tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post5142190901472368563..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Handicapping ChildrenRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-31754521577270990272007-12-27T13:43:00.000-05:002007-12-27T13:43:00.000-05:00[I shifted that last comment to the democracy thre...[I shifted that last comment to the <A HREF="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/12/what-is-democracy.html" REL="nofollow">democracy thread</A>]Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-62747200091474655642007-12-27T13:34:00.000-05:002007-12-27T13:34:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-53282852168711622922007-12-27T13:26:00.000-05:002007-12-27T13:26:00.000-05:00regarding pelis point I guess the aditional opport...regarding pelis point I guess the aditional opportunities a deaf person has are ones a person with hearing could choose except where 'choosing them' is socially unaceptable or where a critical period (where one could learn the skill lets say) occured while the child was unable to make those choices.<BR/><BR/>Also as far as I can tell sign language appears to be significantly slowerand less rich than most spoken languages - dare I say inferior? (I think languages like cantonese are some of the best because you can say a lot quickly and clearly)Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-45734934185310151792007-12-27T11:42:00.000-05:002007-12-27T11:42:00.000-05:00Pretorius - you can read it as 'moral significance...Pretorius - you can read it as 'moral significance'. (I use 'normative' in relation to the all-things-considered <I>ought</I>. So the question is whether biological proper functioning is a norm that matters or has any more force than arbitrary "norms" like etiquette.)<BR/><BR/>Peli - I guess they would argue that there are also some possibilities (fully absorbing sign language, and being accepted in the deaf community, perhaps) that are only available to deaf children. Still, it does seem likely that they will have importantly <I>fewer</I> options, and this is lamentable.<BR/><BR/>Aaron - to keep the doing/allowing factors matched up, we'd need to modify your example so that the parents (i) knew that there was some chance (due to mutation, perhaps) that ordinary conception would lead to a child with echolocative abilities, and (ii) so they took special action to preselect an embryo that lacks such capacities. That seems just as wrong to me (all else equal, i.e. assuming that echolocation would be useful for a human being, and wouldn't lead to unbearable ostracism, etc.).Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-67538128844176582942007-12-27T11:06:00.000-05:002007-12-27T11:06:00.000-05:00I'm not sure what you mean by asking whether or no...I'm not sure what you mean by asking whether or not 'proper function' has normative significance. Isn't the normative significance roughly what we indicate by saying <I>proper</I> function? I take it, at least, that normative significance in this sort of context must just mean something like "capable of leading to some sort of evaluation" (probably relative to the kind in question). That is, we say that hearing is the proper function of ears/etc. because ears that do not do it are defective ears. Now, we could also say that it really doesn't matter much one way or another whether or not one's ears are excellent, normal, defective, etc. But that is just to say that the evaluations in question aren't particularly important (nothing much hangs on having good ears), not to say that they aren't there.MHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00573343122387060193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-8352108553278946292007-12-27T11:03:00.000-05:002007-12-27T11:03:00.000-05:00I'm very impressed by this comment chain. 3 comme...I'm very impressed by this comment chain. 3 comments and already all the points I wanted to add are there! Thanks guys!Michael Vassarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093368267892307038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-37026428842626414052007-12-27T05:01:00.000-05:002007-12-27T05:01:00.000-05:00How about the argument that non-deaf people have t...How about the argument that non-deaf people have the freedom to become deaf, while deaf people do not have the freedom to become non-deaf, and thus it's a shame to give your child less possibilities?Peli Grietzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338260572782761649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-7407613538198483072007-12-27T03:36:00.000-05:002007-12-27T03:36:00.000-05:00"Imagine, for example, an interracial couple in a ..."Imagine, for example, an interracial couple in a racist society." "Does that mean it is impermissible for the couple to intentionally bring it about"<BR/><BR/>I think that depends on<BR/>1) your moral system (which defines what is 'bad')<BR/>in this case there seems to be tension between having responsibility only to the child or to some sort theoretical good like "standing against racism"<BR/><BR/>2) your criteria for converting bad to impermissable (for example who is the theoretical actor 'not permitting' the action?)Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-58144042250383324352007-12-27T02:57:00.000-05:002007-12-27T02:57:00.000-05:00If we developed the technology to give children ec...If we developed the technology to give children echolocation (like a bat, done through genetic intervention) then would it become wrong for parents not to do so? People without this ability could be perceived as disadvantaged in the same way that deaf people are considered disadvantaged today. <BR/><BR/>I think this thought experiment demonstrates how the utility of hearing is socially promoted. <BR/><BR/>I suppose in the case of the 'nails down a blackboard noise world' it would be wrong to not protect your child from it in the way that it's wrong not to protect your child using certain barriers in the 'Harmful UV rays which cause cancer and pain' world (barriers being sunblock and sunglasses etc, of course). <BR/><BR/>We don't live in a world of horrible noise though, and we do live in a world with harmful UV rays. The point here is that we should interfere with our biology according to the circumstances. Our biology is not inherently right nor wrong. <BR/><BR/>So, in our world it is advantageous (from a safety point of view) to have hearing in the same way that it's advantageous to wear a bicycle helmet or a seatbelt. This is something, at least, in support of not allowing parents to make their children deaf (and also of not allowing parents to drive their children without a safety belt etc). <BR/><BR/>I doubt, however, that hearing is socially promoted for this reason. It is probably just socially promoted because it’s always been that way. From this perspective, being deaf should probably be considered no worse than having a certain skin colour or sexual orientation. A parent preselecting for these traits should probably not be condemned as these are pretty neutral characteristics. <BR/><BR/>So I suppose to summarise, as I said earlier it could maybe be considered irresponsible for parents to make their children deaf in the way that it's considered irresponsible to allow them to play in traffic, but it should otherwise be considered as neutral as hair colour or height.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com