tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1507242165120640932.post7469535419504809002..comments2023-05-05T14:09:49.745+01:00Comments on From Oedipus to Samuel L. Jackson's Wallet: In defense of crazy people.TheTelfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10726790253029374308noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1507242165120640932.post-34623505433096331762008-03-25T22:22:00.000+00:002008-03-25T22:22:00.000+00:00In terms of 'clear cut' arguments, I think she was...In terms of 'clear cut' arguments, I think she was saying that she could see no reason to bring a new child into the world rather than adopting, and that she didn't find any of the most common arguments convincing on that front.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure most definitions of selfishness would centre around the same kind of thing that you suggest, but the differences come in where people draw their lines. Is it selfish to do something that benefits yourself a lot and someone else a little? Is anything short of total selflessness selfish, or is there a grey area in which we can still do things for ourselves without being selfish?<BR/><BR/>On the adoption issue, is there really any difference between bringing up a child that is biologically yours and one that is not? (taking adoption to be the more basic, less common, adoption-from-birth, rather than adopting older kids). I'm not trying to press the point, I'm genuinely interested in finding ways to express the 'non-quantifiable' differences.TheTelfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10726790253029374308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1507242165120640932.post-25489956536142436932008-03-21T13:21:00.000+00:002008-03-21T13:21:00.000+00:00If they're not meant to be clear cut etc. how can ...If they're not meant to be clear cut etc. how can she conclude that there is no way (that she can think of) that you can have an "ethical baby". this requires clear cut evidence.<BR/><BR/>To me selfishness comes down to putting yourself first above anything else, and surely that is a relatively standard interpretation.<BR/><BR/>My suggestions are cliché and already being implemented, but by an incredibly small proportion of people, it is possible that the author doesn't hold to all the standard ones (but obviously I can't say) so to suggest that having a baby is a sensible way to change things does seem a little hypocritical and over the top.<BR/><BR/>As I said this works more on a case by case thing, if you're thinking of having a kid because you want to be seen as a parent or get benefits or some other stupid reason then you should probably consider the impact on the environment, but then if your thinking is so obtuse as to have a kid for fiscal reasons then you're unlikely to think further than your own issues.<BR/><BR/>One could also say that the billions of people on the earth that exist, removing a very small percentage wont help, but then this can be said for many things that help the environment and is really a silly way of thinking (not sure why I've put this, alternative view maybe?)<BR/><BR/>As I said adoption isn't the same as having your own kid, and personally (be it selfish or not) I don't think I'd adopt as it's just not what I'd want to do. Screw continuing my genes or name or whatever, I really couldn't care less, it's something much deeper than that and not quantifiable. This isn't to say that I wouldn't consider it at all, but I'm not sure if I'd be up to the challenges which come with adoption, but maybe I'm being naive and/or selfish, who knows?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17081411660511251908noreply@blogger.com