Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Yes, because you are giving birth to a person, and the person is independent of bad conditions. All the “good conditions” were created only because someone once gave birth to children in bad conditions and people overcame these conditions. It seems very unfair to me when many intellectuals exalt the role of the environment to absolute, and the role of the individual and his freedom of choice is reduced to zero. “No one is to blame” and” everyone is to blame ” at the same time.
Poverty does not bring all the difficulties, but a number of difficulties arise even under good conditions. For example, was it ethical for the Georgian-Soviet nomenclature to give birth to children who grew up as drug addicts-terrorists, hijacked a plane and killed people? The conditions are royal, and the result is as inhumane as possible. However, the very statement of such a question is absurd, because no one can foresee what will happen to people and what choices they will make. When you give birth to a person, you can't take away their freedom of choice: they can manage their life as they please, and they can even end it if they don't like it. Your ethical authority and responsibility does not extend to him.
To answer “no” to this question means to sign your impotence: they say, I am not able to create conditions for my child, I am helpless and useless for evolution, therefore, my kind should end on me.
It's unethical to let your child live in shit and make excuses for himself.
If humanity were to reproduce exclusively under favorable conditions, it would long ago cease to exist. Just like the rest of life on Earth. In this regard, nature does exactly the opposite: when conditions suddenly change for the worse, the rate of reproduction increases sharply, and in most species, the ratio of births by gender changes towards the male sex (the phenomenon of the war years).
Everything is relative. But most of all, ethics. �Who just does not climb into it without taking off their boots… https://www.proza.ru/2004/05/12-07
Giving birth to poor, hungry cannon fodder is a crime against your children.
But if you are Chinese, then even poor offspring can be (mostly) grateful. �I.e.-a fairly effective investment of capital. �For you personally.
Then follow the interests of your kind. Which may not care about the desire and well-being of its ordinary members.
And when it comes to the interests of tribes and entire nations…
If you really have a complete ass in finances and environment, then it's not very ethical. And if there is at least some money for maintenance and time, then perhaps the child will see that the mother is trying or the father, and will develop some kind of core (for example, he will want to help). He will see on a vivid example that in life he will have to work hard. That's how I see it
If you really have a complete ass in finances and environment, then it's not very ethical. And if there is at least some money for maintenance and time, then perhaps the child will see that the mother is trying or the father, and will develop some kind of core (for example, he will want to help). He will see on a vivid example that in life he will have to work hard. That's what I'm saying vee