Killing Babies

[Azash]

Now you're getting me confused ...
I thought Prince_Imrahil's teacher said this about already-born babies, not about fetuses. Am I wrong here ?

Ah, that explains it. I believe the mother's rights to killing the child end there; however, she must abide by local legislation as to how to handle the child after that.

 

[Pikachu]

No objective rational reason? What about the babies right to live?

Why does a human baby objectively have the right to live when a chicken does not? And when should this right to live start? And why does the right to live start just in that arbitrary moment you choose?

 

[Leonel]

Why does a human baby objectively have the right to live when a chicken does not? And when should this right to live start? And why does the right to live start just in that arbitrary moment you choose?

Then... why should you have the right to live?

 

[Bill3000]

No objective rational reason? What about the babies right to live?

What the hell is wrong with the people so far in this thread?

Human babies arn't sentient, sapient, or have a theory of mind - all of which are the primary principles for why humans are considered to be more valuable than other animals. Some animals are sentient, but we kill them or experiment on them in matters we would find objectable to humans anyway. We're holding a thing which has less of a level of justification for the protection of its dignity more valuable than one which has more or the same equal level of justification.

Thus, the argument goes, on these principles at least, that we should hold babies to the same standards as one with the same level of mindpower. "What the hell is wrong with people here" is an emotional response with no justification. There most likely is a rational justification, but it requires a more thorough analysis than "It's obvious why, and people who think otherwise are sick."

I'd suggest the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on this matter.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I have no qualms about sentient animals being killed. I only am against humans being killed.

 

[Pikachu]

Then... why should you have the right to live?

Because I want to have the right to live. If I did not have the right to live I would be pissed off. So not having that right would hurt me, and possibly quite a few other people who know me too.

A baby doesn’t know if it has the right to live or not, and consequently it can’t care. Therefore a baby objectively doesn’t need that right at all.

 

[ShannonCT]

Human babies arn't sentient, sapient, or have a theory of mind - all of which are the primary principles for why humans are considered to be more valuable than other animals. Some animals are sentient, but we kill them or experiment on them in matters we would find objectable to humans anyway. We're holding a thing which has less of a level of justification for the protection of its dignity more valuable than one which has more or the same equal level of justification.

Human babies are absolutely sentient. Please look up that word. Babies can receive input from their sense organs and respond to external stimuli. I don't have to mention the hundreds of ways you could test this. Human babies aren't as sapient as human adults, but there is no magic day when a human goes from being non-sapient to being sapient. It's a gradual process, and if you choose some cut off date before which it is legal to kill a baby, you are detroying some level of human sapience.

A baby doesn’t know if it has the right to live or not, and consequently it can’t care. Therefore a baby objectively doesn’t need that right at all.

A baby doesn't know that it needs to breathe air to live, and consequently can't care. Therefore, a baby doesn't objectively need to breathe air to live. Oh wait...

Just because a person doesn't know all of their rights doesn't mean violating that person's rights is not wrong or illegal.

 

[Swedishguy]

We should all do like Jonathan Swift says.

 

[Bill3000]

Human babies are absolutely sentient. Please look up that word. Babies can receive input from their sense organs and respond to external stimuli. I don't have to mention the hundreds of ways you could test this. Human babies aren't as sapient as human adults, but there is no magic day when a human goes from being non-sapient to being sapient. It's a gradual process, and if you choose some cut off date before which it is legal to kill a baby, you are detroying some level of human sapience.

*looks up the word*
Woops. Looks like I meant "self-aware." Replace "sentient" with "self-aware" - my point still stands, as there are some animal species which are self-aware.

 

[Leonel]

Because I want to have the right to live. If I did not have the right to live I would be pissed off. So not having that right would hurt me, and possibly quite a few other people who know me too.

A baby doesn’t know if it has the right to live or not, and consequently it can’t care. Therefore a baby objectively doesn’t need that right at all.

So... it's okay to kill babies?

 

[Elrohir]

I guess what this all boils down to is whether rights are inherently part of being human - whether humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - or whether rights are simply a concept that can be given, or taken away by society at will, and don't truly exist except when we all agree that they do.

Personally, I think this argument is repulsive, and I hope your philosophy teacher is merely trying to start a discussion on the inherency of rights. If he's serious, then you should quit his class, and he really isn't worth listening to. You're better off sitting under a tree, reading some Plato and Kant, and thinking for yourself than listening to that drivel.

 

[Bill3000]

I guess what this all boils down to is whether rights are inherently part of being human - whether humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - or whether rights are simply a concept that can be given, or taken away by society at will, and don't truly exist except when we all agree that they do.

False dichotomy. There are secular arguments for why there are human rights - I gave an example of one possible answer. There's also biological explanations. There is no problem for trying to find a rational basis in morality. As you say later, most likely it's to promote discussion. For the same reason why talking about why there are rather reasonable arguments for why necrophiliac beastiality is not inherently wrong. There's a difference betweeen a justification of a belief and being disgusted by a belief - and just because you're disgusted by something doesn't mean it's wrong - the argument does have merit.

 

[Elrohir]

False dichotomy. There are secular arguments for why there are human rights - I gave an example of one possible answer. There is no problem for trying to find a rational basis in morality. As you say later, most likely it's to promote discussion. For the same reason why talking about why there are rather reasonable arguments for why necrophiliac beastiality is not inherently wrong. There's a difference betweeen a justification of a belief and being disgusted by a belief - and just because you're disgusted by something doesn't mean it's wrong - the argument does have merit.

I don't recall stating that there are only religious arguments for human rights; you're inferring something that isn't there.

Again, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. If he really is trying to simply promote discussion and actual free though, then I would encourage the thread starter to listen to the arguments back and forth and think for himself. But his philosophy teacher is actually so deranged that he believes there is no moral problem with murdering babies, then I don't think it's likely that he'll learn anything useful in that class, and would be better off spending his time and money elsewhere. It's not a matter of running away from intellectual dialogue, it's a matter of not associating with so-called philosophers who advocate baby-killing.

 

[El_Machinae]

'Ro, the professor recommends against killing babies. Under his line of reasoning, it's inappropriate to do so.

He's certainly not advocating it.

 

[Elrohir]

'Ro, the professor recommends against killing babies. Under his line of reasoning, it's inappropriate to do so.

He's certainly not advocating it.

According to the OP, he's saying that it is "not wrong" to do so. Either something is morally justified, or it is not. Either it is not permissible to do something, and it is morally wrong, or it is permissible to do so, because it is morally right or morally neutral.

If it's not permissible, then it must be morally wrong, and should not be condoned in any way. If it is permissible, then it must either be morally right, in which case we should promote it, or morally neutral, in which case we should take no action whatsoever on the subject as a society.

Do you disagree? Where am I going wrong here?

 

[El_Machinae]

Just read the OP again: look for where he says people should kill babies and then look for where he says that people shouldn't.

He gives reasons stating that people shouldn't. This cannot mean that he advocates it.

 

[Elrohir]

Just read the OP again: look for where he says people should kill babies and then look for where he says that people shouldn't.

He gives reasons stating that people shouldn't. This cannot mean that he advocates it.

If he says it is not morally wrong to kill babies, then it must be permissible. See my post above, and then try to tell me where I'm getting this wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not a matter of running away from intellectual dialogue, it's a matter of not associating with so-called philosophers who advocate baby-killing.

I'm contending this statement

 

[Swiss_Mercenari]

About abortion: What if the woman who possesses the child does not have the ability to A) Take care of it, B) Live a healthy life with it, or what if she was raped and does not want the child. People should, in that manner, be able to determine what they feel is most beneficial for their own body. Anyway, when abortions occur, the fetus is nothing more that a mass of cells that only slighty resemble a human, and at that point they do not have memories, feelings or greater awareness, nor do they have developed eyes, legs, ears, arms, or organs.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

I guess what this all boils down to is whether rights are inherently part of being human - whether humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - or whether rights are simply a concept that can be given, or taken away by society at will, and don't truly exist except when we all agree that they do.

Personally, I think this argument is repulsive, and I hope your philosophy teacher is merely trying to start a discussion on the inherency of rights. If he's serious, then you should quit his class, and he really isn't worth listening to. You're better off sitting under a tree, reading some Plato and Kant, and thinking for yourself than listening to that drivel.

Actually it makes for some interesting debate in the class, and maybe thats what he is after, but I'm sure his position is that, yes, it is not 'wrong' to kill babies like it is to kill say you or me, but since people like you or we value babies, we shouldn't kill them, not for the babies sake, but for our sake.

This is fully in support of abortion at any and all stages, and so the argument goes, if you support such abortion, there is no reason that you should think infanticide is wrong, and again hes not trying to make us not support abortion, teach agrees with bill3000 here, and for the sake of debate, for those who dont, what are your reasons against?

(no hypothetical 'killing babies will undermine the species, or to some its right to some its wrong, what do you think and why?)

...to get my moneys worth i come here to get extra knowledge from you scholars you all....

If he says it is not morally wrong to kill babies, then it must be permissible. See my post above, and then try to tell me where I'm getting this wrong.

He says its not morally wrong, but not permissible because rational people who do have moral rights value babies and so killing a baby would affect these people who care about that baby that is killable.
Like art, its not 'wrong' to shred the mona lisa, but people value it or care about it so we should not shred it, but shredding it does make ruining a painting a 'moral' matter of wrongness.