This suggests the following argument: if it’s wrong to cut off a baby’s limb, surely (the possibility of negative quality of life aside) it’s wrong to give the baby a permanent affliction that prevents it from ever thinking, having fun, etc? That’s exactly the kind of affliction that death is.
I think many philosophical questions would be clearer, or at least more interesting, if we reconceptualized death as “Persistent Mineral Syndrome”.
No, because the baby (by assumption) has no moral weight. The entity with moral weight is the adult which that baby will become. Preventing that adult from existing at all is not immoral (if it were, we’d essentially have to accept the repugnant conclusion), whereas causing harm to that adult, by harming the baby nonfatally, is.
Well, on this view the baby does grow into an adult, it’s just that the adult is a death patient (and, apparently, discriminated against for this reason).
You don’t know it is discrimination until an actual member of the supposedly-disadvantaged group complains (barring other forms of evidence). But that does not mean it isn’t disrimination. The map is not the territory.
Thanks, Wedrifid. The other downvote is mine; there’s so much wrong with the original statement that I was having trouble even figuring out where to start in replying to it.
That’s censorship, not discrimination. Different problem needs a different solution. Once the information’s made available, and complaints are possible, only then can antidiscrimination measures be implemented with any chance of success.
Have you ever known anyone to go out of their way to deny a dead person the opportunity to speak? If someone sat up near the conclusion of their own funeral and disputed the previous speaker’s main points, I doubt they’d be shouted down.
Possibly so. Silly, however, is not the same as wrong.
I am arguing that in such an environment of overwhelming censorship, it makes no sense to attempt to deal with the discrimination until the censorship itself has been cut away to the point that specific claims of descrimination—that is, complaints—are available. Censorship suppresses social problems in the same sense that morphine suppresses pain.
Arguing that some group should receive a material benefit which no member of that group has actually requested, and citing discrimination as the cause, is just some political game.
You gave an unqualified heuristic that applies to lots of situations, most of which it is inaccurate—and very dangerous—in. That’s poor form at a bare minimum.
This isn’t an argument for death being the worst of the possible outcomes. For example, you may be turned into a serial killer zombie, which is arguably worse than being dead.
This suggests the following argument: if it’s wrong to cut off a baby’s limb, surely (the possibility of negative quality of life aside) it’s wrong to give the baby a permanent affliction that prevents it from ever thinking, having fun, etc? That’s exactly the kind of affliction that death is.
I think many philosophical questions would be clearer, or at least more interesting, if we reconceptualized death as “Persistent Mineral Syndrome”.
No, because the baby (by assumption) has no moral weight. The entity with moral weight is the adult which that baby will become. Preventing that adult from existing at all is not immoral (if it were, we’d essentially have to accept the repugnant conclusion), whereas causing harm to that adult, by harming the baby nonfatally, is.
Well, on this view the baby does grow into an adult, it’s just that the adult is a death patient (and, apparently, discriminated against for this reason).
Too pseudo-clever?
It ain’t discrimination until an actual member of the supposedly-disadvantaged group complains.
You don’t know it is discrimination until an actual member of the supposedly-disadvantaged group complains (barring other forms of evidence). But that does not mean it isn’t disrimination. The map is not the territory.
… Which is why whenever I want to bully disadvantaged groups I make sure they cannot speak.
(That is to say, “Don’t be daft!”)
Thanks, Wedrifid. The other downvote is mine; there’s so much wrong with the original statement that I was having trouble even figuring out where to start in replying to it.
That’s censorship, not discrimination. Different problem needs a different solution. Once the information’s made available, and complaints are possible, only then can antidiscrimination measures be implemented with any chance of success.
Have you ever known anyone to go out of their way to deny a dead person the opportunity to speak? If someone sat up near the conclusion of their own funeral and disputed the previous speaker’s main points, I doubt they’d be shouted down.
If I censor adequately then, by your definition, it is not possible for me to discriminate. I think that is a silly definition of ‘discriminate’.
Possibly so. Silly, however, is not the same as wrong.
I am arguing that in such an environment of overwhelming censorship, it makes no sense to attempt to deal with the discrimination until the censorship itself has been cut away to the point that specific claims of descrimination—that is, complaints—are available. Censorship suppresses social problems in the same sense that morphine suppresses pain.
Arguing that some group should receive a material benefit which no member of that group has actually requested, and citing discrimination as the cause, is just some political game.
Please consider ‘wrong, stupid, absurd, unhelpful and generally BAD’ to be substituted for the word ‘silly’ in the grandparent.
You gave an unqualified heuristic that applies to lots of situations, most of which it is inaccurate—and very dangerous—in. That’s poor form at a bare minimum.
Not arguing with the downvotes, just trying to clarify what I meant.
This isn’t an argument for death being the worst of the possible outcomes. For example, you may be turned into a serial killer zombie, which is arguably worse than being dead.
There should be an option to downvote your own comments.
To achieve the same effect with current technology, upvote everyone else.
Do you mean that you no longer believe that being a serial killer zombie is arguably worse than being dead? I believe that.
Who do I get to kill as said zombie?
Being turned into a serial killer zombie actually sounds pretty awesome, assuming an appropriate soundtrack.
I didn’t present it as one. I agree death isn’t the worst of the possible outcomes.