What's wrong with infanticide?

[Jumi]

Religion and philosophy do heavily overlap, and this is a debate thread. So, again, I propose, why is it morally wrong to cause harm to something alive? And if you could, without the usual run of the mill positions of bodily autonomy. Just because everybody says it doesn't make it correct.

If you(not speaking about just you but in general) don't wish to have bodily autonomy yourself then perhaps you are fine with others not having it either. Otherwise you're going to have to accept that others have as much right to it as yourself regardless of how much stronger you are from an infant or a weak and poor outcast. It's a bleak picture to me if the weak are deemed unfit to live.

Like I said, it's a moral code. That is it's the one at the base of any healthy society. You might wish to debate it from some view outside, such as those title themselves philosophers today are wont to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's morally wrong to harm or kill other self-ordered units without reason.

 

[Jumi]

But how bad can it be; god did it many times and in great numbers.

Which god? Keep in mind that not all of us believe in your god or the idea of god you wish to promote.

 

[Jumi]

The problem.... you will be next.

Indeed, that's how it works.

 

[Stanyon]

Beasts in the field do it sometimes so if it's good enough for them it's good enough for us but then again dogs eat their own s*** sometimes so maybe it's not the greatest thing to emulate everything in nature.

 

[Skwim]

Which god? Keep in mind that not all of us believe in your god or the idea of god you wish to promote.

The Christian god.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I have a good friend who is a philosophy professor, and he always tells his students that we don't have answers to these questions, but that you don't want to point it out or people will think you're crazy.

Your philosophy professor may accept a subjective notion of morals and values, but he could have at least told you that there are philosophical approaches claiming to furnish an objective standard. Forgive me if that seems presuming, but I'm a philosopher myself. I hope he wasn't leading his students on to accept his subjective approach.

 

[1137]

Your philosophy professor may accept a subjective notion of morals and values, but he could have at least told you that there are philosophical approaches claiming to furnish an objective standard. Forgive me if that seems presuming, but I'm a philosopher myself. I hope he wasn't leading his students on to accept his subjective approach.

He's explaining to his students the nature of knowledge and the epistemology of morals/ethics. All morals and ethics are rooted in personal axioms at some point, when you go back far enough they cannot be supported and further. This doesn't mean subjectivism or relativism, it's just a factual observation.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

He's explaining to his students the nature of knowledge and the epistemology of morals/ethics. All morals and ethics are rooted in personal axioms at some point, when you go back far enough they cannot be supported and further. This doesn't mean subjectivism or relativism, it's just a factual observation.

Thanks for clarifying. I do appreciate it. Maybe I read into what you typed some. Forgive me.

 

[1137]

Thanks for clarifying. I do appreciate it. Maybe I read into what you typed some. Forgive me.

No worries, it's a complicated topic with many angles to approach it from. He just wants students to question what they feel they know with certainty, such as seemingly "obvious" morals like murder being wrong. Be assured he thinks murder is wrong, he just also knows he can't actually prove it.

 

[Jumi]

The Christian god.

The Christian Bible literalists' Old Testament god sounds no fun. It's a good thing Christians are not limited to that kind of an idea of God.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

First its sometimes wasteful. Second it is hard on the person who does it. When a parent does it they must deal with their feelings. Thirdly the human race is in a battle to survive, and each person born is a gift. Fourth if its a viable infant, then it is unkind. Fifth it causes suffering to a creature. Lastly there is no telling what the value of a child is, and so there is no way to know what has been lost.

Okay, here's your original post.

My questions again:

1) Please explain why infanticide is wasteful (I know this is technically not a question, but I could easily frame it so).
2) Why is it unkind (if it's a viable infant)?
3) Wrt your last point above, do you have the same opinion of embryos and foetuses?

Thanks.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

To needlessly harm something that is alive and unit unto itself is wrong morally.

Why the emphasis on a 'unit unto itself'? What do you mean by this exactly?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

If the mother doesn't want the child, and the child is already born, why not just give the child up for adoption rather than killing them?

That doesn't really address my question.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

A government has an interest in protecting its citizens and people within its jurisdiction. This is a rational reason to interfere with a parents right to raise their child (or in this case kill their child).

At what point does an entity become a citizen/person within a jurisdiction? As an embryo? A foetus? At the point it becomes viable outside the womb? Upon birth?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Infantcide is a horrific practice that shouldn't be in a modern society

What makes it horrific, though?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I think the question ultimately is a question of the value of autonomy, esp body autonomy, and why a society might fare better accepting autonomy into law. An overview in philosophy here: Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

At what point in one's development does one gain autonomy, and why, in your opinion?

 

[Jumi]

Why the emphasis on a 'unit unto itself'? What do you mean by this exactly?

A separate embodied individual.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Okay, here's your original post.

My questions again:

1) Please explain why infanticide is wasteful (I know this is technically not a question, but I could easily frame it so).
2) Why is it unkind (if it's a viable infant)?
3) Wrt your last point above, do you have the same opinion of embryos and foetuses?

Thanks.

1. What would be the best way not to waste an infant? Would it involve killing it?
2. Is kindness giving no future or giving a future? This is my opinion, but giving it a future is a kindness. I see this as a choice people have to make: whether to believe that life is worthwhile or not. It is possible to see it the other way, so you choose how you will see it. Human beings are creatures who suffer, and so should we exist or not? That is to me the same question.
3. Its a bigger question than me. I do not equate infants and embryos, but its a similar question. I think love makes the embryo into a person, so it is or it isn't depending on that. At what point does a lump of tissue become a person? It can't on its own.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

A separate embodied individual.

And why is that morally significant?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

1. What would be the best way not to waste an infant? Would it involve killing it?
2. Is kindness giving no future or giving a future? This is my opinion, but giving it a future is a kindness. I see this as a choice people have to make: whether to believe that life is worthwhile or not. It is possible to see it the other way, so you choose how you will see it. Human beings are creatures who suffer, and so should we exist or not? That is to me the same question.
3. Its a bigger question than me. I do not equate infants and embryos, but its a similar question. I think love makes the embryo into a person, so it is or it isn't depending on that. At what point does a lump of tissue become a person? It can't on its own.

So, yes, wrt both 1 and 2, this relates to the bigger question of whether it is better to exist or not. One could argue that if one doesn't exist, there is no suffering, and since existence involves (sometimes great) suffering, it is better not to exist. This is the question you pose, right? What is your response to that question? That might be worth opening another thread for.

Wrt 3, what's your answer to the question you pose at the end?