May 5, 2015

No, Not From 'The Onion'

Do not read the article linked below. It comes as close as I will ever find to something that is guaranteed to make your head explode. I read it, but I have trained myself how to remain completely objective. I am able to control the violent outbursts that such articles typically provoke from free men. I will select a few items to excerpt but DON'T CLICK THROUGH. You have been warned.

Although it’s controversial, it seems that Swift and Brighouse are philosophically inching their way to a novel accommodation for a weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing. The bathwater might be going out, but they’re keen to hold on to the baby.

The "weathered institution" with, apparently, no further purpose in human life? The family.

'Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what's so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they're heterosexual etcetera.'

They don't want to eliminate families, you see, they merely want to plan them for us. It's for the social good. When left to their own devices, too many parents have this distasteful and anti-social tendency to aid their children. And since parents are unequal, children will develop unequally.

'What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn't need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people's children'.

"We" certainly can't continue to "allow" that! At least not according to the British philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse who are quoted here. No word yet whether the rest of the animal kingdom will follow suit and intentionally retard its own evolutionary progress.

Egalitarian Socialism Philosophy Posted by JohnGalt at May 5, 2015 2:55 PM

I'm taking your advice and not reading the rest of the article. Without reading it, I can only assume that they're recommending bans on birth control and abortion, since parents who have fewer children will be able to devote more resources to each of them.

Posted by: AndyN at May 5, 2015 4:18 PM

Air tight logic AndyN, but ignoring reason is one of the things that makes them ant farmers [My brand new name for egalitarian socialists. Has a nice ring, I think.]

To them, the only thing better than all children being equal (even if it is equally bad) would be if there were no children at all. "Stop breeding!"

Posted by: johngalt at May 6, 2015 12:24 PM | What do you think? [2]