Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Procreation is routinely more morally problematic than is... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Procreation is routinely more morally problematic than is generally recognized.

    Bioethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Procreation imposes harms on a future person without that person's consent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The harms imposed through procreation constitute a pure benefit case, not a harm-prevention case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We have serious moral qualms about harming someone without their consent to secure a pure benefit for them, even when the benefit outweighs the harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The non-identity problem (Parfit) shows that harmed-person language is incoherent when the 'harm' is constitutive of the person's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A life that is worth living cannot be a net harm to the person living it, since the only alternative for that specific individual is non-existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a coherent harmed subject, the consent-based objection to procreation loses its logical foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.John Robertson's procreative liberty framework holds that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental liberty interest grounded in bodily self-determination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating procreation as presumptively morally problematic inverts the proper burden of proof, which falls on those who would restrict fundamental liberties, not on those who exercise them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    BioethicsJustice & Punishment

    Related

    A life that is worth living cannot be a net harm to the person living it, since ...John Robertson's procreative liberty framework holds that reproductive autonomy ...Procreation imposes harms on a future person without that person's consent.The harms imposed through procreation constitute a pure benefit case, not a harm...
    +4 moreShow less
    The non-identity problem (Parfit) shows that harmed-person language is incoheren...Treating procreation as presumptively morally problematic inverts the proper bur...We have serious moral qualms about harming someone without their consent to secu...Without a coherent harmed subject, the consent-based objection to procreation lo...

    Similar

    Stigmatization is morally objectionable84%Abortion is morally wrong.82%Rights violations are not the only source of moral objections80%Suicide is morally impermissible79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: parenthood
    View source passageHide passage
    Feinberg (1992) compares situations like the Marie and Sri cases with cases in which someone is harmed in the course of being saved from a greater harm (e.g., his leg is broken while his life is being saved). In both cases an evil or harm is justified in virtue of the fact that it is a necessary condition of a greater good—in the one case saving a person’s life, in the other case bringing a life into existence. Shiffrin (1999), however, holds that harming someone to save them from a greater harm
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit