Totalitarianist

I think it is ethical for three reasons: for the good of the individual, who no longer has to live with his most undesirable condition, and who, in the case of the mental retard, is not aware of his own existence, or at best the existence of other minds; for the good of the parent, who himself would think it a tragedy that he is impelled to possess such a sad and wretched thing; and for the good of the human stock. It is rather like natural selection -- perhaps even more efficient, since it would no longer be purely accidental, but intentionally conducive to society. Normally such defects would die and therefore fail to reproduce and spread their defective genes. Our society is wholly contrary to Nature in this regard, letting all, who by all means ought to die, live. People often complain, in opposition to their conception of science or technology, and in particular the science of eugenics, telling us that we ought to let nature "take her course". In response I would be inclined to say one of three things: if nature so defined ought to "take her course", then we ought to alter the genius of our civilised society -- i.e., live like savages -- in such a way that it is once again probable that the defective will perish at the hands of nature, for that is just as much a part of Nature's course as anything else; or I might say that there can be no problem with terminating the defective if they would be terminated otherwise, i.e., if we lived in a way more or less conformable to the way to which nature had originally subscribed us; or I would tell them that the whole idea of supposing that the ends of nature are laudable and purposeful, which is implicated in her so-called course which she allegedly follows, and by which good and evil is miraculously determined, is clearly absurd. But the point is, that even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that good and evil is determined by Nature's ends, then it should be esteemed ethical to promptly terminate the profoundly defective; and if we do not suppose that, it can be considered okay because of the suffering of the retard itself, or the parent who is befallen by such a burden. If that will not do, consider society, the Canadian (or whatever country) stock. If your ethics are evolutionary, then then you, too, ought to have no problem with it. If you believe that ethics are imaginary, like myself, then you, of course, shall see no problem with it.

sweep

on the other side of the coin, there is the modern phenomenon of the teenage single parent. Some of these kids can't manage to raise a child, and a lot of them won't have a decent father or decent nutrition. believe me, a diet of nicotine and alcohol in the womb (some of the lesser Ills during pregnancy) doesn't work wonders to a developing human life. In life, McDonalds, expensive snack foods, processed meats and cheese add up to, well, even less in terms of development. All I need now is the relevant research papers, which will back me up on this one, I recall. What kind of legacy are some people creating for theirselves and their kin?

Then we have the AIDS child. It looks like a lot of orphans are going to be created, without protection, leaving an inexhaustible supply of child slaves. We also have the deliberately handicapped child, whose purpose is to help the parent or childminder pay for food, by begging. Tragic isn't it. I can't even be bothered to ask why anymore. On the plus side me and mine will be well looked after. If I have kids of my own, they will get the best, because I will be my best, defective or no.

Finally there is the famine child. Yes, we're rational animals. Don't have kids in hard times, because we won't be able to feed them. Take hold of the reins, people! Well at least these are 'open' communities. [What are you Implying Sweep?]Well, that mean no-one can steal your kid and put them in the 'hot pot'. In communist Russia (right Idea, wrong species) people actually did steal others kids, so that many adults could live.

Yes, think about the children. It isn't just a cheesy one liner, it's our 'fucking' lazy fault. Well, not yours, but everyone is different. rant

Eleutheria

If we can prove that defective people are miserable, unhappy or unconscious of reality, then we might have grounds for terminating defective infants. If we can prove it, then I’ll agree. But I’d be very cautious. I’d demand for a kind of cohort, an ethnic committee. What happens when hearing parents want to terminate a deaf infant? This will provoke widespread consequences. Since this disability is adhered with culture, it might promote a cause that is compatible with ethnic cleansing. Nature has afforded us this: the power to create a better society. It doesn’t follow that we should abuse it.

dangin

Whoa there sparky. Nature hasn't afforded us anything, and what exactly is better about a pollution spewing, overpopulating society?

That said, My first thought when I read the OP was, hey wasn't that Hitler's argument?

I understand the evolutionary reasons behind the destruction of the less able. In fact if it weren't for our "better" society most would not survive childhood anyway.

But this is a slippery slope. Someone posted about hearing parents terminating deaf children. What about deaf parents terminating hearing children. To some devotees of deaf culture, a hearing child is not desireable.

And finally, in china, girl infants are terminated for being female. Does anyone want that?

If you survive the vaginal passage, you have rights. Creating criteria that reduce those rights is problematic.

Totalitarianist

But China is extremely overpopulated. It is justified. I am surprised that they have not done more to mitigate their present problem. It is certainly the principal cause of their failures.

Necessary in the case of China. To correct their problem, people have to be terminated. There is no other solution. Why not a certain quantity of female embryos, fetuses, and infants? In fact, female infants are the best candidates: being female, they are likely to multiply, and multiplication is the sole cause of the problem; and, being newborns, they are unconscious, and do not suffer at all.

However, I have never heard of this, and doubt if it even happens. If it does happen, good for China. I would not employ a doubt, though, that this is merely a part of an ever-growing quantity of anti-Chinese propaganda.

Monkeybot

What are you talking about? It's far easier for a man to father multiple children than it is for a woman to give birth to multiple babies. Think about resource investment.

Unless you think Chinese females simply engage in binary fission...

Jamie_L

How do we know this individual does not want to live with this condition? It would seem quite the contrary to me, especially for someone with less understanding of existence. The basic drive is survival, and therefore an individual with little understanding of the world will be left with few other desires than those instinctual drives for survival. Thus, killing the infant twarts its only real desire - to survive. Almost all forms of morality and ethics relate to thwarting the desires of others, so this seems, at its core, unethical with respect to the individual.

Furthermore, the idea that limited awareness of ones own existence is not a sufficient criteria to rob someone of their ethical/moral status as a person. Is it okay to kill unconscious people because they aren't aware of their existence at the time? The moral/ethical issue really revolves around what we value in human beings. Is it perfect function that determines the morality of how we treat people? Is it less unethical to rape a retarded girl than a girl with a genius IQ?

No. I think it's more complicated than that.

Jamie

fried beef sandwich

Right. It's overpopulation that's the big problem. Nevermind an inefficient, state-run economy (although some privatization is occuring). Or corrupt officials. Or inadequate farm production. Or the Asian HIV/AIDS epidemic. Or the Asian financial crisis of 1997 which hurt their economy. Or Mao-Zedong's failed five-year plans. Or the Cultural Revolution, during which many of the intellectuals either fled or were forced to work in the gulags and concentration camps, which gutted the country's potential for economic growth. Or the fact that rampant disregard for the environment has destroyed fertile land, the topsoil blowing off and mingling with the dust of the Gobi desert - you don't think that has any effect on farm production? Go jogging in Beijing and you'll be coughing up mud in 15 minutes, I guarantee it. Or how about the fact that government officials, sponsored by semi-legitimate front companies, come out to Las Vegas on "business trips" and blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on gambling, wine, and whores while the young men and women slaving away in the factories get paid next to nothing and live in shitty government dormitories?

NO other solution? Interesting fact: Back in the day, both India and China were facing imminent overpopulation problems. China instituted the One-Child Policy (OCP). India instituted the "Two-or-Three-Kids-Is-Enough" policy. Both achieved equivalent results in reducing the total fertility rate of both countries, but India's results were realized ~10 years after China's, IIRC, and without trampling on human rights like the OCP did.

I'd suggest a more thorough analysis of the facts, Totalitarianist, before you endorse ethically dubious (at best) ideas and parade them like some silver bullet. Things are more complex than "overpopulation."

Vorkosigan

C'mon. Totalitarianist has stolen this whole passage from somewhere and then modified it. There is no way the same fellow who wrote controlled the written word well enough to write a sentence like:

• In response I would be inclined to say one of three things: if nature so defined ought to "take her course", then we ought to alter the genius of our civilised society -- i.e., live like savages -- in such a way that it is once again probable that the defective will perish at the hands of nature, for that is just as much a part of Nature's course as anything else; or I might say that there can be no problem with terminating the defective if they would be terminated otherwise, i.e., if we lived in a way more or less conformable to the way to which nature had originally subscribed us; or I would tell them that the whole idea of supposing that the ends of nature are laudable and purposeful, which is implicated in her so-called course which she allegedly follows, and by which good and evil is miraculously determined, is clearly absurd.

then wrote crap like this:

• and if we do not suppose that, it can be considered okay because of the suffering of the retard itself, or the parent who is befallen by such a burden

"OKAY" Please! Where did that word come from, so utterly unlike the style of the rest of the piece?!

Look at the language:

"conformable" "subscribed" "defective" "perish"-- those are archaisms. The piece is a combo of two styles.

Puh-lease!

This man is a troll. A complete waste of bandwidth.

Vorkosigan

sweep

how can we be sure if that was unintentional, or not?