Debate Guide: If we could only save one child: Difference between revisions
(New page: :''"If this drastic action only saves one child, we will know that it has been worthwhile"''. How can this be so, when there are so many adverse effects of...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
:''"If this drastic action only saves one child, we will know that it has been worthwhile"''. | '''Negative utilitarianism:''' | ||
<hr> | |||
:''"If this drastic action only saves one child, we will know that it has been worthwhile"'' | |||
:''"The best assumption is that children are often hurt by sexual situations. We must apply the "precautionary principle"".''. | |||
<hr> | |||
What about the many documented [[Adverse effects of hysteria|adverse effects]] of this moral/policy scheme? | |||
Your [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes|assumption of harm is flawed]], but let's first your argument. I would like to ask you how ''any'' harm has an absolute quality which overrides all benefit. Could you not oppose virtually anything with this "negative utilitarian" argument? For example, cycling on a highway, travelling for holidays or even contact sports? | |||
Let's apply a more realistic principle. A missed benefit is ''just as bad'' as a burden of harm when one assumes they are of equal and opposing magnitudes. These benefits include not only missed positive sexual experiences but missed learning experiences which may or may not be perceived as positive at the time. Many beauty spots must be accessed via a bumpy road; and as we accept in most other areas, life is not about avoiding all harm and ignoring the rewards our adventures may bare. | |||
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]] | [[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]] | ||
Revision as of 00:34, 9 November 2021
Negative utilitarianism:
- "If this drastic action only saves one child, we will know that it has been worthwhile"
- "The best assumption is that children are often hurt by sexual situations. We must apply the "precautionary principle""..
What about the many documented adverse effects of this moral/policy scheme?
Your assumption of harm is flawed, but let's first your argument. I would like to ask you how any harm has an absolute quality which overrides all benefit. Could you not oppose virtually anything with this "negative utilitarian" argument? For example, cycling on a highway, travelling for holidays or even contact sports?
Let's apply a more realistic principle. A missed benefit is just as bad as a burden of harm when one assumes they are of equal and opposing magnitudes. These benefits include not only missed positive sexual experiences but missed learning experiences which may or may not be perceived as positive at the time. Many beauty spots must be accessed via a bumpy road; and as we accept in most other areas, life is not about avoiding all harm and ignoring the rewards our adventures may bare.