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
    The 'right to an open future' framework should be rejecte... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The 'right to an open future' framework should be rejected as the sole constraint on parental reproductive decisions.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Joel Feinberg's 'right to an open future' was designed to constrain state paternalism, not to serve as a comprehensive framework for parental reproductive ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reproductive autonomy, grounded in Millian liberty principles, constitutes an independent moral domain that cannot be fully subordinated to prospective children's future preferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A framework treating non-existent persons' hypothetical autonomy as lexically prior to existing persons' reproductive liberty generates paradoxes non-identity theory exposes as incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Communitarian thinkers like Michael Sandel argue that unconditional parental love requires accepting children as gifts rather than optimizing them, which the open future framework perversely undermines by making selection obligatory when futures can be widened.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The open future framework, applied exclusively, collapses into a disguised form of perfectionism that privileges one conception of the good—maximal autonomous choice—over legitimate pluralist conceptions of flourishing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Parents must be allowed to make reproductive decisions that serve their own interests, not only the child's interests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'right to an open future' framework disallows decisions made primarily for parental interests.
      ?

      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

    BioethicsRights & Liberty

    Related

    A framework treating non-existent persons' hypothetical autonomy as lexically pr...Communitarian thinkers like Michael Sandel argue that unconditional parental lov...Joel Feinberg's 'right to an open future' was designed to constrain state patern...Parents must be allowed to make reproductive decisions that serve their own inte...
    +3 moreShow less
    Reproductive autonomy, grounded in Millian liberty principles, constitutes an in...The 'right to an open future' framework disallows decisions made primarily for p...The open future framework, applied exclusively, collapses into a disguised form ...

    Similar

    The 'right to an open future' framework disallows decisions made prima...93%Constraints on parental reproductive decisions about trait selection c...78%Parents must be allowed to make reproductive decisions that serve thei...77%Increasing a child's real freedom is a permissible parental aim in rep...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: eugenics
    View source passageHide passage
    Constraints on parental reproductive decisions about what traits to choose can also be seen as conflicting with reproductive freedom and parental autonomy. For instance, Green (2007) rejects the “right to an open future” language in part because he thinks parents must be allowed to do things that are more for their own interests than for the sake of their children, even when doing so affects how the children develop. Following William Ruddick (2007), he thinks of parents as both guardians and ga
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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