tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post6001994241311803164..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: A Puzzle about ProcreationJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-28198976834341683842011-10-10T11:16:14.023-05:002011-10-10T11:16:14.023-05:00OK--so it's reasonable to think there's su...OK--so it's reasonable to think there's such a thing as a conscientious non-contributor. She has no children precisely so others can have more. <br /><br />But I find Alan's evaluation odd--<br /><br />"if it is known that the average behaviour of the population is to overcontribute then higher credit accrues to under-contributors with maxim[um] credit for actually not Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-55500430277472824692011-10-10T06:49:54.770-05:002011-10-10T06:49:54.770-05:00Jean, I side with the later Alan. Isn't your m...Jean, I side with the later Alan. Isn't your million dollar example is different in at least two important ways from your procreation problem? One thing is that it's unlikely that anyone would be able to predict that a million and one dollars will be raised, whereas in the procreation case, it's most natural to assume that everyone knows (or could easily find out) that the group is Simon Ripponnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-19988967016684600342011-10-09T02:11:32.781-05:002011-10-09T02:11:32.781-05:00If Simon's interpretation of your ambiguous st...If Simon's interpretation of your ambiguous statement is what you intended, then my previous comment can be ignored.(I was assuming that you might have intended to assign an obligation or moral value to individual child-rearing other than for its contribution to maintaining constant total population)<br /><br />In either problem, if all we are talking about is an obligation to help the group Alan Cooperhttp://qpr.ca/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-9870937819751242782011-10-08T15:58:35.823-05:002011-10-08T15:58:35.823-05:00Another analogy ...
Suppose a group is trying to ...Another analogy ...<br /><br />Suppose a group is trying to raise a million dollars for charity. They'll save more and more lives, until they get to a million. If they get to a million and 1, some madman will shoot someone. They do raise a million and 1. Surely they deserve credit for getting to a million, and blame for getting to a million and 1. It's the same with a group having 2n+1Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-38224942885765161752011-10-08T13:25:25.042-05:002011-10-08T13:25:25.042-05:00Are you still suggesting there's some king of ...Are you still suggesting there's some king of obligation on each parent to create 2 children. I don't think that's the case. We have a *group* obligation and a failure of *the group* to do what it ought. The group is failing by creating too many children. The only parents who can't be said to contribute to that group failure in any sense are those with no children. Everyone else -Simon Ripponnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-91880744818896795442011-10-07T12:39:46.567-05:002011-10-07T12:39:46.567-05:00Simon, I think I buy all that, but think we need t...Simon, I think I buy all that, but think we need to add one important thing--we ought to abe assuming the group really needs to create 2n children, but needs to avoid >2n children. Children aren't a bad thing, like pollution, that we only want to set limits on. They're a good thing--we need "enough," but not too many. That means all the parents get credit for producing 2n,Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-16115644824626424072011-10-07T09:16:20.868-05:002011-10-07T09:16:20.868-05:00Along the lines of what squiggle said: the confusi...Along the lines of what squiggle said: the confusion arises here because when you say "people in Someland should have children" what you really mean to attribute is an obligation on the *group* of n people of Someland to have n x 2 children. That does not translate into an obligation on individuals to have 2 children each - it rather translates into an obligation on individuals to do Simon Ripponnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-59710534634372333122011-09-30T02:13:15.678-05:002011-09-30T02:13:15.678-05:00I would say that in your example the "should ...I would say that in your example the "should have two children" is not intrisically good, but only instrumental to the "sustain the global population" good. <br /><br />If the population could be sustained by other means (e.g. immigration from extraterrestrial colonies, cloning, ... ) the "have two children" would loose its validity. <br /><br />I think population əɣʋʀɦʑʖʦʩʎʈɼʑʧʕʦʭɲɦɤnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-32694534843484420552011-09-29T10:59:48.826-05:002011-09-29T10:59:48.826-05:00I think that the allegation of blamelessness of th...I think that the allegation of blamelessness of the childless is a result of confusing this hypothetical situation with the real one that it sounds like. If there is an absolute requirement for all to have at least one child (eg under the unrealistic assumption that childlessness of anyone would lead to degradation of the gene pool - or perhaps because the experience of parenting is considered Alan Cooperhttp://qpr.ca/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-88370833406261710372011-09-28T21:39:01.631-05:002011-09-28T21:39:01.631-05:00That sounds like a helpful way to think about it, ...That sounds like a helpful way to think about it, Wayne. I'm pretty sure .... will give it another think tomorrow!Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-67553799794607727712011-09-28T18:41:12.872-05:002011-09-28T18:41:12.872-05:00The unfair distribution of blame I think is the re...The unfair distribution of blame I think is the result of the universal/particular (U/P) ethic we're using. I.E. we're not being consistent.<br /><br />If we think that the three child Somelanders (3S) are blameworthy, its because of either U or P. If we think that the zero household somelander (0S) are blameworthy, its only because of U and not P. If we think they are 0S are good, Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-28896047652458617322011-09-28T16:32:04.337-05:002011-09-28T16:32:04.337-05:00Wayne, You've sort of addressed a different qu...Wayne, You've sort of addressed a different question: are the childless Somelanders bad, since they disobey the rule that everyone should have two children?<br /><br />My puzzle is: ONLY the childless Somelanders can defend themselves fully, yet it seems very odd to think they're the only good guys, since we're assuming it's true that Somelanders <i>should</i> keep reproducing.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-89162457976681052452011-09-28T15:12:21.359-05:002011-09-28T15:12:21.359-05:00The problem is between universal and situational e...The problem is between universal and situational ethics. We have intuitions on both sides.... That some ethical mandates are universal (all somelanders should have only 2 children, and that they all should have no less than 2 as well.). So in that universalization, the somelanders that don't have 2 children come out being morally bad (they're not following universal morality.)<br /><br Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.com