Note: I do not believe there is a correct number of children to have. This blog post is just for fun. An organism’s biological purpose is not to replicate its genome. Rather, an organism’s biological purpose is simply to reproduce.
these sentences being grouped together (in a paragraph) suggests a relation. if “An organism’s biological purpose is not to replicate its genome” is why you believe “there is [not] is a correct number of children to have”, then “an organism’s biological purpose is simply to reproduce” implies you believe it is (intrinsically) morally correct to reproduce. (it’s not clear to me if you actually believe that or if this was a writing mistake)
i’m guessing this is what jbash saw, and this was their attempt to phrase it.
You misunderstand that paragraph.
I’m friends with the author, and he doesn’t believe in objective morality, nor does he believe that it’s “morally correct” to reproduce.
Replicating a genome implies reproduction (unless it’s the genome is being artificially created through cloning), but reproduction doesn’t necessarily imply replicating a genome.
For example, if you reproduce with someone who has very different genetics (i.e. someone from a different race), then half of the offspring’s genome would be quite different from your genome, compared to if you reproduced with someone from the same race as you.
He does believe that organism’s biological purpose is to reproduce, but that doesn’t mean that he believes that organisms should reproduce.
It’s up to the organism whether it reproduces or not.
As he said at the beginning of the paragraph: “I do not believe there is a correct number of children to have”.
From that statement, it’s implied that he doesn’t think it’s “incorrect” to have no children at all, so I don’t understand why you concluded that he thinks that it’s “morally correct” to reproduce.
“An organism’s biological purpose is simply to reproduce” is a truth claim, not a value claim.
The only value claim that he stated in that paragraph was “I do not believe there is a correct number of children to have”.
these sentences being grouped together (in a paragraph) suggests a relation. if “An organism’s biological purpose is not to replicate its genome” is why you believe “there is [not] is a correct number of children to have”, then “an organism’s biological purpose is simply to reproduce” implies you believe it is (intrinsically) morally correct to reproduce. (it’s not clear to me if you actually believe that or if this was a writing mistake)
i’m guessing this is what jbash saw, and this was their attempt to phrase it.
You misunderstand that paragraph. I’m friends with the author, and he doesn’t believe in objective morality, nor does he believe that it’s “morally correct” to reproduce. Replicating a genome implies reproduction (unless it’s the genome is being artificially created through cloning), but reproduction doesn’t necessarily imply replicating a genome. For example, if you reproduce with someone who has very different genetics (i.e. someone from a different race), then half of the offspring’s genome would be quite different from your genome, compared to if you reproduced with someone from the same race as you.
He does believe that organism’s biological purpose is to reproduce, but that doesn’t mean that he believes that organisms should reproduce. It’s up to the organism whether it reproduces or not. As he said at the beginning of the paragraph: “I do not believe there is a correct number of children to have”. From that statement, it’s implied that he doesn’t think it’s “incorrect” to have no children at all, so I don’t understand why you concluded that he thinks that it’s “morally correct” to reproduce.
“An organism’s biological purpose is simply to reproduce” is a truth claim, not a value claim. The only value claim that he stated in that paragraph was “I do not believe there is a correct number of children to have”.