free12thinker

Conservatives and religious fanatics are rather upset about the idea that many of today's women put their careers ahead of having kids. Some are even claiming that aside from women avoiding their general roles (which is complete B.S.), they are also endangering the progression of society.

Hypothetical - We know they are going overboard, but, let's just say they were not. If factual evidence arose that unless women start having kids at a higher rate, than our existence would be wiped out in 476 years, would women be morally obligated to have kids?

My Answer - No way, Jose. Our lives are our own and I would rather cease to exist as a society than make people go through choices like that, simply because it progresses the population. Simply put, progressing the population does not mean we are progressing humanity. Making someone do something against their will, simply to further everyone else is Garbage.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

tronvillain

No, they wouldn't be morally obligated to children. Of course, I don't think that anyone is ever morally obligated to do anything. I am perfectly willing to make someone do something against their will in order to further the interests of everyone else though.

There are a lot of things we could try besides simply forcing people to have more children in the conventional manner.

Tom Piper

tronvillain,

Cards on the table! I am gathering data, as it were, from the remarks of those who have called themselves 'moral subjectivists'-- I think you have put yourself in this category. I am inclined to think that some of the views that the moral subjectivists here hold are incoherent, but so far it is just a hunch. And, of course, I might be wrong. I say this as a preface to asking you to indulge me and answer this 'off topic' post.

You said, A consequence of 'No one is ever morally obligated to do anything' is 'no one ever violates a moral obligation'. If morality is understood as a set of moral obligations, and moral wrongs are violations of moral obligations (allowing violations by omissions), then it also seems to be a consequence of 'No one is ever morally obligated to do anything' that no one ever does anything morally wrong. Is that your view? that no one ever does anything that is morally wrong?

Tom

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

tronvillain

Well, I look forward to seeing the post I presume was supposed to follow "you said."

Tom Piper

tronvillain,

That "you said" post was my previous post. I hit the 'add reply' button instead of the 'quote' button while trying to answer my phone.

Anyway, do you subscribe to the consequences that I drew from your 'no moral obligations...' remark?

Tom

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

tronvillain

No one ever does violate a moral obligation, for the simple reason that they do not exist. In other words, morality is not accurately understood as a set of moral obligations and moral wrongs are not violations of moral obligations. Oh, and yes, it is my view that no on ever does anything that is morally wrong, at least in the sense that you mean.