How does a newborn come into the world with values and principles?

Another antinatalism thread :roll:

How does a newborn come into the world with values and principles? — NOS4A2

And even so, does it matter if the subject in question has certain values at all? If we accept the principles mentioned, it seems that the newborn can still be "violated" regardless of the future values it may accept as an adult. The retroactive application of values unnecessarily convolutes the argument.

It does matter because one’s values and principles cannot be violated upon birth if there are no values and principles. One requires life and living in order to form values and principles at all.

And even so, does it matter if the subject in question has certain values at all? If we accept the principles mentioned, it seems that the newborn can still be "violated" regardless of the future values it may accept as an adult. The retroactive application of values unnecessarily convolutes the argument. — finarfin

Finarfin answered you already. No need to red herring again. Besides this clear red herring [which has been properly addressed even though you restated the red herring] is there any legitimate objection, comment, or support for the argument at hand?

Did you or did you not make the assertion that a newborn is immediately part of a society that may or may not fully align with his values and principles? We know the answer to this.

Once an individual is born, they are immediately part of a society that may not fully align with their values and principles, and they may have to make compromises and trade-offs to survive and succeed in that society.

I cannot just accept the first assertion and move on. I need to know if the principles and values were acquired later in life, through life, long after the fact of being born.

I cannot just accept the first assertion and move on. I need to know if the principles and values were acquired later in life, through life, long after the fact of being born. — NOS4A2

Not even worth answering. Yawn. Anything else? I see you have not thought through the implications that being born means always being born into something that compromises their values, and where they are inevitably compromising others' values.. The setup that is the background of being born into was there long before the person realizes their own values, so the point is very very moot.

I see you have nothing interesting to contribute :yawn:

So no, it isn’t true that “Once an individual is born, they are immediately part of a society that may not fully align with their values and principles, and they may have to make compromises and trade-offs to survive and succeed in that society”. The very first assertion…at this point I could care less what follows.

So no, it isn’t true that “Once an individual is born, they are immediately part of a society that may not fully align with their values and principles, and they may have to make compromises and trade-offs to survive and succeed in that society”. The very first assertion…at this point I could care less what follows. — NOS4A2

I changed the first sentence so you can get past your bad argument. I was going to say don't be a dipshit but, I figured if it gets you to engage the argument, maybe you can productively say something instead of this bad faith arguing. It is a fact that the person born is IMMEDIATLEY having their rights violated upon birth.. But I don't want to muddle the water as to what the VALUE will be that is DEFINITELY going to be violated (at some point somewhere by some government entity/person), and the IMMEDIATE violation of the actual person being unnecessarily harmed by being brought into existence.. But I've again, used too many words to argue with this shit.

Anyways, this all has implications for political theory in general.
I was just listening to something about the The Society of the Spectacle and couldn't help but see how this fits in nicely.

The parts I am thinking are the "impersonal forces" of the social arrangements we are born into. We can never have anything substantial to do with it, yet we are swept up in the agenda of The Spectacle. Another spectator, participating in someone else's ride.

In a world where violation is inevitable upon being born, a minimum standard of living is the only way to ameliorate the harm caused by this compromise. Social programs offer this minimum standard of living... — schopenhauer1

Is that true, though?

As a basic humanistic starting point, I like to believe every person deserves a healthy mind and a healthy body.

Are states really able to offer these things?

Is that true, though?

As a basic humanistic starting point, I like to believe every person deserves a healthy mind and a healthy body. — Tzeentch

Which part? It looks like you agree here. I am rather saying that being that no one could ever consent to this arrangement, and understanding that everyone's conception will be different of what would be the best social contract, the least we could do is provide minimum standards, as the harm was already done.

Are states really able to offer these things? — Tzeentch

In a prosperous enough economy, I would think so and many do, especially the Scandinavian models.

Which part? — schopenhauer1

Whether social programs offer a minimum standard of living.

Because I struggle to think of ways states contribute to people's healthy bodies and healthy minds.

The best case could perhaps be made for modern medicine, but honestly I think the state as a whole does about as much to cause problems as it does to solve them.

Because I struggle to think of ways states contribute to people's healthy bodies and healthy minds.

The best case could perhaps be made for modern medicine, but honestly I think the state as a whole does about as much to cause problems as it does to solve them. — Tzeentch

I guess it's another question as to how this is to be done.

Can one truly afford to answer such questions after the fact and still consider oneself ethical?

Can one truly afford to answer such questions after the fact and still consider oneself ethical? — Tzeentch

Not sure what you mean. You'd have to explain a lot more for me to comment one way or the other. How is something like universal healthcare bad for the populace, necessarily? Is that causing more pain? Certainly, corruption, abuse, and bloat are a thing, but that is involved in free-market companies too. One can argue that once entrenched, it doesn't leave, but countries that have these systems, for all the complaining, do not seem to get a majority to get rid of it and go back to privatization whereby people must purchase their own or rely solely on employers like fiefdoms that provide such things.

Can one truly afford to answer such questions after the fact and still consider oneself ethical? — Tzeentch

Not sure what you mean. — schopenhauer1

As you undoubtedly know, states operate on coercion. Given the cost of operating states is the coercion of millions, they can't afford to faff about in an attempt to "figure it out".

It'd be like a doctor experimenting on his patients.

How is something like universal healthcare bad for the populace, necessarily? — schopenhauer1

That's not what I'm arguing.

Modern medicine is probably one of the better things states provide, however there are also ways in which the implementation of modern medicine by states undermines the health of the individual.


Further, if we accept this healthy body/healthy mind minimum, the actions of the state that pertain to those things are not limited to medicine.

States may benefit health through one way, for example universal health care, but undermine it in another, for example economic policy or food legislation.

What it boils down to is that states don't have the will nor capacity to genuinely pursue the healthy bodies and minds of their citizens, which is why I don't believe we should look for states to do such things.

And to circle back to the ethical nature of the OP, if the state can't do a damn good job, there's no way it can justify the costs it imposes on people.

It'd be like a doctor experimenting on his patients. — Tzeentch

I mean, healthcare isn't an exact science anyways, and we are experimenting with people as much as not providing them healthcare than with providing it via the state.

Modern medicine is probably one of the better things states provide — Tzeentch

Only Medicare and Medicaid in the US, and "exchanges" for (not really) reduced rates via the states in what is called "Obamacare". Just want you to keep in mind that the States are not a universal healthcare system.

Further, if we accept this healthy body/healthy mind minimum, the actions of the state that pertain to those things are not limited to medicine. — Tzeentch

I am talking minimums, not maximums, so I don't want to make a straw man by saying, "The state must enculcate what to eat, what to drink, what to do", etc. So I guess the mimimum standard of living would be at least enough to live by some frugal means. It's not the whole "kit and kaboodle" of healthy living.

What it boils down to is that states don't have the will nor capacity to genuinely pursue the healthy bodies and minds of their citizens, which is why I don't believe we should look for states to do such things.

And to circle back to the ethical nature of the OP, if the state can't do a damn good job, there's no way it can justify the costs it imposes on people. — Tzeentch

I see this as a knowledge transfer problem, more how it is applied than really an argument against the idea. We'd have to know what the criteria is, what is success, etc.

Certainly, if someone has cancer, and the state helps pay for treatments, that would be a minimum.

Perhaps with housing, having at minimum a room somewhere rather than a tent (or at least a heated outside area) might be better than nothing at all. Of course, that is complex as most homeless have chronic mental health and addiction issues and indeed harder to solve, though Portugal might be an ideal to look at as to how they handle such things. What's more disparaging than the state offering some minimum standard is people with mental health/addiction problems not even TAKING the care that is offered. That leads to chronic homelessness, definite crime-ridden areas, etc.

I also don't want to lose sight of the OP here. I am not really advocating a very specific program, but trying to justify Social Programs or a broader social democracy upon deontological grounds where things like non-harm, and pro-autonomy still apply as an ethical foundation. I think it can IF looked at as a "retributive justice" for the:
1) Harm of being brought into an existence with suffering.
2) Imposed upon to the limited choices this existence/society has to offer for the child who is imposed upon.
3) Inability, even in principle to consent to the contract of this society.

With all of that, and with the contingent understanding that NO ONE will ever agree 100% what society they rather have (including free-market only, mixed, anarchism, communism, you name it), that a minimum should be provided for the retribution of being forced into the contract and existence itself.

It's hard to view retributive justice as something ethical. Retributive justice serves in the first place a pratical purpose: if victims is not satisfied with the verdict, they will be more likely to circumvent the justice system and take matters into their own hands. There is also a deterring element to it.

The way you're framing it, it also sounds an awful lot like collective punishment, in which people are punished for crimes (or moral slights) they did not commit.

The way you're framing it, it also sounds an awful lot like collective punishment, in which people are punished for crimes (or moral slights) they did not commit. — Tzeentch

So the theory essentially takes into account that we are born into a particular system. Being born into the system is "entering into the social contract". This is a forced "endorsement" of the contract. Hence all people fall under this. The recompense is the minimal standard of living provided.

So it speaks against the absolutist view that non-harm/ non-imposition / pro-autonomy necessarily entails every aspect of human affairs, even beyond personal ethics. That it is "turtles all the way down". I am proposing that whilst it is the model for personal ethics, there is a disjunction at the level of social formation. That is to say, that government first principles are not completely and absolutely reduced to ethical first principles. That is because of the reasons listed above:

1) Harm of being brought into an existence with suffering.
2) Imposed upon to the limited choices this existence/society has to offer for the child who is imposed upon.
3) Inability, even in principle to consent to the contract of this society.

Let's focus especially on point 3.

Person X says, "I want a system whereby the economy is run by workers councils. I want policies a, b, and c to be implemented."

Person Y says, "I want a fully libertarian anarchist government with absolutely no government intervention, and in fact, perhaps no government at all except private formations that people join".

In X's world, Y will not get their desired contract. In Y's world, X will not get their desired contract. With any two people, there will be at least SOME differences, maybe not in complete setup, but minor clauses (policies) within the setup. In other words, once someone enters into the world-system, they will lose in some way. And again, this loss is represented by a forced endorsement of the contract that is given.

That all being said, I see the default action to be one of restitution. If a good ethical system based on deontology values the dignity of a person not being violated, then certainly offering restitution to a person whose dignity was violated would be an appropriate response to the damages to that person, and the violation of dignity, from the very entity (government) whose contract one is being forced to endorse.

Now the issue of "collective punishment" is not really the case here, because a person is not born into "just" a family. They are born into a society. The person lives in property that is part of a town/city/county/state/country. The person is immediately subject to laws, principles, historical decisions, and institutions that long proceeded the person born into these things; who could never, even in principle assent to it. These aren't just words, but whole institutional structures. The parents are a product of this community, and are allowed to freely force people into the society, and sometimes are even promoted to do so. I posit that an individual forcing someone into existence, while a personal ethic, is also committing a political action because they are force "endorsing" the child to become part of a larger social contract of the society simultaneously.

What about the people who do not have children, though? Perhaps I should have specified better, but this is the group that in my view is subjected to collective punishment, because they haven't done anything wrong and yet are forced to pay.

I posit that an individual forcing someone into existence, while a personal ethic, is also committing a political action because they are force "endorsing" the child to become part of a larger social contract of the society simultaneously. — schopenhauer1

Definitely agree there.

What about the people who do not have children, though? Perhaps I should have specified better, but this is the group that in my view is subjected to collective punishment, because they haven't done anything wrong and yet are forced to pay. — Tzeentch

That’s part of my point though. No one will agree on any form. You are subject needing or utilizing the minimal benefit as much as the next person. We are all already forced into the contract.

No one will agree on any form. — schopenhauer1

Why not? Don't people voluntarily agree on ways to coexist all the time?

States just aren't a useful way of reaching such voluntarily agreements, because they're inherently predicated on coercion. This is also why I believe attempts to instrumentalize the state for ethical ends is a flawed endeavor.

Why not? Don't people voluntarily agree on ways to coexist all the time?

States just aren't a useful way of reaching such voluntarily agreements, because they're inherently predicated on coercion. This is also why I believe attempts to instrumentalize the state for ethical ends is a flawed endeavor. — Tzeentch

But the damage is done. The state exists. Hence its retribution. Imagine someone with a completely opposite view. You’re both forced into the contract. It’s certainly a pessimistic stance. The violation is inevitable in the circumstance of a contract that no one could ask for.