Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 19:48:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
486 times
|
| |
|
|
In my last post, news:G5xxB1.3tv@lugnet.com..., I wrote the following:
> > > > >
This is also the bridge connecting parents to their children - another
aspect of "social relationships". Why do parents raise their children
rather than the state? Or, why could the state not take one couple's
children and assign them to another couple, if the latter was better
educated, wealthier, etc.? I haven't really explored this line of argument,
but I'm wondering if the reproductive connection between parents and
children doesn't speak to the a priori moral connection between them. At
least one philosopher has suggested that our culture, if homosexual
"marriage" (note that such isn't possible *by definition* in my view, but
this point is never brought up in popular culture) was accepted as
equivalent to heterosexual marriage, could begin to see heterosexual couples
as no more worthy of their children than any other couple (or perhaps,
coalition of persons - say, Mrs. Clinton's "village"). Denial of the
procreative aspects linking husband to wife to children (underlying the
uniqueness of heterosexual marriage) might lead to the idea that it's odd
and unfair for heterosexuals to have children, and homosexual couples (or
other arrangements) not to have them, not unlike feminists who argue that it
is unfair that women have to bear children, but not men, and therefore
certain things follow from that in our society.
I'm not saying that I could defend this view (at this point, anyway), nor am
I saying that homosexuals are evil people and would want to take away our
children - I don't believe that, either. But if there is some merit to the
_logic_ of the argument, it could have an effect on how people think over
the long term (say, generations), until the a priori moral connection
between parents and children is almost entirely gone. I'd be interested in
feedback and counterarguments on this point.
<<<<<
I was searching for "prima facie" but was blanking for some reason, and all
I could come up with was "a priori". I meant to say that there is a _prima
facie_ moral connection between parents and children.
Sorry for any confusion.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In response to "Dave Low" <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> in message news:G5xHH6.6GH@lugnet.com... (...) Dave, Your participation is no interruption at all; it's a welcome addition to the discussion. I understand your objection and would say that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
