What moral issues would surround bringing children into the confined and arguably dehumanizing environment of a multi-generational manned space flight to a hugely distant location where their childhood experience would be extremely restricted and their entire adult lives would involve nothing other than [1] continuing a mission they did not volunteer for and [2] procreating so as to produce the humans that would continue the mission after they die?
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by FMFI asked a similar question years ago when Korczak Ziolkowski left the Crazy Horse monument to be finished by his family. Luckily the family has continued on with the project he started, but what if they didn't want to. In the case you present the children do not have a choice. It could be argued that being alive is better than not existing at all provided one is in good health. It is a case where they are prisoners of the decisions their parents made. Is it moral to have children under these circumstances with the expectation that the children are necessary to complete the mission? I don't know.
What moral issues would surround bringing children into the confined and arguably dehumanizing environment of a multi-generational manned space flight to a hugely distant location where their childhood experience would be extremely restricted and their entire adult lives would involve nothing other than [1] continuing a mission they did not volunteer for and [2] procreating so as to produce the humans that would continue the mission after they die?
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by joe beyserI don't see how a will can force anyone to do anything they don't want to do other than to obey or not obstruct instructions to disburse of an estate in a certain way.
I asked a similar question years ago when Korczak Ziolkowski left the Crazy Horse monument to be finished by his family. Luckily the family has continued on with the project he started, but what if they didn't want to. In the case you present the children do not have a choice. It could be argued that being alive is better than not existing at all provided ...[text shortened]... nces with the expectation that the children are necessary to complete the mission? I don't know.
I suppose there could be a quid pro quo of sorts: finish a certain project or you don't get your share of the estate. But this is a bit of a digression.
Does the volunteering of their parents for the multi-generational manned space flight effectively and rightfully volunteer their offspring for it too?
If a woman gives birth in prison while sentenced to life without parole, is the baby also imprisoned until the mother dies if that is the wish of the mother?
Or is this analogy flawed in its relevance to the OP?
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by FMFIt is flawed, because the space children have no way out, but a mother can not keep a child locked up with her in prison.
I don't see how a will can force anyone to do anything they don't want to do other than to obey or not obstruct instructions to disburse of an estate in a certain way.
I suppose there could be a quid pro quo of sorts: finish a certain project or you don't get your share of the estate. But this is a bit of a digression.
Does the volunteering of their pare ...[text shortened]... dies if that is the wish of the mother?
Or is this analogy flawed in its relevance to the OP?
The volunteering of the parents of the space kids does volunteer the children because of physical constraints that nobody can change.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by joe beyserI expressed myself badly. What I meant was could it be argued that it would be acceptable if she had a right to keep her offspring with her in gaol until she dies? I think not.
It is flawed, because the space children have no way out, but a mother can not keep a child locked up with her in prison.
But isn't there a hypothetical parallel between her decision (to commit crime) > her confinement > the fate of her child, on one hand, and the decision of space travellers (to volunteer to lead an abnormal life) > their confinement > the fate of her child, on the other?
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by joe beyserI could see how such a right might be argued as long as the child could leave the confinement once they passed a certain age and their parents were no longer their legal guardians (I don't know if that's the exactly right terminology ~ I mean 'as long as they were deemed to be children and their parents had the right to tell them what to do).
The volunteering of the parents of the space kids does volunteer the children because of physical constraints that nobody can change.
But if there are abnormal 'physical constraints that nobody can change' and it is known for certain that those constraints will still be there when the child reaches the age at which they ~ as humans ~ have the human right to self determination and freedom of movement, could it be argued that bringing such offspring into the world was not morally sound?
Originally posted by wolfgang59In a sense, yes, I suppose ~ and, yes, your question is a rather neatly jaundiced and provocative philosophical poser.
In a sense isn't that what we are all doing?
But I think the socialization, opportunities, and flexibility that I have had ~ and that billions of non-incarcerated people the world over have had ~ is so utterly different from the circumstances described in the OP (which amount to lifelong incarceration and forced labour), that I think a genuine case can be made that there are moral issues surrounding procreation in a spacecraft with no destination (in your lifetime at least).
These are issues that did not surround bringing me into this world, by which I mean down here on planet earth where I have enjoyed and exercised freedoms and options that would not exist in an environment akin to a maximum security gaol whilst serving life without parole..
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by FMFI would imagine the freedoms and opportunities aboard a generational space-craft
In a sense, yes, I suppose ~ and, yes, your question is a rather neatly jaundiced and provocative philosophical poser.
But I think the socialization, opportunities, and flexibility that I have had ~ and that billions of non-incarcerated people the world over have had ~ is so utterly different from the circumstances described in the OP (which amount to lifelon ...[text shortened]... not exist in an environment akin to a maximum security gaol whilst serving life without parole..
would be far in excess of what most of mankind has had throughout history.
Sure it's a selfish act procreating to fulfil your own dream without any choice for
your children ... but is it much different to poor people having children and subjecting
them to another lifetime of poverty?
btw: when is the sci-fi novel being published? 😉
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well I think you have a point about how ill-advised it might be economically speaking for some people in dire poverty to have too many children (or even any, for that matter) but, then again, [1] people do raise themselves out of poverty, [2] children - when they grow up - can help to relieve the poverty of their families, or they have the choice of doing that or not, [3] the conditions in which people in poverty live can also vary widely and improve even if their designation as being "in poverty" (which is relative to national wealth data) remains.
Sure it's a selfish act procreating to fulfil your own dream without any choice for your children ... but is it much different to poor people having children and subjecting them to another lifetime of poverty?
Young people in poverty at least have the potential to change their circumstances, live in a different place, associate with different people, and get away from their relatives and parents (if necessary) which are options not available to a young adult born in a spaceship with no destination (at least for generations to come).
But I accept you have a point and that certain degrees of poverty in certain circumstances might be analogous with incarceration and the realities of their employment opportunities might be analogous with forced labour.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by FMFYes there is a parallel almost. If a woman commits a crime and gets locked up then yes she made a decision that will effect the child possibly for life, but the child still has freedom and choice about other things in life. The spaceship scenario doesn't give the child choice at all.
I expressed myself badly. What I meant was could it be argued that it would be acceptable if she had a right to keep her offspring with her in gaol until she dies? I think not.
But isn't there a hypothetical parallel between her decision (to commit crime) > her confinement > the fate of her child, on one hand, and the decision of space travellers (to volunteer to lead an abnormal life) > their confinement > the fate of her child, on the other?
01 Feb 16
A child that does not know any different may be perfectly happy with a life aboard a spaceship. What seems to someone that has experienced waterfalls, flowers in a field, riding a bicycle etc… would probably be a different outlook by someone that hasn't experienced an earthly life. Would the viewpoint change any moral considerations as well?
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59Nice point.
What about the children of the astronauts who turned down their place on the ship?
Subjected to an Earth-bound existence with no choice in the matter.
Knowing that if it wasn't for their parent's change of mind they could be out there with the stars ...
