Bill Bennett, Freakonomics, & Aborting Black Babies.

sexdrugsmoney · #12 10-05-2005, 07:31 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

But what I do want to get into is the proper benefactor of ethics. When we use society as the reason for ethics, we can arrive at some faulty conclusions. Imagine a doctor who has 6 patients, 5 have a fatal malfunction of some sort. The 6th is perfectly healthy and can be used to save the life of the 5 others. If we use society as the basics of ethics we arrive at a very simple conclusion. But this hasn't yet touched on breading rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using Utilitarian ethics, assuming the 5 sick have more worth than the 1 person then yes, it would be ethical to sacrifice him to save the 5.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

God has also chimed in on this "Go forth and multiple". But it's also incorrect to have God as the benefactor of ethics. If someone doesn't want to have children, that should be their choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

One questions whether God said that just at that time or whether he mean't it to be a commandment, or like in Islam where it is encouraged.

I personally think God would prefer a decisive choice to have children and give them the best start in life as opposed to mindless breeding like rabbits.

But that's just my response to anyone who uses a deity as their excuse for having their woman knocked up on regular 9 month cycles with a down payment on a minivan to put all the little spawn in. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

It is the individual that is the recipient of ethics. It is not the world that gets the benefits of ethics. It is persons and not people. Individuals are the only ones with rights. So what are this rights that individuals have. An individual can be broken up into her past, her present, and her future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem as I see it.

When Nobel prize winners make a huge advancement, it benefits all of society, not just the scientist's family and their friends.

Yet included in this whole of society are people who do interfere with the rights of others, in some cases the right to live.

We already pick and choose who can and can't be a member of society based on their place of birth and subsequent actions in life as to whether they are allowed their liberty or should be deprived of it. (or deleted)

Humanity desires to seek out intelligent life in our universe or beyond, but what intelligent life are we really expecting to find?

I think regardless of whether this intelligent life is humanoid and kind like the Vulcans of Star Trek (ie- NASA'a wet dream) or cruel like something out of Independance Day (which in our optimism we can't fathom the thought) that either of these societies will use their resources better than us. (somewhat provable if they contact us, which we'll assume theit technology is more advanced)

I think it's incredibly naive to think that any intelligent form of ET life will have the liberal breeding proceedures we have on Earth, it's just illogical to me.

And if such ET life was hostie and reached us first, what is our plan of attack? Use nuclear weapons? Destroy ourselves to destroy our enemies? And all the while while this would be going on the echoes of the selfishness of Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans Superdome would be repeated in many places worldwide. People throwing caution to the wind and raping women and children seeing their life nearly over, while large numbers wouldn't unite and fight but flee with their families in self interest.

I think we are making technological advancements but in many ways it is the idiots of the world preventing such rapid speed of progress and hindering quality of life. (from Akhmed the suicide bomber to George "Warmonger" Bush)

One would have to assume that Einstein for president/prime minister/dictator is more preferable than George Bush/Tony Blair/Fidel Castro.

One would also have to assume that Congress/house of representatives/senates would be better places if filled with Einsteins as opposed to what mimics at times a private school hall debating session between spoiled rich kids who don't really care about their society but just snide remarks at each other while collecting a nice public service wage.

I'm not saying Eugenics will instantly solve all this, I acknowledge I haven't done much research on it. But it seems logical that to first change the problems in society you must change the people, and that's where Eugenics enters, it really has to be the starting point or it's highly unlikely IMHO that these problems will disappear when there are idiots who still are able to produce sperm and convince silly mingers to marry them and breed.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

Ones past is identified as ones property and wealth. Birth rights aren't a part of ones past. Ones future is their life and we aren't talking murder here,

[/ QUOTE ]

I think first we have to ask what our "birth rights" are, and once deciding what they are ask where they come from (nature or constructed by man)

Either way, even if one could prove we do have 'birth rights' by being part of a society we naturally give up many rights (such as land rights) so one would question why breeding would be any different.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

It is only when we look at ones present to we begin to discuss the problem. What more can we say about ones rights in the present, other than that one should be free. We do make restrictions on ones freedoms, one is free to do anything provided it does not interfere with the rights of individuals. The right of life, liberty, and property. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is close and sounds a heck of a lot better.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the Pursuit of Happiness is a double-edged sword. Because from a Utilitarian aspect if contolled breeding was introduced and if such breeding made more rapid advancements in science and therefore the quality of human life then that directly corresponds to the individuals pursuit of happiness, especially is such individual had disease x and through rapid advancement science was now able to cure it.

But apart from that, many of the rights that we would assume nature has given us (like living off the land) have been forgone. Now almost all the land on earth is controlled by someone, you can just walk up to an apple tree and pick an apple off, as that tree most likely will be on a farm owned by someone and is property. (ownership of nature, my God that's monsterous!)

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

This science of ethics prevents the doctor. It prevents someone from limiting individual’s birth rights.

But it doesn't address what to do with those who don't obey this type of logic (as in ethical treatment of criminals). It doesn't address the question of when birth rights conflict with availability of resources (as in China).
It doesn't address the damage that ignorant people do (people who can not provide for their children, but exercise their birth rights anyway).

Here is where my post falls further apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obviously a tough issue, I think what it must ultimately boil down to is the sacrifice of a certain portion of liberties for the greater good, and society does that all the time at will. (State's of Emergency can be implemented at a Government's will and curfews implemented, National Appropriation of your property can occur for whatever reason in some governments, not to mention changes of laws, which cover all of society but are voted few by a portion which can be bribed)

It's a whole messy area but I think people get really emotional as they really want to create a copy of themselves and feel they should be allowed, but I see this as pure selfishness and inconsideration for the child and society.

As long as we have selfishness I believe humanity will always be hindered. I envy Spock on star trek, the way he always used logic and remained stoic. I'm not saying hard stoicism is what should be practiced by humanity all the time, but it should be implemented often when asking the hard decisions that require and objective approach.

Hardly anyone does it though, maybe the world is doomed, but if this is humanity you can't say it's a total loss, and if all humanity was wiped out and ET life did exist, they probably would have been given the greatest favor by nature/God for never meeting such a selfish illogical race.

?

-SDM