I think you (and neeeel) are both trying to draw an implication that isn't there--and to a certain extent making the same error as Dawkins. Someone can say that they would rather not exist with diminished cognitive capacity (here is a recent and somewhat pertinent example) without thereby claiming it as a moral principle that everyone should feel the same way. Rather, they can acknowledge that as a matter of personal choice and freedom rather than as resulting from a general moral principle.

Anyway, I think the counterfactual is probably not very useful as in the most important sense I don't think you are the same person as the person with diminished cognitive capacity in the thought experiment. So what intuition are you actually eliciting?

Not really sure what you mean by fiat here, but most utilitarians don't view rights as basic in the way that eg Kantians might. So you don't have a right to life simply because you are a human, part of the "kingdom of ends." Insofar as a utilitarian will accept rights as justified, they will be for essentially prudential reasons, e.g. that governments that guarantee rights will be more utility-maximizing or as a way to simplify our moral reasoning. This is why some utilitarians, who don't see anything inherently special in being human, have been leaders in the animal rights/welfare movement.

Right. Dawkin's error is claiming that this is a moral principle, based on the utilitarian framework of a "happiness minus suffering" type of measurement, and that his conclusion does not follow from those premises.

My claim of arrogance was outlined earlier:

To boil down an entire person's life (even as an abstract quantity) on the basis of a single measure (mental capacity) and declare that it's so much below where you are that this life (whatever it is) isn't worth living is very arrogant-sounding to me. I do think it's quite an insulting way to talk about those with mental deficiencies, and that such a belief is rooted in a belief of "I'm better than that person."

It's true that you are not the same person in the thought experiment. But how you construct the person in the thought experiment, what attributes you attribute and the hypothetical life you envision, say a lot about how you envision that class of people as a whole. That's the intuition I'm eliciting.

My claim is that saying "I'd rather not have been born than be that person" is significantly stronger than merely saying "I'd rather not be that person." And that the basis of that conclusion is intellectual capacity alone is also a strong statement.

There are objective ways to say "my life is better than that person's life" that are not arrogant. My life is objectively better on the bases of economic status, job satisfaction, and so forth than someone living in the ghetto working a tough job and barely scraping by.

I think you have to start taking some very extreme pictures (slavery) before such a position even begins to have a chance at not painting such an arrogant picture. And in the case of slavery, the reason for not wanting to be that person has nothing to do with any inherent properties of being that person, but the circumstances of that person that are imposed from the outside.

Fair enough, I don't disagree with this.

well, less than human, then?

I agree with Dawkins that aborting down syndrome is the right thing to do. Hell, aborting because you aren't financially ready for a child is also the right thing to do.

Please tell me you are joking?

I'm not going to answer for him, but I believe there is a difference in stating that "it is right to abort X", versus, "it is wrong to not abort X". RD was saying the latter when this all began.

Not joking. Those were just 2 of many reasons that make abortion the correct choice for someone.

What I think about it is that a guy who says this:

is nothing but a joke when he says the word "moral" and isn't laughing.

Sick and disgusting.

No, bringing unhealthy children into this world is sick disgusting. Kids born into poverty with crack head mothers who are on crack during the entire pregnancy is sick and disgusting. And that's just the tip of the ice berg, now stop being so closed minded.

Unless the cleansing of imperfect humans is done by God, then its good.

Just to be clear, this was your first statement:

So.... Down's Syndrome babies are like crack babies. And if your income drops below a certain level, your baby is like a crack baby. "And that's just the tip of the iceberg."

If what you have counts as open-minded, I'd rather be closed-minded.

Does your open-mindedness extend to supporting the unhealthy unwanted babies, or just far enough to tell other people how they should behave?

We have demonstrable proof that there are **** loads of unwanted human garbage in the world (look at all the ******ed and/or crazy people in mental hospitals, prisons, orphanages, the streets, etc), how can it be so disgusting and awful to suggest cutting down on the number of new ones produced if we can help it?

My open-mindedness extends to reasonable patterns of thought. We already support all sorts of unwanted babies and all sorts of unwanted other things. So your argument doesn't really carry much weight. And I have not yet made any specific statements about how people should behave.

So, you're advocating a form of eugenics? Maybe we should just extend the logic of abortion to living people with observable deficiencies?

Ah, so if the mother is on crack, you should murder the baby.

Brilliant logic.

Before you didn't even mention crack, you just said poverty was a good reason to murder the baby, brilliant logic there too.

Sick and disgusting, and evil.

Oh no, just like you, I didn't advocate anything. So we're both good.

We have systems in place to take care of intellectually impaired people that are totally inadequate in many cases, but your reasonable patterns of thought seem to imply that there is a problem with promoting abortion of DS embryos. I think it is very reasonable to ask what happens to them after they are born.

Whoops... You're not mark. My bad.

The challenge I've raised is with the logic that is being applied. If it's true that the reason for aborting DS embryos is that the existing systems for dealing with it are inadequate, in what sense does their actually being born change that logic? Clearly, after they're born, the systems are still inadequate.

So what's the difference, in your view, between a pre-born child and a just-born child if the primary reason for ending the life of the child in the pre-born child is the inadequacy of various systems, and this logic in unchanged when the child reaches just-born status? What happens in that "birth moment" that changes the logic?

Yes



You mean putting them down like we do with dogs? I would not be opposed to that.





who said anything about murdering babies?




They breath air would be most peoples answer. Honestly tho I have nothing against taking care of the problem at the birth moment if there was no knowledge of the down syndrome( or whatever health problem it is ) during the pregnancy, but it is discovered at birth.

Okay. As long as you're making your position clear that drug addicted babies are comparable to Down Syndrome babies and babies of people who fall below certain income thresholds.

I already said yes didn't I? There are plenty of other situations where abortion is the best option too. Don't just narrow it down to crack whores, poor people and down syndrome.

Yup. But I like to make people affirm when they are taking positions that are potentially open to misinterpretation.

Sure. If the parents are stupid, their children should be aborted, too. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Actually they shouldn't be allowed to have children. You should have to get a permit from the government to have children. This means before anyone is even pregnant.

But this is population control and a whole other discussion.