible white bachelors, you still could fall in love with a non-white person or meet a non-white person who seems like a better dating prospect, unless you plan on self-segregating yourself. Even if you know that you could eventually find a highly satisfactory partner of any race, people do not have infinite time and energy.
Since you cannot rule out the possibility that, out of the potential partners you can possibly explore in your life time, a non-white person might be head-and-shoulders a better match, you should not categorically avoid partners of a particular minority group in my view. Am I really such a romantic?
Since “various non-consequentialist principles I care about” is exactly why I’d like to defend Vanyel’s parents and the other parents of kids with unusual names, I want you to distinguish the two situations without resorting to the apparently magical words “valid interest in”.
What distinguishes choosing a minority partner from choosing an exotic name for a child is that the former is much more influential in a parent’s psychological health and happiness over the long term.
A child’s name is a large factor in how he or she is treated that can influence the children’s psychological health and happiness over a long period of time
A parent’s partner choice (and time spent searching for a partner) is also a large factor in the parent’s psychological health and happiness over a long period of time (and that of the child)
A parent’s choice of an exotic name for a child is not a large factor in the parent’s psychological health or happiness over a long period of time
One of these things is not like the others.
Anyway, I think the whole discussion of partner choice is an unnecessary tangent in this discussion. If you agree that parents have a responsibility to protect children who are already born from unnecessary risks, then I think we can move on.
I’d probably advise against it on aesthetic grounds, since I don’t think it sounds very nice, but not on the grounds you suggest. I’d probably call the child Wu (or a translation of whatever complimentary thing “Geiwusipoupoubebbi” means) for short and hope it stuck.
Calling the child “Wu” would be changing the example.
I might advise homeschooling a little more enthusiastically with those parents than with others.
Why? You don’t have a problem with the parents giving the child a name that would almost certainly make him a target of bullying. If you wouldn’t advise giving a less-risky name, why would you advise sending the child to a less-risky school environment?
Because I’m not a consequentialist? The basics of my (unfinished, don’t ask for too many details) ethical account are that something is wrong if it a) violates a right of a person or b) destroys something without an adequate reason.
Sounds good to me, so far...
Naming a kid Geiwusipoupoubebbi, without using that name to signify an attitude of disrespect, does not seem to me to violate a right (although it may increase the odds of Wu being a victim of rights violations later)
… and you’re fine with that? You don’t have a problem with knowingly setting someone up for the possibility of future rights violations, when this is easily avoidable?
and it does not appear to destroy anything, with or without an adequate reason.
… except poor Geiwusipoupoubebbi’s self-esteem and mental health?
The abuse is not certain.
No guesses about the future are certain. Do they have to be, for us to entertain concern?
Wu and his imaginary alternate universe version Ted could both be teased exactly the same amount, if, say, Wu benefits from the expectations others have of people named Wu and is therefore better at math than Ted and can tutor a sixth-grader and obtain the sixth-grader’s protection.
This is wishful thinking, even if we were in the scenario where the kid gets his name shortened, which we are not.
Or if his closer connection to his parents’ cultural heritage lets him give a really cool presentation at the third grade international festival. Or if having a wacky name gives him a convenient icebreaker throughout his life and he can win friends and influence people.
Wishful thinking...
Could Wu also hate his name and suffer for it? Sure. I acknowledge the possibility. But it’s not an unbroken causal connection the way you seem to think it is.
I don’t think that parents naming a kid Geiwusipoupoubebbi creates an “unbroken causal connection” to being bullied. Above, I do acknowledge uncertainty when I talked about the teasing his name “may” inspire, and when I likened parents giving a name like that to playing Russian Roulette with their kids (a game of chance). All I argue is that the bullying is highly probable, and that if it happens, it can get really, really bad.
(I will argue that the event where the kid hates his exotic name and gets bullied is much, much worse that the benefits to the kid and the parents if the kid likes his name and doesn’t get bullied. Cool name vs. social rejection and trauma? That’s not a contest. Furthermore, if the kid decides that his mundane name is boring, he can always adopt a spicier nickname. On the other hand, if Geiwusipoupoubebbi wants to switch to a name that doesn’t paint a target on him, the damage has already been done. If a kid starts out with a normal name, then he has a choice about how exciting he wants his name and decide how much bullying he wants to risk. If he starts out with an exotic name, then he cannot choose how much he sticks out because his parents have taken that choice from him.)
Surely you don’t believe that knowingly putting someone in harm’s way is only wrong if the harm is “certain.” That’s a very black-and-white way to think about probability. Tying someone to the train tracks doesn’t doom someone to “certain” harm, since someone might find them before the train comes. Giving a friend’s address to an escaped convict doesn’t have an “unbroken causal connection” with harm to your friend, either, since maybe the convict will try to hide out somewhere else.
One needn’t be a consequentialist to have problems with behaviors that predictably stick other people into harm’s way, even if the chance of that harm is less than 1.0. I think your moral philosophy is going to need to handle these scenarios, and I see no reason why it couldn’t. What do you think of this scenario:
Instead of picking their child up from school, two parents knowingly leave their child to walk home through a dangerous neighborhood. If the reason that the parents do so is because they have to work to be able to feed the child, then perhaps that risk is justified. But is it justified if the reason that the parents don’t picking up their child is because they are taking yoga lessons? The kid might be grateful for the exercise.
Yes, but surely not all your prospective partners always look equally promising. If the most promising person around happens to non-white, then go ahead and date them. Who knows how long it might take to find someone as equally promising?
In the time since we last picked up this thread of conversation, I have started dating a half-Armenian guy. I don’t know whether he counts as precisely non-white or not. At any rate, I wasn’t restricting my pool on this basis at the time. (It does make constructing hypotheticals rather more awkward, though.)
If you agree that parents have a responsibility to protect children who are already born from unnecessary risks, then I think we can move on.
I do so agree for most commonsense values of “unnecessary”. But then there’s also this.
Calling the child “Wu” would be changing the example.
I don’t see how. It’s a nickname that drops fairly easily out of the full name, and people do this all the time. I know a lot of people named Matthew and they all go by Matt—if I were contemplating “Matthew” as a name would I be “changing the name” to take this into account?
You don’t have a problem with the parents giving the child a name that would almost certainly make him a target of bullying. If you wouldn’t advise giving a less-risky name, why would you advise sending the child to a less-risky school environment?
I already have many and strong reasons to support homeschooling. Most of them have to do with school being a miserable goddamn place. Wu would—I concede readily—probably find school to be a more miserable goddamn place, and so those reasons are stronger for him.
Surely you don’t believe that knowingly putting someone in harm’s way is only wrong if the harm is “certain.”
Indeed I do not. But I do hold people responsible for intentions and culpable ignorance, not what their behavior in fact causes.
Instead of picking their child up from school, two parents knowingly leave their child to walk home through a dangerous neighborhood… because they are taking yoga lessons
I could imagine tweaking this scenario enough to make it okay with me, but taking it at face value, yeah, that’s not okay.
I think there may be some level of disconnect between my understanding of my attachment to my preferred pretty names and your estimate of how attached the average potential parents are to their preferred pretty names. I’m using my own feelings on the matter as a prior, which perhaps I shouldn’t do, but people who don’t feel so strongly about it have less reason to stick to their names anyway.
Alicorn said:
Yes, but surely not all your prospective partners always look equally promising. If the most promising person around happens to non-white, then go ahead and date them. Who knows how long it might take to find someone as equally promising?
Yes, if you think Person A is potentially a good match, then I will give you a green light to date him (or her). This green light does not entail a belief in soul-mate-hood, only a belief that Person A is more promising match, and an acknowledgment that a non-white person might end up being a better match than any eligible white partners you might meet in a convenient time window. Even if you didn’t know either very well, I consider it rather unlikely that you would feel exactly the same way about both of them, if you were meeting them at the same time. All else being equal, potential parents probably should choose potential partners with traits that are more likely to result in positive outcomes for the children, and less likely to result in negative outcomes. Yet all is is rarely equal.
I am not rejecting your premise that you could find a “satisfactory” spouse given certain dating pool restrictions. But surely you want a spouse that is more than merely satisfactory. While perhaps not likely, it is plausible that out of the potential satisfactory mates that you might meet during your lifetime, some of the best matches for you might be non-white. Even if you are surrounded by eligible white bachelors, you still could fall in love with a non-white person or meet a non-white person who seems like a better dating prospect, unless you plan on self-segregating yourself. Even if you know that you could eventually find a highly satisfactory partner of any race, people do not have infinite time and energy.
Since you cannot rule out the possibility that, out of the potential partners you can possibly explore in your life time, a non-white person might be head-and-shoulders a better match, you should not categorically avoid partners of a particular minority group in my view. Am I really such a romantic?
What distinguishes choosing a minority partner from choosing an exotic name for a child is that the former is much more influential in a parent’s psychological health and happiness over the long term.
A child’s name is a large factor in how he or she is treated that can influence the children’s psychological health and happiness over a long period of time
A parent’s partner choice (and time spent searching for a partner) is also a large factor in the parent’s psychological health and happiness over a long period of time (and that of the child)
A parent’s choice of an exotic name for a child is not a large factor in the parent’s psychological health or happiness over a long period of time
One of these things is not like the others.
Anyway, I think the whole discussion of partner choice is an unnecessary tangent in this discussion. If you agree that parents have a responsibility to protect children who are already born from unnecessary risks, then I think we can move on.
Calling the child “Wu” would be changing the example.
Why? You don’t have a problem with the parents giving the child a name that would almost certainly make him a target of bullying. If you wouldn’t advise giving a less-risky name, why would you advise sending the child to a less-risky school environment?
Sounds good to me, so far...
… and you’re fine with that? You don’t have a problem with knowingly setting someone up for the possibility of future rights violations, when this is easily avoidable?
… except poor Geiwusipoupoubebbi’s self-esteem and mental health?
No guesses about the future are certain. Do they have to be, for us to entertain concern?
This is wishful thinking, even if we were in the scenario where the kid gets his name shortened, which we are not.
Wishful thinking...
I don’t think that parents naming a kid Geiwusipoupoubebbi creates an “unbroken causal connection” to being bullied. Above, I do acknowledge uncertainty when I talked about the teasing his name “may” inspire, and when I likened parents giving a name like that to playing Russian Roulette with their kids (a game of chance). All I argue is that the bullying is highly probable, and that if it happens, it can get really, really bad.
(I will argue that the event where the kid hates his exotic name and gets bullied is much, much worse that the benefits to the kid and the parents if the kid likes his name and doesn’t get bullied. Cool name vs. social rejection and trauma? That’s not a contest. Furthermore, if the kid decides that his mundane name is boring, he can always adopt a spicier nickname. On the other hand, if Geiwusipoupoubebbi wants to switch to a name that doesn’t paint a target on him, the damage has already been done. If a kid starts out with a normal name, then he has a choice about how exciting he wants his name and decide how much bullying he wants to risk. If he starts out with an exotic name, then he cannot choose how much he sticks out because his parents have taken that choice from him.)
Surely you don’t believe that knowingly putting someone in harm’s way is only wrong if the harm is “certain.” That’s a very black-and-white way to think about probability. Tying someone to the train tracks doesn’t doom someone to “certain” harm, since someone might find them before the train comes. Giving a friend’s address to an escaped convict doesn’t have an “unbroken causal connection” with harm to your friend, either, since maybe the convict will try to hide out somewhere else.
One needn’t be a consequentialist to have problems with behaviors that predictably stick other people into harm’s way, even if the chance of that harm is less than 1.0. I think your moral philosophy is going to need to handle these scenarios, and I see no reason why it couldn’t. What do you think of this scenario:
Instead of picking their child up from school, two parents knowingly leave their child to walk home through a dangerous neighborhood. If the reason that the parents do so is because they have to work to be able to feed the child, then perhaps that risk is justified. But is it justified if the reason that the parents don’t picking up their child is because they are taking yoga lessons? The kid might be grateful for the exercise.
In the time since we last picked up this thread of conversation, I have started dating a half-Armenian guy. I don’t know whether he counts as precisely non-white or not. At any rate, I wasn’t restricting my pool on this basis at the time. (It does make constructing hypotheticals rather more awkward, though.)
I do so agree for most commonsense values of “unnecessary”. But then there’s also this.
I don’t see how. It’s a nickname that drops fairly easily out of the full name, and people do this all the time. I know a lot of people named Matthew and they all go by Matt—if I were contemplating “Matthew” as a name would I be “changing the name” to take this into account?
I already have many and strong reasons to support homeschooling. Most of them have to do with school being a miserable goddamn place. Wu would—I concede readily—probably find school to be a more miserable goddamn place, and so those reasons are stronger for him.
Indeed I do not. But I do hold people responsible for intentions and culpable ignorance, not what their behavior in fact causes.
I could imagine tweaking this scenario enough to make it okay with me, but taking it at face value, yeah, that’s not okay.
I think there may be some level of disconnect between my understanding of my attachment to my preferred pretty names and your estimate of how attached the average potential parents are to their preferred pretty names. I’m using my own feelings on the matter as a prior, which perhaps I shouldn’t do, but people who don’t feel so strongly about it have less reason to stick to their names anyway.