17 ms·

> it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime. This is just an idea you made up. It has no more grounding in reality

by javert 7y ago

> it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime. This is just an idea you made up. It has no more grounding in reality than some old rule from the Bible that nobody follows anymore. Like one of those old rules, it's just an arbitrary assertion. When we make moral assertions we need to be just as scrupulous as scientists who can only properly assert something when they have evidence. And for the same reasons. It's a matter of intellectual hygiene. I understand that many parents love their children immensely. But there is a gap between that, and the moral imperative you are asserting. You can spend a lifetime helping your children if you love them that much, and that is perfectly rational. But it does not create this universal moral imperative.

WarOnPrivacy 7y ago
> "it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime." > This is just an idea you made up. I'd agree that it's a bit on the melodramatic side and it'd be fair to call it arbitrary. However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest. It works against the common assumption that kids owe their parents for their upbringing (If you feel I made that up then I can't help you here). I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome and that it's main purpose is to demean & degrade kids (children & adult) - to bully them into some sort of compliant behavior. That's the core behind the principle. If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look.
- javert 7y ago
  > However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest. No doubt about that. I think the sentiment behind it is that you love your kids greatly. > I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome I agree, but your principle is pretty similar to the one you are criticizing. They are two sides of the same coin. Neither principle is grounded in empirical reality. Both can lead to bad outcomes. > If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look. I mean, to be clear, I think the fault in your reasoning is to try to create a universal moral imperative based on an emotion you feel about your own kids. There is a gap there. That is not a justified move. Universal moral imperatives would have to be better grounded than that (just like scientific claims have to).
WarOnPrivacy 7y ago
It occurs to me that part of your objection may stem from an notion that I'm proposing a rule or some sort of absolute guideline. If so, my response is that rules too often suck at promoting positive behaviors and that absolute guidelines suck even more.
- javert 7y ago
  It seems like you don't understand my objection. I'm not sure what the disconnect is. I thought I stated it very directly and plainly. Also, you did propose a rule and an absolute guideline. It's puzzling to me that you seem to think you didn't do that. Specifically, you put forward the moral precept that parents have a "permanent and total" obligation to their children.

by javert 7y ago

WarOnPrivacy 7y ago

> "it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime." > This is just an idea you made up. I'd agree that it's a bit on the melodramatic side and it'd be fair to call it arbitrary. However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest. It works against the common assumption that kids owe their parents for their upbringing (If you feel I made that up then I can't help you here). I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome and that it's main purpose is to demean & degrade kids (children & adult) - to bully them into some sort of compliant behavior. That's the core behind the principle. If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look.

javert 7y ago
> However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest. No doubt about that. I think the sentiment behind it is that you love your kids greatly. > I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome I agree, but your principle is pretty similar to the one you are criticizing. They are two sides of the same coin. Neither principle is grounded in empirical reality. Both can lead to bad outcomes. > If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look. I mean, to be clear, I think the fault in your reasoning is to try to create a universal moral imperative based on an emotion you feel about your own kids. There is a gap there. That is not a justified move. Universal moral imperatives would have to be better grounded than that (just like scientific claims have to).

WarOnPrivacy 7y ago

It occurs to me that part of your objection may stem from an notion that I'm proposing a rule or some sort of absolute guideline. If so, my response is that rules too often suck at promoting positive behaviors and that absolute guidelines suck even more.

javert 7y ago
It seems like you don't understand my objection. I'm not sure what the disconnect is. I thought I stated it very directly and plainly. Also, you did propose a rule and an absolute guideline. It's puzzling to me that you seem to think you didn't do that. Specifically, you put forward the moral precept that parents have a "permanent and total" obligation to their children.