this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
418 points (99.8% liked)
196
16721 readers
2368 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not a fan of utalitarianism myelf, so this might be wrong; this sounds like utalitarianism - as the action you did cause other suffering.
then in your moral philosophy, are all actions that cause suffering (and joy, and all other feelings a human can experience) morally wrong?
Is then not dating, f.ex Morally wrong?
Or is it the impossibility of consent? Yes, a child is unable to consent to being born. Just as we are all unable to consent to the world being created, or nature's whims. I cannot consent to a state on the other side of the world making policies, but I can still react and do things about it.
Is it morally wrong to let animals have children?
There's also antinatalism from a deontological perspective.
But, from the negative utilitarianists I've known and seen, I've found an intense debate about the animal reproduction question. Some say antinatalism should include non-human animals and any other sentient being; some say it's a human-only matter. I do not have an opinion.
What's f.ex mean?
It's the norwegian / danish way of writing e.g
"for example"
A guess, but “for example”? That’s how I’m reading it, anyway.
If one animal species is harming an ecosystem then I don't see how it's morally wrong to limit their reproduction.
Usually, a better way to help an ecosystem balance itself is to reintroduce predators or similarly.
the deer population in yellowstone was destroying the soil, this was solved by reintroducing wolves.
there's a big difference between this, and f.ex castrating a lot of the deer, or going on a shooting spree.
It also goes with the assumption that the ecosystem is either outside the moral spectrum, or morally good.