4 ms·
I’m pointing out the argument’s absurdity. Saying that things don’t last forever to justify destroying something you don’t value, can easily be redirected to so
by h0l0cube 2y ago
I’m pointing out the argument’s absurdity. Saying that things don’t last forever to justify destroying something you don’t value, can easily be redirected to something you do value
- akoboldfrying 2y agoThe point at issue is: What subset of things (what individuals, groups, ideas, cultures) "deserve" to continue? I agree that your reductio ad absurdum argument shows that "nothing deserves to continue" is in untenable position. But surely the opposite extreme (namely, "everything deserves to continue") is just as absurd? So the question remains: Where to draw the line?
- h0l0cube 2y ago‘The people’. Whatever scale that is. Democracy as imperfect and inefficient it is, is our best vehicle for the collective consciousness (of humanity) to decide at the scale of a polity. A family can decide amongst themselves what’s best for their infant, and as they grow, the person can decide for themselves as an individual. Moralizing on the behalf of others, is at best performative, at worst harmful and denigrating. It of course gets messy when we’re talking about irreversible decisions made by parents, but I don’t believe that’s relevant for cochlear implants. Certainly not relevant for continuing a culture either