The murder of children in AC land

[Steven Bickford]

So last week I demonstrated how AC is flawed because it leads to a society that lacks moral clarity. Some of the more stubborn ACers many still not be convinced, so let's consider a more specific topic: the murder of children.

So what does the nonagression axiom say about children? At what point do they have a right against non-agression? Conception? Viability? Birth?

And on a more practical level, at whatever point you define children to have a right against being killed, who is really going to defend against children being killed by their parents after that point? It's pretty easy to have an abortion or kill a newborn child without anyone even knowing about it. And even if someone does find a dead baby lying in a dumpster, what are the chances that they are going to investigate it? Pretty slim in my opinion.

Regards,
Steven Bickford

[Unabridged]

parental infanticide is +EV for society & evolution. i see no problem.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

So last week I demonstrated how AC is flawed because it leads to a society that lacks moral clarity. Some of the more stubborn ACers many still not be convinced, so let's consider a more specific topic: the murder of children.

So what does the nonagression axiom say about children? At what point do they have a right against non-agression? Conception? Viability? Birth?

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems to be a fully continuous spectrum between non-person and person, which makes the implementation of the non-aggression axiom very arbitrary. Libertarians are pretty divided on this subject. I think many of the ACists here are pro-choice but I know BCPVP is pro-life, and I on the other hand am ok with parental infanticide. Quite a dilemma indeed. I have a feeling that it boils down to social norms; conservative settlements will be more likely to protect young/pre-born children while liberal ones will not.

While this may sound strange, why is it bad to allow parents to murder their children? Shock value of that statement aside, take a minute to consider that most parents genuinely love and want to protect their children due to evolutionary incentives. Most parents have no desire whatsoever to harm their children, and will often go to lengths of self-injury just to provide for them. Any parent reading this should know that their children are of paramount importance, and they are not being deterred from harming them because of legal repercussions.

If any parent actually wants to kill their child, something is clearly wrong with the parent's choice to reproduce. The child is most likely an egregiously unwanted pregancy, which will be a burden, not a blessing, for all parties involved. Such children are more likely to be a detriment to society. Not to mention, a parent who wants to kill the living product of his own being is probably what most people would consider a rather sick individual, and it's probably best that he be allowed to stop polluting the gene pool.

In my opinion, I believe that because there is a continuum between non-person and person, rights against aggression should be (and are) continuous (i.e., they are born the property of their parents, but gradually acquire more rights as they age.)

[frizzfreeling]

There's also no reason for an individual to have children, if you go by capitalist principles. Why give birth to someone, raise them, teach them, etc, when you can hire someone off the street to do a job and teach them the job much quicker. While it's in the interest of society to have children, so as to continue the race and provide future labor, this is not the case for the individual.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also no reason for an individual to have children, if you go by capitalist principles. Why give birth to someone, raise them, teach them, etc, when you can hire someone off the street to do a job and teach them the job much quicker. While it's in the interest of society to have children, so as to continue the race and provide future labor, this is not the case for the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is so wrong its disgusting. you aren't considering people's utility functions.

guess what? many (most?) people want kids! at least at some point in their lives. they get utility from having children.



on another note. the OP is completely wrong too. but ill let others elaborate on that one.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also no reason for an individual to have children, if you go by capitalist principles. Why give birth to someone, raise them, teach them, etc, when you can hire someone off the street to do a job and teach them the job much quicker. While it's in the interest of society to have children, so as to continue the race and provide future labor, this is not the case for the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. By this reasoning there is no reason to go on a caribbean cruise; why would you pay tons of money to take a decadent vacation when you can stay home with your wife, go to the pool, and save a bundle? People have natural incentives to reproduce. They want to reproduce. Duh. The mere fact that there is a voluntary drive makes reproduction fully consistent with capitalism.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
So last week I demonstrated how AC is flawed because it leads to a society that lacks moral clarity.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
who is really going to defend against children being killed by their parents

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone. Wouldn't you? Or is there something wrong with you? Even most people who have no use for children and don't like them feel obligated to protect them.

[frizzfreeling]

This is ridiculous. By this reasoning there is no reason to go on a caribbean cruise; why would you pay tons of money to take a decadent vacation when you can stay home with your wife, go to the pool, and save a bundle? People have natural incentives to reproduce. They want to reproduce. Duh. The mere fact that there is a voluntary drive makes reproduction fully consistent with capitalism.

These people going on cruises arent following capitalist principles. If they invested that money instead, how much sooner could they retire? Is it more than the 7 days or so the cruise lasts? Could they retire at least a few months earlier? Same goes with buying SUV's, etc, and especially having children. Over the long run, a child is a large net drain on a parent's finances. I thought we were talking about capitalism here, not people's irrational wants and desires. Isn't it profit and wealth that capitalism is about?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
So last week I demonstrated how AC is flawed because it leads to a society that lacks moral clarity. Some of the more stubborn ACers many still not be convinced, so let's consider a more specific topic: the murder of children.

So what does the nonagression axiom say about children? At what point do they have a right against non-agression? Conception? Viability? Birth?

And on a more practical level, at whatever point you define children to have a right against being killed, who is really going to defend against children being killed by their parents after that point? It's pretty easy to have an abortion or kill a newborn child without anyone even knowing about it. And even if someone does find a dead baby lying in a dumpster, what are the chances that they are going to investigate it? Pretty slim in my opinion.

Regards,
Steven Bickford

[/ QUOTE ]

Parental infanticide is legal in the Netherlands and abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy is legal virtually everywhere, so governments clearly are not solving this problem, which many do not consider a problem at all.

That said I stand w/ BCPVP in the pro-life libertarian camp and believe that any genetically-complete, living human organism has a right not to be aggressed against.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it profit and wealth that capitalism is about?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not.