posted on July 06, 2018 08:54 PM by
u/EliezerHarris
7
u/Hailanathema4 pointsat 1530917690.000000
I haven’t read the whole thing, but isn’t the obvious utilitarian
argument against abortion the repugnant
conclusion? As long as the utility of an unborn child of living is
higher than the harm caused to parents/society by their being born, it’s
morally obligatory to have children. Seems simple.
If effective altruists want to be known as half-wit philosophers who follow their reasoning off a cliff then sure, they’re free to commit themselves to the repugnant conclusion as well as diverting all the money they can away from malaria nets and toward “AI safety.” If they want to be known as successful social engineers who have saved millions of lives by informing givers how to more efficiently allocate their resources, they should probably steer clear from those directions.
I haven’t read the whole thing, but isn’t the obvious utilitarian argument against abortion the repugnant conclusion? As long as the utility of an unborn child of living is higher than the harm caused to parents/society by their being born, it’s morally obligatory to have children. Seems simple.
Did you know that anybody is allowed to make a post on the internet? Other people don’t even have to generally agree with them!