Debate: Duty to abort


Subdebate: Duty Argument


log in | sign up


Twitter: @argumentclinic
Email: illlogic@argumentclinic.net

Ancestry

Main

Subdebates

(no subdebates under this subdebate)

Subdebate Description:

Do we have a duty to do no harm, thus giving us ethical reason to not create new persons, but no duty to provide pleasure, giving us no ethical reason to create new persons?

Ill Logic

9:44 a.m. jul 17, 2011 (anchor)

Francois Tremblay, from the parent debate:

"
It is widely agreed upon that we have a duty not to create harm (we have a duty not to kill, attack, rape, defraud other people), but it is also widely agreed upon that we do not have a duty to provide pleasure (for one thing, such a duty would conflict with the duty not to harm, since it may very well give pleasure to a lot of people to kill, attack, rape or defraud others, at least in certain situations). If we assume that these universal intuitions are correct, then clearly it is wrong to start new human lives, since we have a duty not to create the harm that will inevitably befall it, while we have no duty to create the pleasure that will also befall it.

By "duty," I mean a strong and far-reaching ethical obligation. If the term "duty" is found problematic, then I have no problem replacing it with such a definition or a similar definition.
"

Since Francois is unsure if "duty" is an ok term, I'll add it as a defined term to make sure everyone agrees.

Ken, please respond to this point here, though you can feel free wait until the "duty" issue is resolved in case you have an issue with it.



Terms to Define:

+ (See 1 pending definition...)
- (Hide)

duty: (redacted)

Both debaters initially agreed on a definition for this term, but the agreement was later redacted. (click for details)
(What's this?)
To support Ill Logic, log in or sign up

Conclusion: (redacted)

duty has the following definition:

  • A strong (i.e. it is clear that it is true) and far-reaching (i.e. it has consequences in our actions) ethical obligation. Any right entails duties imposed on others (i.e. a right of one to not be harmed entails a duty that others not harm one).

Ken

11:35 a.m. jul 19, 2011 (anchor)

Once again, harm is a relative term and some forms of harm are actually beneficial in the long term. Please refer to my previous posts for my more complete argument.

Regarding the lack of duty to provide pleasure, I’d agree that in most cases we do not have any duty to provide pleasure. However, it is commonly a sign of morality when we do so. We give someone money on the street. It gives them pleasure. We commonly enjoy giving sexual pleasure to others. We also enjoy giving pleasurable experiences to our loved ones. This is especially true since they are our kin and we have a genetic and innate drive to help preserve and nurture them. This is a biological fact and it often drives this need to provide for and give pleasurable experiences to our children.



(What's this?)
To support Ken, log in or sign up

Ken

11:40 a.m. jul 19, 2011 (anchor)

I'd like to add the following: When I noted that selfishly giving pleasure is a sign of morality, it seems the way we have defined our words for this discussion, ethical would be the more correct word. It is often considered ethical to help and give pleasure to others which, while not a demand, is often something that is looked favorably upon and is done for the sake of the other person.



(What's this?)
To support Ken, log in or sign up

Francois Tremblay

3:16 p.m. jul 19, 2011 (anchor)

All right, so do I understand correctly that, apart from the objection which we are discussing in Benatar's Asymmetry Argument, you concede this argument?



(What's this?)
To support Francois Tremblay, log in or sign up