A core contention

[Nova Andromeda]

--My apologies Darth Wong, but I have yet to finish a talk I have to give tomorrow and that evening I will be going out drinking so I will not be addressing your post in detail until after most likely. Breifly, however, I would like to ask what limits to reproductive freedom should there be if any? Even more generally, should there be limits to producing sentient entities in general (perhaps sentient robots in the future for instance)? Does a person have the right to reproduce if their children will only live a short life and do nothing, but suffer?

[kojikun]

Nova, having kids is not a right, its a privelage like having digital cable TV is a privelage. In many countries, such as China or India, limiting the number of kids someone can have is not just a good idea but NECESSARY. Children don't just burden you but everyone else, so the only time during a countries existance that uncontrolled birthrates can work is when the economy is doing well, and stands to benefit immediately from lots of new people entering into the workforce. If you have a food shortage, or shortage of living space, however, more people can only do harm.

Kids != a right.

[Darth Wong]

Breifly, however, I would like to ask what limits to reproductive freedom should there be if any?

Why should there be limits to reproductive freedom? If there are to be limits, how do you plan to enforce them? What human rights do you intend to trample upon in your drive to "improve" society?

Even more generally, should there be limits to producing sentient entities in general (perhaps sentient robots in the future for instance)? Does a person have the right to reproduce if their children will only live a short life and do nothing, but suffer?

Are you talking about a case of genetically inherited problems? If so, are you suggesting that we sterilize those deemed unworthy of reproduction? Personally, I am against eugenics.

Frankly, I have not seen anything in your posts to indicate that your scheme of morality has matured beyond a one-dimensional philosophical rationalization of whatever happens to be most beneficial for your present personal situation, and to hell with everyone and everything else.

[Darth Wong]

Nova, having kids is not a right, its a privelage like having digital cable TV is a privelage. In many countries, such as China or India, limiting the number of kids someone can have is not just a good idea but NECESSARY.

And look how well it's turned out in China

Children don't just burden you but everyone else, so the only time during a countries existance that uncontrolled birthrates can work is when the economy is doing well, and stands to benefit immediately from lots of new people entering into the workforce. If you have a food shortage, or shortage of living space, however, more people can only do harm.

We do not have a food shortage or shortage of living space. Moreover, if we are to adopt your amoral attitude that simple expedience can justify any violation of rights, then why not execute old people in order to free up resources? Unlike kids, old people do not have any future-value for the economy.

Kids != a right.

Why not?

[SirNitram]

Morality is both at once. There are objective evils and goods, yet we make them subjective all the time(It's 'good' to kill someone to save other lives).

Good and Evil, of course, are purely human things: We have capacity to recignize them, something nonsentients can't do, nor would a perfect God(God cannot be harmed, nor forced, nor made to feel pain. Ergo, God cannot fathom evil, and probably not good).

And to those who propose Eugenics, well, I remind you you might be chosen as imperfect. Or your parents might have. Funny how these things change when the rules for Perfection don't include you little ones?

[Darth Yoshi]

I say meaningless concepts, because in the end the only thing that matters is our survival. For most, everything else is but a secondary concern.

San Francisco, California, United States.

[kojikun]

And look how well it's turned out in China

Actually, I have no idea how it turned out in china

We do not have a food shortage or shortage of living space. Moreover, if we are to adopt your amoral attitude that simple expedience can justify any violation of rights, then why not execute old people in order to free up resources? Unlike kids, old people do not have any future-value for the economy.

Since we have no food shortage or living space shortage, no restrictions are necessary. And killing old people simply because they have no economic value is to deny their value to themselves and to others no just as workforce but as friends, family, and wise sages (or kooks, depending on your perception). What I'm saying is, if having a child means youre screwing things up for people just to satisfy your own desires, you dont deserve the child.

Why not?

Because they are not necessary in all situations and can be detrimental in places like China or India where overpopulation is a major issue. If having a kid doesn't screw anyone over (say, if youre not a druggie whos going to require the kid be put in tax-funded care for a time) then go ahead, no issue. But if you or the country you live in cant afford to have people running around popping out babies left and right without some method of controlling it, you've got issues.

Children serve two purposes: benefitting the species, and self gratification (you yourself said you take pride in your two boys). When the benefits are gone, your own self serving attitude will cost other people their well being.

But we don't live in India, so it's irrelevant here.

BTW, for the person who started this thread, put me in for Ft Lauderdale, Florida, USA. I'm one of the few non-fundies down here. You'd be fucking surprised how many people i know in my highschool who think the bible is literally true. One girl is even convinced we all resulted from Adam and Eve's kids having incestuous fun and populating the planet.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Disagreements due to difference of goals or error:

What I would consider an ideal solution to the situation you propose is this. 1. Everyone has the option to opt into a national insurance program which would spread the cost of accidental injury, etc. over all the members. This decision can be made anytime after the person is "of age." 2. Those who do not opt in must take care of themselves.

And how will they pay if they have no jobs, have been laid off, etc?

-They should have to agree to work for society to pay the costs until they do find work. There is always work to be done and they could be credited based upon market wage rates.

3. People who reproduce must demonstrate they have the means to provide for their offspring (and off course must actually do so) until those offspring can take control over their own lives.

And how would you enforce this insane provision? Licenses required before having sex? Chemical castration until you can get a license? Forced abortions? Chastity belts? Your definition of "evil" is severely faulty, as your scheme requires draconian measures which would themselves be considered evil (perhaps horribly so) by most human beings.

-Chemical castration after the first offense. For the first offense you are indebted to the gov. for the resources it costs to support you and your kid (if necessary). If you can't get a license because you are not competant to care for children then the child is put into foster care (which needs severe improvment btw) and up for adoption. The arguement that this is evil since most people would consider it evil is an appeal to popularity.

4. People who reproduce must pay into a fund that covers the costs from offspring that are born with defects, require abnormal/unforseen costs to raise, lose their parents, etc.

Birth-defect insurance? A national health-care plan would take care of that, wouldn't it?

-A national health-care plan is equivalent to forcing people to get health insurance. Even if we decided to force people to get health insurance or created a national health-care plan (which is worse than ensuring people can get insurance) their should be a separate fund for ensuring children are suppported. That doesn't mean such a fund couldn't pay into the national health-care plan.

-Using the above method a society can care for all its "unfortunate" members without being inequitable.

Or it would at least be able to casually dismiss the suffering of those unable to buy into the program because it would have been "inequitable" to do it any other way

-There are only so many resources to go around. We simply cannot afford to provide the best medical care possible to everyone. Society needs to decide what the baseline should be and then everything above and beyond that will have to be provided based upon one's ability to pay.

For instance, I believe it is unfair and therefore to some extent evil to force members of society with no offspring to subsidize those members of society with offspring.

Because your whole concept of one-dimensional morality is based around fairness, with no other considerations whatsoever. The fact that children and the necessary support system for their proper upbringing is ESSENTIAL to the continued well-being of a society at large seems to escape your attention; you view them only as a cost, and perhaps even a foolish and destructive choice by parents, for which they should be financially penalized rather than subsidized. In short, your ideal society discourages parenthood with every means possible: mandatory licensing, massive tax increase at the moment they become parents, which happens to be precisely the moment when their income will drop precipitously, etc. It's a good thing you have no power to implement your ideal society; it would be a nightmare that would quickly dissolve into chaos and widespread social unrest as you attempt to undermine, discourage, and penalize the most primal instinct of all living things: the need to reproduce.

-This has not escaped my attention. The benefits of continuing society can be factored into the equation easily enough. However, if I'm paying to support children I should be able to choose which children I want to support and how my money is used to support them. Nevertheless, the continuation of society does not necessarily give you the right to
reproduce. If your offspring are doomed to endure more sufferring than pleasure it is evil to have offspring even by your morals. BTW, it is also evil to create net sufferring for your pleasure just in case you are going to say one's pleasure off sets the sufferring of their children. Whether or not society has the self control to do what is right is another issue.

Even more generally, should there be limits to producing sentient entities in general (perhaps sentient robots in the future for instance)? Does a person have the right to reproduce if their children will only live a short life and do nothing, but suffer?

Are you talking about a case of genetically inherited problems? If so, are you suggesting that we sterilize those deemed unworthy of reproduction? Personally, I am against eugenics.

-As I just stated in the previous response it is not right to produce offspring that will endure more suffering than pleasure. Therefore, I would use chemical castration to ensure that people who would produce children who do nothing, but live a short life of pain and misery from some genetic disease don't reproduce. However, you can toss that strawman of sterilizing people "deemed unworthy of reproduction." It may be possible to correct
those genetic problems in the future for instance.

I also think it unfair to force someone to get insurance unless they pose a risk to others besides themselves.

The whole point of insurance is that most people must buy into it, otherwise it won't work.

-You don't need most people to buy into it. You just need a critcle mass of people which is determined by the frequency of the problem being insured occuring. However, I think you missed my point. People should be forced to get insurance if others stand to be harmed by their actions (such as driving) and they would not be able to afford reparations in most circumstances without insurance. However, if this is not the case they should not be forced to get insurance (e.g., we don't force people to get home owners insurance if they have paid off the mortgage).

You appear to have constructed a system of morality based exclusively on rationalizing whatever seems most convenient for your personal situation at the present time.

-Actually, if that were true I would support a free national health-care system since I don't make much money and can't afford the best care. In addition, you are doing your own rationalization since you refuse to acknowledge that the right to reproduce is overriden by the right of one's offspring not to be doomed to a life of sufferring.

--Disagreements due to misunderstanding:

It is quite possible for people to be in a less than ideal position without any evil having been done to them.

-We are talking about less than ideal solutions not less than ideal situations. Ideal meaning there is no other solution that can be used given the current situation which would be more fair (or for you, better in terms of your moral criteria) than the current solution. If a reasonable amount of effort has been used to determine the best solution, but the best solution could not be determined I guess that would not be evil.