Hedonic_Treader comments on Open Thread 2 - Effective Altruism Forum
posted by
on
06 October 2014 06:54PM
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 1ffb9810742e55d426cb37191bcb1f2a)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Comments (75)
Reproduction can't be morally neutral.
Imagine a thought experiment where you have to push exactly one of three buttons:
I can accept someone saying there should be no laws that mandate or ban reproduction for various practical and political reasons.
But I can't take someone seriously who says it's morally neutral which button you push in the thought experiment above.
This is an argument that I've previously made, but I can't recall ever seeing anyone else ever make it. I wish you hadn't deleted your account so I could see who you were!
It was Hedonic_Treader.
I was too lazy to specify that I was talking about the world as it is.
A couple might have a third (or first, or...) child, or they might not. I can accept that the two possibilities lead to slightly different total or average utilities, but as I said, I am not utilitarian on this point. I think we just allow people to choose how many children they have, and we build the rest of ethics around that.
I think in the world as it is, allowing people to choose how many children they have is exactly the utilitarian thing to do.
Of course, there are forms of persuasion other than coercion. Some ideas like liberal eugenics have world-improvement potential imo.