[lit-ideas] Re: Does This Have Wings?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:26:44 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: Ed Farrell <ewf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>It's also clear in the arguments of Paul and Donal how utilitarian "ethics,"
>constructed as it typically is upon hypotheticals, is less about human beings
>and more about statistical constructs.>
Whatever I posted is compatible with a rights-based and non-utilitarian view,
one "about human beings" and not mere "statistical constructs": a so-called
'right to have children' may have to be curtailed when having too many children
undermines other rights (like to survive without some conflict to the death
between the living). Starvation or drought being faced through over-population
is hardly merely hypothetical or a 'statistical construct': and no morality
says anything worthwhile if what it says is irrespective of any 'hypotheticals'
in the sense of a practical problem-situation that is partly determined by
'facts'.
From what I have read elsewhere, the evidence tends to support Chris Bruce's
suggestion: that when sufficiently empowered and free from poverty women will
not have more children than is sustainable. But say that empowerment does not
occur so as to stave off a potentially disastrous expansion of population
(which may make issues of poverty even more intractable, and lead to social
instability and even war): it seems to me the 'right to have children' does not
clearly trump any other rights and that legal restrictions on such a right may
be justified in terms of the importance of other rights.
What matters here is the moral problem-situation which is partly constituted by
the 'facts'. On my view, there are conceivable circumstances when certain
restrictions would be justified: and I can even conceive of circumstances where
forcible abortion might be the lesser of two evils - say, if nothing short of
such a policy would curtail an expansion of population such that mass
starvation and social breakdown would occur. This is not necessarily only a
utilitarian view but one that might be based on the view that there is
something morally much more wrong in many starving to death than in some
foetuses being forcibly aborted (as part of a policy needed to keep population
within sustainable limits). If it comes down to it, I am inclined to think that
there is something morally much more wrong in many starving to death than in
some foetuses being forcibly aborted, but of course any genuine moral problem
of this sort will rarely present in such a
straighforward or clear-cut way. Nevertheless, what I am inclined to think
here is very much "about human beings", and the reality of their suffering, and
not "about statistical constructs".
As it happens, I do not regard myself as utilitarian though I think there are
many cases where some of the considerations that would weigh in certain
utilitarian thinking have moral force (though that force need not be based on
'utility' but on a sense of right and wrong; and so acknowledging their force
need not make one utilitarian).
The suspicion is that over-population is not here offered as an issue raising
genuine and difficult moral problems - problems we should try to foresee; and
plan so as lessen the suffering that over-population might cause - but in an
ideologically driven way to flush out liberals as crypto-fascists [or even just
fascists] by perhaps showing them up as child murderers if they would ever
countenance forcible abortion (as indeed I plainly would: though this is not a
pressing problem for me as there are many ways short of forcible abortion by
which we might better tackle issues of over-population). The attempt to use a
morally serious issue in this way is itself morally questionable. The attempt
to identify my position, with one that prefers statistical constructs to human
beings, is false.
On a side-note that is perhaps important: I also share the Darwinian view that,
despite all the humbug in our culture that hides this, the drive to have
children is more of a selfish drive than an altrusitic one; and we should be
wary of such drives especially when they come with a plentiful capacity for
deception as to their moral character [large families in poor countries may be
motivated by parents wanting a plentiful supply of children to look after the
parents in old-age: that may be why removal of poverty lessens the drive for
large families]. It is the kind of self-deception we have around children, and
the emotional response we easily can feel, that allows examples such as
over-population and abortion to be used as convenient tools in ideological
warfare. But from a Darwinian and global perspective on the possible future,
and not current circumstances in the well-off West, even forcible abortion
might be a lesser evil if we do not act to stave
off unsustainable population growth with its potentially catastrophic
consequences.
Donal
London
Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 6:37:40 PM, you wrote:
I wanted to see if it might be possible to combine arguments and rationales
that used "liberal" interpretations of various phrases in the US Constitution
to impose a Chinese style tyranny. I started with the idea that anything could
be justified by invoking "general welfare." Then I proceeded to look for
something that is a liberal favorite, and found population control. I then
proposed a mandate that imposed violence upon women by mandating abortion. No
liberal male defended a woman's right to choose to have more than one child.
The Robert's court ruled that as long as you can invoke the taxing power you
could basically get away with anything. I proposed total confiscation of income
for 10 years, essentially slavery. No liberal objected. I then came up with a
justification for imposing a tyrannous definition of religion. No liberal
objected.
The justification for population control rests on Malthus, but Malthus, in the
19th century, and Paul Erlich, in the 20th century, both made predictions that
haven't come to pass. I believe current projections are for population to peak
in 2050 at 9 billion, and then begin a slight decline.
Unfortunately, the whole idea of population control runs counter to the way
many current social programs are constructed. Social Security and Medicare are
both pass-through systems that should have a small number of people being
supported by a large number of workers. Unfortunately, the population is aging,
and living longer so that the top of the pyramid is increasing, and birth
control, abortion, late marriages, etc., are leading to smaller numbers of
workers. Unless there is a die-off at the top, either active killing, or
passive neglect, or the working base broadens (through legal immigration, since
illegals will avoid taxes), or increased fertility, financial implosion is
inevitable.
What is interesting is that:
1. People assumed that their definition of "general welfare" is the correct
one, and that they were willing to impose it by force.
2. The ideal of forcibly violating a woman's body was not repugnant to them.
3. Children were regarded not as people, but as things, i.e., reified.
4. The idea that the government could impose a penalty, disguised as a tax,
amounting to 10 years worth of income was not repugnant to them.
5. The idea that government could determine what constitutes religious
practice, and limit one's freedom of conscience was not repugnant to them.
6. The idea that the government could essentially penalize religious thought,
belief, and practice, was applauded.
So where is the "liber" in liberalism? I see:
1. The belief that a person, one of the cognoscenti, the good, those who have
knowledge, can act for the people as a whole. I'm reminded of Trotsky's
criticism about the Party substituting for the workers, the Central Committee
substituting for the Party, the Politburo substituting for the Central
Committee, and the General Secretary substituting for the Politburo.
2. Liberty is not inherent, not unalienable, but exists at the whim of the
rulers.
I'm afraid that I see the boot trampling on the human face and grinding it into
the ground, and the proponents of these ideas can only be described in one word:
Fascists.
Jonah Goldberg is right, liberalism and fascism are nearly identical.
"All women are created equal.
Then some become Marines"
Katy Perry video for "Part of me"
Thomas Hart
tehart@xxxxxxx
On Jul 11, 2012, at 6:01 PM, cblists@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I've got an alternate proposal for population control: give all the women of
the world minimum health care, education and nutrition for themselves and the
children they have already borne, education about and access to contraception,
and the absolute right to choose their sexual partners and (without coercion in
either direction) how many children they will bear in the future.
It has wings - the question is: who keeps clipping them?
Chris Bruce,
who has more faith on this matter
in womankind than mankind, in
Kiel, Germany
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
--
><(((º>¸. ·´¯`·.¸., . .·´¯`·.. ><(((º>
Edward W. Farrell // ewf@xxxxxxxxxxx
E d F a r r e l l P h o t o g r a p h y
http://www.edfarrellphotography.com ;
Plato for Research Management
http://www.zorbasoft.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
