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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The 'right to an open future' framework should be rejected as the sole constraint on parental reproductive decisions.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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