Again, thank you for the responses. There is a dialogue with several people here so I will try to address some things briefly in this one post.
Regarding Evie and the accusation of an ad hominem. I did perceive, not that it matters, that your comment was rather dismissive in the sense that you were alluding I was holding my position because of my depression. I'll grant you did not outright state that and I very well might have blurred in the lines. I don't think mental illness is an insult and I didn't perceive it that way. I also don't think being accused of a logical fallacy is an insult as they are prone to happen.
Regarding 'Social Darwinism'. I don't think I would uphold Social Darwinism or Spencerian thought precisely, but I would be closer to it than not and I don't want to be. That is, I believe certain things are correct even though I don't necessarily like them. Rob, you did mention that having children is a great responsibility and there is no test required for permission. I have also had this thought. I have to pay fines and take tests to drive a car, but I have no restrictions regarding my reproductive rights. The damage I can cause, the suffering I can create, with my genitals is far more severe than that which I can cause with a car. I would agree with Rhythm, if I understand correctly, that a distinction about the 'ideal' type is subjective and any restriction would be arbitrary. So I don't believe that anyone should be put to death or that rights should be taken away, but I do believe it's valid for individuals who all subjectively dislike pain and suffering to discourage the reproduction of individuals with severe mental or physical illnesses.
Also, I would like to reiterate I have never claimed to 'help' evolution or to know where it is headed. My position is in relation to passing down predispositions for tremendous illnesses mental and physical.
Specifically regarding Rhythm's comments- I'm not exactly sure how evolution wouldn't have a role to play in what I am saying. If individuals are blank slates, then by all means have a picnic. Knowing that they are not but instead carry genetic information passed down through the replication of DNA, a whole other matter arises. My predispositions for illnesses which cause tremendous suffering I have inherited because of the evolutionary process; because of my ancestors who have survived and passed on their DNA. If that follows, then we, the future ancestors of our descendants, have a direct hand in shaping the kind of humans who will continue. If, hypothetically, those with severe predispositions to illnesses mental and physical did not reproduce but instead those with higher levels of health or tolerance did, how would it not follow that future generations would more likely be happier and healthier?
A lesser point, I think I have been very vocal about my opinions being subjective and only valid to myself. If value is subjective, a position I hope you can refute me on, then my suffering and opinion IS extremely relevant as it is relevant to me and I am the origin of value in my experience. If what I think regarding value is not relevant and value does not originate objectively outside myself, what on earth is value?
Regarding Evie and the accusation of an ad hominem. I did perceive, not that it matters, that your comment was rather dismissive in the sense that you were alluding I was holding my position because of my depression. I'll grant you did not outright state that and I very well might have blurred in the lines. I don't think mental illness is an insult and I didn't perceive it that way. I also don't think being accused of a logical fallacy is an insult as they are prone to happen.
Regarding 'Social Darwinism'. I don't think I would uphold Social Darwinism or Spencerian thought precisely, but I would be closer to it than not and I don't want to be. That is, I believe certain things are correct even though I don't necessarily like them. Rob, you did mention that having children is a great responsibility and there is no test required for permission. I have also had this thought. I have to pay fines and take tests to drive a car, but I have no restrictions regarding my reproductive rights. The damage I can cause, the suffering I can create, with my genitals is far more severe than that which I can cause with a car. I would agree with Rhythm, if I understand correctly, that a distinction about the 'ideal' type is subjective and any restriction would be arbitrary. So I don't believe that anyone should be put to death or that rights should be taken away, but I do believe it's valid for individuals who all subjectively dislike pain and suffering to discourage the reproduction of individuals with severe mental or physical illnesses.
Also, I would like to reiterate I have never claimed to 'help' evolution or to know where it is headed. My position is in relation to passing down predispositions for tremendous illnesses mental and physical.
Specifically regarding Rhythm's comments- I'm not exactly sure how evolution wouldn't have a role to play in what I am saying. If individuals are blank slates, then by all means have a picnic. Knowing that they are not but instead carry genetic information passed down through the replication of DNA, a whole other matter arises. My predispositions for illnesses which cause tremendous suffering I have inherited because of the evolutionary process; because of my ancestors who have survived and passed on their DNA. If that follows, then we, the future ancestors of our descendants, have a direct hand in shaping the kind of humans who will continue. If, hypothetically, those with severe predispositions to illnesses mental and physical did not reproduce but instead those with higher levels of health or tolerance did, how would it not follow that future generations would more likely be happier and healthier?
A lesser point, I think I have been very vocal about my opinions being subjective and only valid to myself. If value is subjective, a position I hope you can refute me on, then my suffering and opinion IS extremely relevant as it is relevant to me and I am the origin of value in my experience. If what I think regarding value is not relevant and value does not originate objectively outside myself, what on earth is value?
