b

If we just look at this one post, perhaps. But as someone who has read Leo’s blog for quite some time now (even before it had this sexy web design), I feel he is a very deep thinker.

@Stephen, I didn’t know that about British and “Asians.” That’s interesting…

And by the way this seems to me to be the rationale behind the different legal treatment for “mentally impaired” people when they commit a crime. They could not properly foresee the results of their actions.

>>Myself, your example of the door handle is a good one, except for the fact that the unforeseen explosion was not a “normal” consequence of opening a door. The original cause was the placing of the bomb, the opening of the door was the trigger.

Thank you both for taking the time and effort to be more clear in your posts.

“Other suffering, created by human intent, does have a moral quality”: yes, moral considerations are relevant only for human actions. As you said that candle is not evil if it burns you (and for the time being let’s not get into discussions about free will and moral responsibility).

Let me add that we are responsible for the suffering we cause if we know that our actions will result in somebody’s harm, even if we do not wish to cause pain (for example if pain is an unavoidable consequence the subject accepts for some “higher good”, for example, on the “nice” side a dentist removing a tooth of a willing and paying patient, on the “evil”, an inquisitor burning the heretic to free his soul).

“Yet we are also responsible for the unforeseen consequences”: I disagree. If somebody connects a bomb trigger to a door handle, and by opening the door you unwillingly and unknowingly cause the death of somebody, I don’t think that you are morally (or even legally) responsible for such result.

“if they actually kill said children”, of course we agree in the case of direct action, but I think that we disagree on the core issue of “unavoidable and undesired consequences”. I see this as a straightforward logical link.

if a) “life => suffering” and b) “person A => life” I derive “person A => suffering”. Since the suffering is a foreseeable consequence person A is morally responsible for it.

“these particular children are not suffering from malnutrition”: absolutely, they look like a happy family to me. Of course if you have a kid knowing that he/she will die of malnutrition you are even more responsible for his/her suffering.

“Humans are equipped to have children and should do so, in furtherance of the goal of perpetuating the species.”. I’m happy we mostly agree on the “suffering” part. I have to disagree with the statement here quoted. I adhere to Popper’s distinction between “norms” (your “should”) and “facts” (your “are”). Facts (we have the “biological imperative” to reproduce) can never be a moral justification for our choices. Evolution gave us the ability, both manual and intellectual, to commit horrible crimes, and our violent abilities derive from the “imperative” to defend ourselves, our clans, our nations (and the genes we carry). As the short formula goes “might is not right”. There is no escape. We are responsible for what we chose (of course I avoid discussing about what is “right” and what is not, that’s a totally different issue).

As I said, life can be beautiful, and life can be horrible. Most likely our life will have some of both components. This doesn’t mean that life is not worth living, but that’s a very personal conclusion that everybody should draw for themselves. Having kids is making such a decision for somebody else.

Life has butterflies and sunsets but also cancers and earthquakes. I find dishonest painting only half of the picture, and I find it offensive with regards to those that actually have less fortunate lives. Life is a (hopefully beautiful and meaningful) drama, and creating a life is a dramatic decision.

Looking forward to your reply.