Political Compass #31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.

[SentientMeat]

Well, perv (if I may be so familiar!), it appears that we are now full square in the debate I suggested was peripheral, which is when embyonic screening is appropriate and what carrots or sticks might be used to encourage the seriously disabled to use it. I had hoped to keep these threads focussed on each specific proposition alone, explore the various positions in order to consider which responses might indicate which final scores, and move on, but if you think it demonstrates some important principle I’m prepared to carry on.

It seems like you are saying that since preventing known risk factors will not elliminate the risk, that addressing the risk factors is discriminatory.

The discriminatory nature manifests as, like I said in the OP, targetting only those with the condition itself rather than all of those carrying the genes which produced it. It is this ‘double jeopardy’ I am concerned with: assessing risk factors is perfectly acceptable so long as nobody is being unfairly picked on while others with similar or even higher risk go unassessed.

How would you prevent this couple from simply going off and reporducing at will?

I would not. I would offer vastly more carrot than stick. In fact, the only stick I’m willing to introduce is mandating an appointment with a medical professional to talk through the options and make those risks crystal clear. Should they go against all advice, well, their call.

I think this part of the discussion is more appropriate in the recent thread Is morality a human construct? where I set out my stall rather more rigorously, but I’ll continue here if necesssary.

it is quite possible to imagine a particular psyche which would be so upset by paying high taxes that they might pass your suffering threshold. You suggested that this means they need psycological help.

The level of suffering I suggest necessitates psychological help: it would be characterised not by a feeling of annoyance, peevishness or mild upset but by clinically diagnosable stress and depression. This is what I call suffering.

Do you have any proof of this?

I have evidence of specific brain activity associated with stress and depression.

Suffereing is not useless in forming a complete moral system. It is, however, useless as a starting point.

Well, I am suggesting it is a ‘bottom line’ and that a good starting point for agreeing the worst when exploring the question “what is the good?”.

let me say that you are very very consistent indeed. You are also very brave, erudite, and well spoken about these beliefs.

Many thanks, friend. Complements such as those are no less brave.

I understand entirly your desire to put suffering near the top of any moral system. I agree. I simply think it cannot go above certain other imperitives. Liberty and justice among them.

Of course, I find those entities (which I note are an altogether more slippery kettle of fish to define and measure in comparison to ‘suffering’) important also. But I feel that even they can be accomodated into a general ‘suffering level’, it clearly being perfectly possible to suffer because of a totalitarian and unjust tyranny. We must balance the ‘liberty’ of eg. paying less tax against the ‘suffering’ caused by eg. the consequences of removing (or at least cutting large holes in) the social safety net. I personally find it difficult to look upon what I consider genuine human suffering if I think it somehow feasibly preventable.

[pervert]

@SentientMeat

Well, perv (if I may be so familiar!),

Of course, if you don’t mind if I think of myself as pervect?

The discriminatory nature manifests as, like I said in the OP, targetting only those with the condition itself rather than all of those carrying the genes which produced it. It is this ‘double jeopardy’ I am concerned with: assessing risk factors is perfectly acceptable so long as nobody is being unfairly picked on while others with similar or even higher risk go unassessed.

Ooooooooh. That’s different. I misread the question. I took the phrase “with inheritable disability” to mean “with the ability to pass on a disability”. I see now, you are concerned that a person could have the genes, but not have developed the symptoms. I agree with you entirely. I think this may end our discussion, because it completely invalidates some of what I said. Let’s see how the rest fares.

In fact, the only stick I’m willing to introduce is mandating an appointment with a medical professional to talk through the options and make those risks crystal clear. Should they go against all advice, well, their call.

Ok, but how do you enforce even this stick? Right now a couple can mate and reproduce without any such consultation. I don’t mean they can legally, I mean that they have the physical ability. How would you alter this?

I think this part of the discussion is more appropriate in the recent thread Is morality a human construct? where I set out my stall rather more rigorously, but I’ll continue here if necesssary.

It is not necessary at all. You are the OP and I am quite willing to defer to your wishes in this thread. I admire very much your willingness to put these threads together. I recognize that I tend to hijack threads. I will refrain from doing so here in deference to your contribution in managing these threads. I’ll post a response to that thread instead. I had not noticed your response there. My appologies. And thanks for those links.