Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A right to an open future is violated not only by restricting choices but by biologically instantiating preferences the child never endorsed.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
All parenting biologically instantiates preferences (nutrition, environment, genes); the claim cannot distinguish permissible from impermissible cases.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Children's futures depend on having *some* motivational structure; complete openness is neither possible nor desirable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Many endorsed preferences were never explicitly chosen; the distinction between biological instantiation and other causation is unclear.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Autonomy requires the ability to author one's own values; biological predetermination of preferences undermines this authorship.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Children cannot consent to permanent biological modifications that shape their identity, making such interventions paternalistic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The open future principle protects against foreclosure of meaningful life paths; engineered preferences narrow available meaningful paths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.