Is it wrong to bring a "bad" life into existence?

[Rhino......................]

Killing someone, on the other hand, brings them into nonexistence, which cannot logically be considered harm.

What about all the trauma the expecting couple goes through when they're forced to abort their mutant baby?

[Larry Flyntz]

In that case, we must weigh the harms. A lifetime of pain and suffering is much worse than the time spent agonizing over whether or not one should abort. If a couple decides not to abort a deformed child, I think they are being extremely selfish, and are in violation of a fundamental moral law: don't harm others.

[Rhino......................]

Okay, but what if that same couple then raised their child lovingly and did everything they could to help find a cure for the child's yet unnamed unlivable condition. Even if they never found a cure, would wanting to care for and love their child unconditionally for its entire life really be selfish? I think you're underestimating the kind of love and commitment that amount of care would take and overestimating the importance of protecting children from the harms of the world.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of parents aborting their child for any of the reasons you're suggesting; I think in some cases it would probably be the best thing to do. I just have a problem with generalizing something so infinitely complicated as a human life into hypothetical terms like "good" and "bad." One of my biggest problems with the Pro-Life movement is its followers' tendency to bash abortion patients for what they've done. For me, calling a mother "extremely selfish" or "in violation of a fundamental moral law" for not aborting her baby, because in her view that would be the wrong choice, would be in the same ballpark as calling her a "murderer" or "baby killer" for doing just the opposite. Life isn't as black and white as our lawmakers often wish it were. There's no flat out answer to this problem, at least not yet. But if you want to talk numbers, mandating that all mutant babies be born and donated to medical science for experimentation would probably one day lead to a cure to whatever mystery condition they have. Afterward, there would be an exponential increase in "good," because no one would have to be born with mutantitis anymore. Do I find this idea morally questionable? Fucking absolutely. But if we're going to start measuring our choices by a systematic measurement of fluctuations in what one individual perceives as "good" and "bad," we need to start thinking this way.

[Larry Flyntz]

Yes, being a devoted, loving parent is still selfish in this case. Yes, they're putting forth an effort to help the child, and that's great, but why wouldn't they have aborted the child instead? Because they really wanted a kid? They're being selfless once the kid is in existence, but the act of bringing him into existence is the selfish (and morally questionable) act.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

I'm sorry. I think a lot of us are having issues with your argument because we don't have access to your special, byzantine formula for determining harm and not harm. Does anyone else find that to be the case? It's just that, when I beat someone to death with a hammer, I feel like I have caused them harm. Also, it seems that you automatically assume that nonexistence is better than a non-detrimental life for society. I think I might be having trouble agreeing with this basic assessment of existence. A person with a mental or physical disability does not necessarily cause harm to society, which seems to be the way you are defining bad.

[Larry Flyntz]

That's not at all the way I'm defining bad, or at least not the way I mean to define bad. The reason I think handicapped babies shouldn't be brought into existence is not because they will harm society, but because their handicap will cause harm to themselves.

In your example of murder by hammer, harm is caused while the person is alive. The act of beating someone with anything harms him or her. But, once he passes out of existence, harm ceases. I understand that it "feels like" harm is being done by killing someone, but how can we really call that harm? I don't see why my "formula" is so difficult to understand. All it asks is "was there a drop-off of good?" If so, harm is done. If not, harm is not done.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

In your example of murder by hammer, harm is caused while the person is alive. The act of beating someone with anything harms him or her. But, once he passes out of existence, harm ceases. I understand that it "feels like" harm is being done by killing someone, but how can we really call that harm?

So when I shoot someone in the head, I cause no harm?

I don't see why my "formula" is so difficult to understand. All it asks is "was there a drop-off of good?" If so, harm is done. If not, harm is not done.

I think you hit the nail on the head. What does "drop-off in good" mean? How are you determining that there is a "drop-off in good?" If someone aborts the baby that may have a defect is there a rise in good? What units are you measuring good in?

[Larry Flyntz]

Yes, an instantaneous murder causes no harm to the victim. I'm open to other understandings of harm, though. I mean, I'll readily admit that my conception of harm and killing is pretty questionable. I just want to know where it goes wrong.

I'm determining the "drop-off" by looking at and comparing Time 1 and Time 2. If the latter is noticeably worse, then harm is done. You don't need "units" to measure good. I mean, if you punch me in the face, I think we can safely say that I had a drop-off in good without bringing any units into play.

Aborting a deformed fetus does not create a rise in good, but it does prevent future harm.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Yes, an instantaneous murder causes no harm to the victim. I'm open to other understandings of harm, though. I mean, I'll readily admit that my conception of harm and killing is pretty questionable. I just want to know where it goes wrong.

You are placing society completely over individual. Do I really need to delve WAY into the hypothetical purely moral bullshit to demonstrate why that's bad? You really don't see why it is bad to kill a person even though no one will miss them? You really think that nonexistence and existence are equal states for a person to be in? Cause look man, I'll tell you why these things aren't true. It'll be long, boring paragraphs that involve really weird examples that have no bearing in reality and are all hypothetical, breaking morales down to their bear bones, but I'll do it. But can't we just use common sense on this one?

[Larry Flyntz]

I never said nonexistence and existence are equal. I said nonexistence is immeasurable. Something that is immeasurable cannot be equal to anything else just as it cannot be better or worse than anything else. It is simply incomprehensible and it cannot logically be compared to anything else.

I just want to know how killing someone harms him or her. Yes, common sense tells us that killing someone causes harm, but how? So yes, please explain. I'm happy to read as many paragraphs as you can write, because I find this stuff pretty interesting. I think our morals should be able to be backed up by arguments, and not just "that's just how it is!"

[WWW.SETH.COM]

I just want to know how killing someone harms him or her. Yes, common sense tells us that killing someone causes harm, but how? So yes, please explain.

Well, you seem to be defining harm as the destruction of good, or the ability to do good. Wouldn't killing someone effectively remove their ability to do good? Not just good for the society, but also good in the form of self-improvement or self-benefit?

[oatmeal fetish....]

I just want to know how killing someone harms him or her.

By killing someone you are transferring them from a state of existence to nonexistence against their will. It is therein that the immorality is derived. You are forcibly imposing your will on someone else's, by eliminating not only the potential for everything they may have done in their lives but also their right to the pursuit of happiness. It is not neccessarily that you are placing them in a negative state (and off the record, I'm still quite comfortable calling nonexistence a negative state for a person to be in and I'm not sure why you are having such a problem with that), but removing them from a positive state, wherein they are able to experience all of the emotions, sensations, and feelings which existence in the world affords.

For a silly analogy, imagine there is a giant mansion which you live in, containing thousands and thousands of rooms full of things that offer every sensation you could feel in your life (this quite a magical mansion you see). You could never explore it fully or see the inside of every room, but almost all of them are open to you. You don't know what is outside of the mansion. It could be heaven, it could be hell, or it could be absolutely nothing. If I come along and forcibly remove you from your mansion, I have closed the doors of every room. I have stolen from you literally everything thing which could ever have been yours (and indeed, assuming you own possessions, everything that is yours). I have deprived you of a nearly infinite amount of things which would have otherwise been yours, many of which you not only wanted but would have attained, and which you would have had a right to. I have done wrong to you. I have harmed you.     

[Larry Flyntz]

I'm having a problem calling nonexistence a negative state because in order for us to consider something negative, we must be able to experience the negativity (either in reality or in our imagination). Nonexistence is not even something we can imagine, because there is no "we" in nonexistence. Nonexistence is not something we can experience because there is no us to experience it. I just don't see how this can be negative.

Your analogy requires the belief that nonexistence is negative. In your analogy, I would be able to experience the harm you have done to me. At T2, I will exist and will be able to say "the position I am in now is worse than the position I was in before." If you kill me, though, I will become nonexistant, which is neither negative or positive. I understand what you're trying to say: removal from the magic mansion is like killing someone because you are removing possible futures, and this causes harm. However, harm requires the "victim" to exist in order to experience the harm since we cannot reasonably say that nonexistence is bad (although, I'd like to see your argument for why it is).