Best medical ethics books according to redditors
We found 144 Reddit comments discussing the best medical ethics books. We ranked the 31 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
15. An Ethics Casebook for Hospitals: Practical Approaches to Everyday Ethics Consultations
1 mention
You should check out the Better not to have been book. The general idea is that it is more beneficial to have never been born. But, suicide is so hard to accomplish - mentally and physically - that it might not be beneficial to kill yourself.
Besides there are costs involved - say I'm 24, I have finally moved out from parents, live on my own. I have never been as free in my life before. All the childhood that sucked, the school are left behind. Im finally my own person. Health wise this is one of the highest point in one's life. From 30 it's going to go on downhill. Basically this and the next decade are going to be the best time of my life. Might as well make use of it if only to compensate for the shitty early part of my life. If/when it gets bad in my 40s+ I might just opt out of this game, and no family would be great in that regard - I would always be able to leave whenever I would want.
Life is essentially about costs and benefits. Most people trudge on because the pleasure shots they get out weight the suffering and the pain of suicide. It is true for me too (for now). But I would still prefer not to have existed.
/r/antinatalism rules
>be born without consent
required reading for depressedcels
Check out David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been . Similar enough to be of interest I am sure.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
http://uglatto.com/David_Benatar_-_Better_Never_to_Have_Been.pdf
Like someone else mentioned earlier, please do check out "Better Never to Have Been", and please try to do so with an open mind. I'm a pretty upbeat and happy dude and I've had a pretty wonderful life, but I do find his conclusions convincing. The argument isn't that "all life is pain and suffering and blackness and emo music wah", but more about the dichotomy of pleasure and pain and the prevention of suffering. Seriously, give it a fair shake.
ANYWAY. More reasons than just that (although that book really lead me into thinking about childfreedom and accepting that it's okay to not have kids):
Especially given the last point, can you explain your thought process on wanting to have kids?
Thomas Ligotti - The Conspiracy Against the Human Race is probably the one I can recommend the most.
There's also Better Never to Have Been - David Benatar.
If you think one of them is too expensive tell me.
You could also Studies in Pessimism - Arthur Schopenhauer.
At last I can recommend this article from Richard Dawkins going into why nature pretty much sucks.
You might enjoy this book, the author doesn't suggest we all commit suicide, but I think the topic might be right up your alley. "Better to Never Have Been - The Harm of Coming Into Existence" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199549265/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_13?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
What you are describing isn't so much a mental state as it is a philosophical position. There are quite a few people, myself included, who believe people are better off not being born and that, consequently, bringing new sentient life into existence is a moral wrong. This position is called antinatalism and it is very rigorously argued for in Better Never to Have Been by philosopher David Benatar. (Here's an audio interview with him.) There's even a subreddit for antinatalism.
In antinatalism, it's very important to make the distinction between life that hasn't yet been started and life that has. While I can say it would have been better for me to never have existed, now that I do exist, I very much wish to continue existing. I didn't choose life, I was forced into it, but I try to make the most of the cards I've been dealt.
Edit. Also, the flip side of this is that I don't owe life, God, my parents or the cosmos anything, least of all my gratitude for being alive. I don't have any obligation to feel happy. Any feelings of gratitude or happiness are for my own benefit, and if I choose to leave early, I'm not being a poor guest.
>I want to give my future kids the same opportunity that my parents gave me when they decided to reproduce, I want to bring them out of the void of unbeing and introduce them to all the wonder and the pain of being real.
The issue I have with this is that it's always a selfish act (having children), you cannot have a child for the child's sake. There is no way to gain consent currently from a non-existent person, but that consent is absolutely needed if you're to have any moral ground on having children. Who are you to speak for these people you act to know best for? How can you guarantee they will want to live, and will not suffer? You're essentially stealing the dice from another person and throwing them for them w/o consent and gambling with their life.
I wish my parents had the forethought to think perhaps I might not enjoy this horrible game we're all caught up in, and that bliss of void, which we all hopefully go back to anyways, might be much much much more loving and peaceful.
Cheerful optimism does far more harm than good, especially when it concerns antinatalism. We're still incapable of not forcing life on those that willfully wish to end it with dignity. We're scary with our imposition of life.
>Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence.
J'imagine que tu parles de cet extrait là. En l’occurrence Caron tient le propos inverse qui est que toutes les vies se valent.
Les propos sont attribués au philosophe Peter Singer, et c'est une réduction rapide et grossière de son livre Should the Baby Live?: The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Studies in Bioethics).
edit: typo
I'm curious how it will compare to David Benatar's "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence". This appears to tackle another important issue for me: the right to die. I'll have to give this a read.
It is a punishment, it is punishable by law if you don't take care of the child. Having to deal with a person you don't want to marry for 18 years because of a child is a punishment. Dealing with a child you never wanted for 18 years is a punishment. Knowing that you brought a child into the world that you cannot adequately care for is a punishment.
It is also a punishment to the kid. My parents can't afford me, I'm a burden on my parents. My parents don't love me, because I was an accident. My parents are not married, other kids call me a bastard.
The kids are the ones punished the most.
you should read "better never to have been" by David Benatar
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
The idea that life is "inherently good" is bullshit. I think bringing any child into this world is a sin, because you cannot prevent bad things from happening to them. Even if you are well off and love your partner, bad things will happen to your child. They will feel pain, they will suffer at some point, and they will know loss. The child never asked to be brought into this world, you forced them into this world without consent.
Your post reminded me of this book which examines how there is more bad-ness in life than good-ness and how life is full of pain, illness, suffering and death. While there are lovely sunsets m, kisses with cute girls and various other ‘good’ things...the list is much smaller than the list of bad things.
Here is another great book. Emil (who was a fantastic modern day philosopher) examines the issues with being born, how it’s always too late for suicide and takes a sideways look at the world.
It seems that Buddhism and Hinduism have the same basis.
I know that the goal in Hinduism is to escape the cycle as well.
That's why people want to die in Varanasi.
I share your POV.
There is a great book to this topic - Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence by David Benatar
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
If the human species were going to die out for lack of children, one might argue that reproduction is a duty, either because preserving species is important or because preserving humanity specifically is important. Obviously we're not in that situation and because of that I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that procreation is a duty. Most talk about procreation in philosophy is about the right of people to be parents if they desire to and whether having kids is always wrong because it is better never to have been born.
Since some people can't even have kids for biological reasons, and since others are not in a position to easily raise their kids, it would be weird for philosophers to say that we have to have kids even if we don't want to: some people can't even have kids if they want to! I can't think of any reasons that anyone would be required to have kids against their will.
> This is a much better argument for assisted/legalized suicide than it is for not having kids
Benatar's arguments don't really carry over into that domain at all, as he's primarily concerned with the harm of coming into existence, as opposed to the harm of existing.
If you're interested he gives more detail backed by some empirical studies about his view that people are actually less well-off than they believe in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. It's chapter three of that book. I still don't buy it, but if you were looking for a fuller argument that's where you'll find it.
Thank you for the effort! I'll try to do you justice with a thorough response.
----
> 1. God says what he needs to say to us through the Bible.
Sure it's the Bible and not Harry Potter? To anyone without your obvious bias, the Bible looks like a collection of fanciful but poorly edited fiction. God's message hasn't reached me and it hasn't reached 5 billion other humans alone among the living. In other words, if this is an omnipotent's idea of effective communication, God sucks as a communicator.
> 2. God is not inert, he sometimes does miracles
Prove this and I'll leave you alone. Has God ever healed an amputee? Has God ever accomplished a miracle that has no natural explanation?
No wait, references to the work of fiction mentioned in #1 don't count. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that your precious Bible is anything more than a stack of useful rolling papers. I've addressed this before. J.K. Rowling has Harry Potter performing scores of miracles in her books, it's really easy to create a miracle with pen and paper.
> 3. The evidence is not inadequate. If you want evidence of his existence, there is evidence everywhere, and in sheer necessity, it is pointed out that God must exist.
So you say. Your following arguments are... sorely lacking. Here we go:
> 3.1 The need of a creator
If you saw a car in the forest, you wouldn't say it randomly came into existence and over time came together by itself, because it is too complex for that to have happened.
Correct. That's easy for me to say because I know exactly what a car is and how it's made.
> In the same way, this universe and everything in it is far too complex to randomly explode into existence and come together by itself, a creator is needed and that creator is God.
Your analogy doesn't hold. The universe is not very complex conceptually, it's been satisfactorily explained how all heavenly bodies resulted from the expansion of space followed by the clumping of clouds of primeval hydrogen. Suns and the nuclear process in them? A natural consequence of packing a lot of hydrogen with gravity. Heavy elements? The ashes of nuclear fusion. Planets circling around suns? That's what happens when heavenly bodies nearly collide in a vacuum, influenced only by each other's gravity. Finally, the complexity of life on earth is neatly explained by evolution from very primitive beginnings from substances that occur -naturally- in the void of lifeless space. No magic is required to explain any of this. But I see we get to talk about this in greater depth in #4.
Still, for your interest, this video refutes Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument and is thoroughly captivating while presenting modern cosmology. Highly recommended!
> 3.2 The need for an original mover/causer
You know nothing moves by itself correct?
No, I don't know this, because I have a solid education in physics. Atomic nuclei spontaneously explode and particles fly from them - movement without a mover. Plato's Prime Mover argument dates back to a time when people didn't know anything about physics and science was done by sitting on your butt, guessing and thinking.
> 3.3 The need of a standard
When you call something, for instance let's say "good", there has to be a standard upon which good is based.
This response of yours -so far- is sounding suspiciously like a copy of a William Lane Craig debate argument. Please note that all of his arguments have been successfully refuted - though not necessarily within one debate or only within debates. But regardless, I can easily address your arguments on my own.
Now then. Basic moral behavior has been shown to emerge naturally as a result of evolution. Yes, this is why theists hate evolution so much. It explains a lot of stuff that used to be attributed to God. Animals in the wild show moral behavior such as altruism, fairness, love, cooperation, justice and so forth. Even robot simulations, given only the most minimal initial instructions, develop "moral" behavior because that turns out to be a successful selection criteria for survival.
If you try to point out that humans display and think about much more complex moral situations than animals, I'll agree. But you know who invented those extensions of purely survival-oriented moral behavior? Humans did, not God. Humans look at the behaviors that promote survival and well-being in animals and humans and call it "good." They see behavior that hurts and kills animals and people and makes them suffer, and they call it "bad." Your five year old kid can grasp this concept - you insult your god when you claim this is so difficult it necessarily requires divine intervention. I recommend Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics, a thoughtful and thorough discussion of morals far more nuanced and acceptable to a modern society than the barbaric postulates of scripture. Rape a virgin, buy her as a wife for 50 shekels, indeed!
> 4.1 About the Origin of Life/Finely tuning a killer cosmos
> Anyway, for life to come together even by accident, you would need matter
Correct.
> now the universe is not infinite and even scientists know that.
I'm not sure that's certain, but it's probably irrelevant. Let's move on.
> that scientists say made the universe would need matter present.
Correct. We certainly observe a helluva lot of matter in the present-day universe (to the extent we can observe it).
> Where do you expect that matter to have come from?
An empty geometry and some very basic laws of physics (including quantum physics). This is very un-intuitive, which is why people restricted to Platonic thinking have trouble with it. But you know that matter and energy are equivalent, via E=mc^2 , right? Given the raw physics of the very early universe, matter could be created from energy and vice versa. OK, that still doesn't explain where the (matter+energy) came from. Here's the fun part: it turns out that the universe contains not just the conventional "positive" energy we're familiar with, but also negative energy. And it turns out that the sum of (matter + positive energy) on one hand and (negative energy) on the other are exactly equal and cancel out. In other words, and this is important, the creation of the universe incurred no net "cost" in matter or energy. This being the case, it becomes similarly plausible for for the entire universe to have spontaneously popped into existence just like those sub-atomic particles that cause the Casimir Effect. Stephen Hawking has explained this eloquently in his book The Grand Design but you may prefer Lawrence Krauss' engaging lecture A Universe From Nothing.
> I know for a fact that people are smarter than an explosion and even they have been unsuccessful in making organic life forms from scratch
Wrong again. It took them 15 years, but Craig Venter and his project recently succeeded in constructing the first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell.
By way of interest, people making the kind of claims you do were similarly amazed when Friedrich Wöhler, in 1828, synthesized the first chemical compound, urea, that is otherwise only created by living beings. This achievement torpedoed the Vital Force theory dating back to Galen. Yet another job taken off God's hands.
> let alone have them survive the forming of a planet.
Now this is just dumb. First the planet formed, then it cooled down a bit, then life developed.
> Because of that, I doubt an explosion could do it either.
So you're right there: The explosion just created the planet and the raw materials. Life later arose on the planet.
> Chance doesn't make matter pop into existence.
Yes it does. The effect I was mentioning earlier is called quantum fluctuation.
> 4.2 The human brain
(skipping the comparison of man with god. I don't see it contributing anything. All of this postulating doesn't make God plausible in any way)
> 4.3 The Original Christian Cosmos
> 4.3.1. Maybe because we are after the fall, we have already lost that perfect original cosmos Paul imagined.
Wait, this contradicts your next point.
> 4.3.2 You have to give Paul some credit for trying. He didn't have any the information or technology we have today.
Thank you, this confirms my assertion that the Bible and its authors contain no divinely inspired knowledge. The Bible is a collection of writings by people who thought you could cleanse leprosy by killing a couple of pigeons.
Now, about that original cosmos: either Paul was too uneducated to conceive the cosmos as it really exists, or what he imagined is irrelevant. In any case, what you consider the "after loss" cosmos is trillions of times larger than Paul imagined; it would be silly to call this a loss.
The fact remains that the world as described in the Bible is a pitiful caricature of the world as it is known today. And Carrier's main point remains that our cosmos is incredibly hostile to life; and if man were indeed God's favorite creation, the immensity of the cosmos would be a complete waste if it only served as a backdrop for our tiny little planet.
I highly recommend you actually educate yourself about what you are arguing against rather than form a facade of your opponents argument. This book is an excellent source of information about antinatalism. Learn what you are arguing against if you want to form a good argument.
Yes. Christian Scientists follow the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy, who didn't believe in bacteria because of Jesus. Their so-called "practitioners" are trained for a whole two weeks. But not in medicine. In Prayer. A lot of the ill congregants die painful and horrible deaths from easily treatable illnesses. I know of an 11-year-old girl who died from diabetes.
Dr. Paul Offit has written an excellent book on the subject of faith healing called Bad Faith: When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine
It's an eye-opening read.
Read this book and explain to them why you think having kids is wrong.
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345756081&sr=8-1&keywords=better+never+to+have+been
That would probably help your argument. Most doctors likely assume you just want to engage in risky sexual behavior and will change your mind later.
In fact, I'm finding gay marriage preferable to straight marriage :)
I consider conception of children to be an inherently bad thing: each time a new being is born, the general level of suffering in the universe increases. Giving birth is ultimatly an egoistic thing which is armful to the child, which will endure a life dominated by bad experiences and suffering ( for detail about this, you can read http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265 ).
So, in a world where there are a lot of orphans, I see adoption as the best move to make by a couple which want a child: it doesn't increase the number of suffering beings in the world like conception, and is more likely to reduce the suffering of a child which is currently living in an orphanage.
Of course, my introductory statement was a little bit trollish. There are means for gay couples to conceive, or make conceive for them, which I find immoral. In fact the move I find the most moral is the straight couple which choose to not conceive at all, but to adopt.
Not the person you replied to, and myself unlikely to reply, but basically, the logic goes as follows:
There are lives worth starting and lives worth continuing (for me, this is an intuition that I can't really explain, unfortunately): There is a cutoff point for the quality of life where it would not be worth starting. Basically: what is the maximum probability of a child having leukemia to say that the child's life wouldn't be worth starting?
I believe most people would consider it immoral to start the life of a child that has a 99% chance of having leukemia, but people would object to ending a child's life if it had the same chance of having leukemia. Soft anti-natalists follow the same logic, but set the bar a lot higher: a life has to be extremely good to be worth starting, but not that good to be worth continuing, in fact, very few (or no) people have lives that would have been worth starting. Hard anti-natalists hold that under all conditions, even blissful perfect lives, are not worth starting, but I don't understand the logic they follow.
Also, a lot of anti-natalists hold that life tends to be net negative hedonistically, or believe that preventing suffering is ethically more important than creating happiness (some form of negative utilitarianism or suffering focused ethics).
So, what is to be done? Well, there are, like in every other movement, more and less radical approaches. A soft anti-natalist has two answers: First, try to improve the quality of the lives of people already living and the people that will become born no matter what one does. Second, not bring new children (or even other sentient beings) into the world unless you're really sure their lives are worth starting. A hard anti-natalist would argue that it would be ethical for the the human species to go extinct (because bringing new people into existince is always bad).
Practically, anti-natalists advocate for spreading of birth-control (it brings down the birth rate), adopting instead of procreating (and maybe even raising children on anti-natalist memes, but only carefully). More careful anti-natalists like David Pearce propose that anti-natalism fails because it is a genetically self-defeating strand of thought, and attempting to improve the lives of present and future people is a much better strategy.
Wow, I wrote a lot more than I thought. The most well-known book on anti-natalism is by the philosopher David Benatar: “Better to never have been”, but I've only skimmed it. He strikes me as a very careful thinker, but I am of course biased.
>Since I LOVE the son I don't have, I would never do something like that to him.
Do I have a book for you! David Benatar "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence."
Here are a few that I've collected over the last couple of years (excluding the ones that have already been mentioned, and the ones that include a discussion of suicide methods):
SUICIDE & EUTHANASIA:
ANTINATALISM:
Somewhat less serious:
"Better to never have been" is something of a slogan for antinatalism ;)
David Benetar wrote a book called: http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=pd_ybh_1
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
e.g. If you are sure that person is going to have AIDS or live in extreme poverty, so that she will suffer an immensely excruciating pain.
He, then, argues that:
Further conclusions:
In this line of thought, abortion, for instance, in the early stages of pregnancy is not only right, but morally mandatory. In addition, he establishes a very important difference between "lives worth continuing" and "lives worth starting", arguing that we are not morally obliged to kill ourselves. Absolutely not. But since by bringing someone into life I will expose this person to serious harm, it is best not to bring anyone into life.
Me too, I just applied!
In that case, start reading about medical ethics. You'll need to have a grasp on key issues like assisted suicide, patient confidentiality, alternative medicine, etc. This book is great (I'm sure you could find a PDF online for free if you looked). You won't need in depth knowledge, but it's good to have a grasp of ethics as it's likely you will be asked at interview.
Read the health and NHS news everyday. Make sure you're aware of the significant happenings in the health world. Also, the history and core values of the NHS are important things to know as well, the Wikipedia page is alright for that. Finally, have a read of the GMC's Good Medical Practice.
>A newborn Infant can in no real sense be considered a person. Not only would a painless death not bother them, their brain would never have developed to the point that they ever would have known they were alive. It's the same reason I have no problem eating beef.
If you want a thourough philosophical argument, I recomend:
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/052143971X
I’m no philosopher, and wouldn’t be able to articulate it as well as others have. If you truly care, there is a wide variety of literature on the subject.
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/kenan-malik-on-morality-without-god/
http://ebooks.bharathuniv.ac.in/gdlc1/gdlc4/Arts_and_Science_Books/arts/philosophy/Books/Elements%20of%20Moral%20Philosophy.pdf
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Morality-Introduction-Ethics-Bernard-Williams/dp/0521457297
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/052143971X/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_yewmAbY8W8TGR
Thank you /u/jamietwells. Here are a couple of links you might find interesting (one of which I've posted elsewhere in this thread):
Yup, I can't disagree with you. I've thought this way for a long time. Others might disagree, but there are other people out there who think this. I came across a whole book about it.
Your comment reminded me of this book. I haven't read it yet, but it's on my list.
I have three: The Stranger made me stop believing in moral absolutes, Letter to a Christian Nation made me an atheist, and The Sexual Politics of Meat was the beginning of me going vegan.
I was looking at Better Never to Have Been and No Logo, and have been curious about socialism, anarchism, and the straight edge philosophy, and I'd like to consume any books that would challenge my current beliefs or ask me to radically change who I am.
The previous edition of this book was part of my Master's program before med school, and I like that it focuses on ethical decision-making in common clinical scenarios instead of very rare or unique cases. The general outline for each case generally involves:
While some may see these cases as trivial or just applying common sense, I like that it taught me to think hard about MDM where I previously may have been more reflexive in my approach. Hopefully, the points I took away from this book will help me once I eventually take on more responsibility for patient care. Let me know if you want to know more about the main topics covered!
You might enjoy the book Rethinking Life and Death which argues from a philosophical standpoint that children should not be considered "persons" until they enter into our collective "moral community" and as such, if a child isn't connected/loved by parents or family they are fair game for post-birth abortion for some arbitrary period - possibly a few years!
I don't think anyone thinks abortion is a great thing and every woman should have at least one... which seems to be what you're implying. Abortion is simply the best available option when a child isn't wanted by parents who desire (and can afford) to raise it, or if the fetus is defective in any way.
Take a look at Peter Singer's Practical Ethics, he has a well written chapter on abortion and an even better one on infanticide.
This book by David Benatar provides the philosophical base for your perspective. It solidified my thoughts that life is a scam.
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
> Not quite and I want to be careful here. Animal abuse is an unjust action toward an animal. A human being, though he has dominion over an animal would still be wrong to abuse it. However, using an animal for his own legitimate purpose is not abuse (e.g., clothing, travel, nutrition, companionship, etc.) God, as the creator over these beings, has complete authority. God cannot abuse His own creation. To do so would mean that He is not its creator. Abuse is to use in a way contrary to which it was intended. God is the intender.
I disagree on multiple points here and think you'd run afoul in multiple places if you were to present definitions for the words with contentious definitions employed.
>Animal abuse is an unjust action toward an animal.
Without a meaningful definition of the word just (or unjust), this sentence has no content. Justice is not simply whatever something's creator deems to be, and hasn't been since at least the Socratic era.
>A human being, though he has dominion over an animal would still be wrong to abuse it. However, using an animal for his own legitimate purpose is not abuse (e.g., clothing, travel, nutrition, companionship, etc.)
'Legitimate purpose' again requires a definition because you are using it in a context where the meaning of that phrase is what the rest of the statement is contingent upon. Your definition of 'legitimate purpose' is not one that would be agreed by people who do not share your presuppositions. I wouldn't even grant that clothing or nutrition would be appropriate in that list and that's not even the contentious presupposition.
>if you assume that Jesus is God, has power over demons, knows what is best for people, and that this act was in furtherance of what is best for people, then He is not manipulating anyone.
I disagree, even if you assume all that you've stated the manipulation remains you've just deemed it a just manipulation. You are still putting people through harm regardless of what their will is so that Yaweh might arrive at his desired end. I'd also caution that you can justify a hell of a lot if you operate following this sort of logic where you grant huge swaths of assumptions.
>God, as the creator over these beings, has complete authority. God cannot abuse His own creation. To do so would mean that He is not its creator. Abuse is to use in a way contrary to which it was intended. God is the intender.
Ah, and this is the pivotal point of disagreement. No, an agent does not have unlimited authority over anything it creates. This is dangerous, ancient thinking that has been tossed aside in every aspect of human life aside from supernatural consideration.
Even when it comes to children, we recognize that they have rights relative to their agency. Prior to meeting the standards of personhood (of which a crucial one is agency) a human life lacks almost all of the rights it ultimately will acquire as it matures and grows its agency. As agency increases, the parent / creator's control and 'dominion' over the creation wanes.
We're set to also run up against this problem in a very drastic manner as a species soon(ish) when we get AI to a point where it more accurately resembles consciousness.
Right now, AI is basically just a complex command set. If condition X or Y is met, perform task A. It's complicated by algorithms, conditions that change over time, and command sets that are structured into complex hierarchy but currently there's not a Will that exists anywhere in this and thus no true agency, just an extension of their human creator no meaningfully different from a set of dominos.
Maybe Humans never get our creations to a point in which something reasonably resembling will/agency exists. However, if we do Humans won't be fully justified in doing whatever we desire to our creations because our creations will have agency and agency must be recognized as a requisite of Rights.
So, just as Humans would not be justified in doing whatever they desired to a conscious robot or their child, a human-creator would also not be justified in all circumstance in their interactions with humans. There are consequences to action and very serious consequences to creation. David Benatar wrote a great short book on this awhile back called Better Never to Have Been though it was more geared towards the ethics of procreation than our larger topic of conversation. Were we as a species to have a creator that creator would have strong limits on what they were justified in doing. Justice is predicated on harm, before something (or someone) exists it cannot be harmed. Once it has been conjured into existence harm is possible and if harm is done to something with agency that harm requires justification (or it is not just).
Be forewarned, I am going to sketch this out very crudely. Okay, that being said...
I think there are three common answers in philosophy concerning the value of life which is a reflection of the general split in philosophy between three major ethical views -
Consequentialist Utilitarianism - Life isn't valuable, not directly. What is directly valuable is pleasure (or maybe satisfied desire) and what is directly disvaluable is suffering (or maybe unfulfilled desire). Either way, destroying life often leads to more suffering and less pleasure for those left alive. Furthermore, destroying life destroys the only place pleasure (which is valuable) can exist. Alternatively: if desire is really what matters rather than pleasure, destroying life leaves a lot of people's desires unfulfilled as well as destroying the only place where fulfilled desires can exist.
Kantian Deontology - Life isn't valuable, not directly. Free choice is the only thing that is directly valuable. But usually you can't go around destroying life without also violating free choice. If life didn't exist, it wouldn't be a big deal. When the Kantian says free choice is the only thing that is directly valuable, the Kantian doesn't mean we need to maximize the number of free choices or free choosers--rather the Kantian means we have to respect already existing people's choices. So if no one existed, then there wouldn't be anything bad about it because it wouldn't involve violating anyone's choices. BUT life does exist and in order for life to go out of existence you would probably have to act against people's choices to keep living (which is the one wrong according to Kantians like me).
Virtue Ethics - Here is the only position were you might get someone close to saying life is valuable directly. The idea here is that morality concerns being a good instance of the type of thing you are. So good knives are sharp ones that cut well, good wolves can hunt and work well with their pack, etc. Human beings are living beings (reproduce, self-maintain, etc). and human life specifically takes the form of living through the human capacity for abstract reflective judgment (i.e. taking into consideration many conflicting reasons relevant to their situation/decision, and making the right decision). Presumably you are bad at human life if you don't value your own life. Furthermore, you would be pretty immature, childish in the development of you capacity for reflective judgment if you didn't recognize some intrinsic value to life itself. Why is that immature not to recognize? Sorry childish person, you'll need to just grow out of your blindness to the intrinsic value of life. (I am not insulting you, I am only stressing the way in which being able to recognize what is and isn't intrinsically valuable according to the virtue ethics comes with the mature, skilled judgment of a good human being; presumably someone's unwillingness to see the intrinsic value of life would--according to the Virtue Ethicist--be rooted in their childishness in some respect).
____
Myself, I am a Kantian concerning morality. But here is a recent work on the topic by a Utilitarian -
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence Paperback – September 15, 2008
by David Benatar (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
You might also look at some of Korsgaard's recent work on animal rights (where she tries to extend the Kantian position so that animal life is valuable in addition to free choice): http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/CMK.FellowCreatures.pdf
It's almost certainly mentioned in the Wikipedia article for antinatalism, but you might want to check out David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been. It's pretty long (as it is a book, not an article), but it should have at least some of what you are looking for.
This book.
I happen to think that Dr. Benatar is correct in his views on reproduction.
See:
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence ~ David Benatar
This excellent book clarified what was once only a vague uneasy feeling about inflicting Life on the innocent and reaffirmed my dedication to refrain from creating new humans to suffer on this miserable mudball. It is always a moral wrong to have children. It then compounds the harm to inflict additional suffering through lack of proper resources for the emotional and physical care of that child.
>So, I don't think this is plausible as an account of what death is, for two reasons. First, it would imply that a person is never dead so long as there is the potential for them to be brought back to life, and this seems highly counterintuitive (weirdly, it would also imply that Janeway never killed Tuvix, since they could have brought him back by replicating the initial experiment).
I don't think we're going to get to common ground on the definition of death here, as it's more contentious than it initially appears, and highly dependent on current technology, even in our own universe (Margaret Lock's Twice Dead would be a good start). Suffice to say, I find it more reasonable that Tuvix is not truly dead than that Tuvok and Neelix were, but this is all based on technology we don't actually understand or have a full ethical account of. Which leads to…
>Secondly, I think a strong case can be made to the effect that Janeway never actually brought Neelix or Tuvok back to life, but rather brought two new beings into existence. But I did claim earlier that what matters is the killing of one to save two, so the above isn't intended as a rebuttal, just a side note.
If this is true, then everyone who has ever transported is a new being each time. But that's an entirely different discussion.
Whether Neelix and Tuvok remained conscious/aware to a degree while their brains were combined into Tuvix's is irrelevant, since we accept that Tuvix is a discrete entity that makes his own decisions. His mental "software" is separate from Tuvok's and Neelix's, but he is running it on their "hardware" without their permission.
This is important to your final point, as to why Janeway can make the decision for Tuvix to sacrifice himself, but not for Tuvok and Neelix to sacrifice themselves. Ultimately, Tuvix does not have the right to make the decision at all. He doesn't have rights to his own body — he doesn't have bodily autonomy — because he doesn't have his own body. Janeway, acting as the state, has the duty to protect Tuvok and Neelix's bodily autonomy, but has no such duty for Tuvix.
I'm not going to be able to give this argument the clarity it deserves, but I will say just because I lack clarity does not mean that my argument is invalid. I based it off of my memory of this book https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265 that I would suggest to everyone that wants a child. This is just a book, not something that will automatically change your mind or anything, but it changed mine along with Albert Camus' work. I agree with the idea that we should try to enjoy the time we have, but don't bring someone else into it. Enjoy yourself while causing others as little suffering as possible
I have a suggestion.
[Rethinking Life & Death] (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0312144016) from Peter Singer . The first link takes you to amazon.com, where you can read some of the book to get a feel for whether you think it will be of interest. The second link takes you to the wikipedia entry on Singer.
This book does not focus on the death penalty, but does focus on other cases involving killing (euthanasia, abortion), and on the question of whether life really is sacred. I have my copy in hand (apparently I bought it in 1995, according to my habit of writing name and date on the inside cover). It really is a nice read.
Edit: Leafing through the book, I have just found this bombshell:
>But, in the case of infanticide, it is our culture that has something to learn from others, especially now that we, like them, are in a situation where we must limit family size...for reasons we have already discussed, in regarding a newborn infant as not having the same right to life as a person, the cultures that practiced infanticide were on solid ground. (p. 215)
So if you think that killing is wrong, then I am sure that you will think killing newborn infants is horrific. The fun thing is trying to find out why Singer thinks this, and where you think he goes wrong. If you do that, then you will be doing philosophy.
Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Kaplan-Medical-USMLE-Ethics-Likely/dp/1419542095
I quickly went through it the weekend before my exam (took ~3 hours to skim and do all the questions). Definitely secured 2 questions on the real thing using concepts learned from that book.
I haven't read it, but a recent book on this subject is Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar.
Notre Dame Philosophical Review has a review of it here.
Your friend has given you good advice for being a hireable academic. There are more openings in bioethics (relative to number of good candidates) than any other AOS. If you want to know where to go, a place to start is http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/breakdown/breakdown12.asp . If you want to know about the issues, it might be useful to check out something like http://www.amazon.com/Bioethics-Anthology-Blackwell-Philosophy-Anthologies/dp/1405129484/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1302796965&sr=8-2
Better Never to Have Been by David Benatar
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
He wrote a great (and controversial) book on utilitarian approaches to ethics:
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/052143971X
The article is entirely reasonable - it's basically what Peter Singer outlined in rethinking life and death, which is a must read.
Since when we grant person-hood and rights is entirely arbitrary, we should arbitrarily agree on an age that the infant becomes a person with full rights - say a week after birth.
No, /u/Xenjael is saying that even though they are brain dead, "brain death" is not plain old death. Doctors themselves will often speak of these patients in such terms as "as good as dead" or "practically dead," which is really another way of saying they are alive.
The traditional criterion for when death has definitely occurred is when the whole body has begun to rot. Peter Singer provides a useful discussion in his book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics of how the "brain death" definition was developed in the 60s in response to the demand of doctors for fresh, healthy organs.
The strongest influence on anti-natalism in modern times is a book published in 2006, written by a Cape Town professor of philosophy David Benatar. He explicitly names his philosophy as antinatalism. Its title is:
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Right-Practical-Trainees-Physicians/dp/0199005524/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/
Both these helped me with the normal interviews & MMI interview stations with ethics questions :)
When people know they have something that will likely be passed on to their children is it not selfish to have them?
To put it another way: Q: Is it selfish to condemn an orphan to suffer for the sake of your hormones and vanity?
A: Absolutely, especially when there is a chance that the kid will inherit a disease.
Q: Where would we draw the line?
A: This is the controversial issue. People are divided on their beliefs of when a life begins and what (if anything) constitutes a life that isn't worth living. While in some countries women are punished for having a natural birth loss (miscarriage), in others women have the right to chose to have a birth loss medically induced. The same goes for death with dignity. When a dog or cat is beyond help people can easily see it's humane to end their suffering. Unfortunately that's rarely the case with humans. Eugenics has been used for nefarious reasons in the past, so it has a terrible reputation. Many prefer to err on the side of promoting child abuse and neglect because they think restricting anyone, no matter how unprepared or abusive, from making as many kids as they can is the beginning of a march toward a future like Gattaca or Brave New World.
If you are interested in bioethics you might want to check out this book.
I think the (difficult) discussion about fetal sentience is mostly besides the point. Even if one is to subscribe to sentience as a sufficient criterion for basic rights’ attribution, most meaningful theories would still maintain, that rights can be overridden by other rights in certain circumstances, particularly if one rights-holder poses a threat to another. Arguably the situation of pregnancy could be understood as such a scenario thus rendering abortions per se as permissible -- even if fetuses had full basic rights qua sentience.
As of the "right to die"-discussions, I never really got the point of them. There might be some obligations that one has towards their community, that are frustrated if someone commits (assisted) suicide, but how well could one live up to these obligations anyways, if one has formed an honest and reflected wish to die?
And I think Singer’s not helpful to further a discussion about rights, because he’s not really interested in rights.
Also one of the more neglected questions, about reproductive ethics is the one raised by David Benatar: Couldn’t coming into existence be a harm to the one who does? You might think this is true, if and only if misanthropy is true, but his argument for the propostion that it’s better never to have been is pretty consistent with simultaneously asserting that most human life is actually worth living.
One of the most interesting stories is of Frances Oldham Kelsey who fought against bad practices in the pharmaceutical industry such as raspberry flavored antifreeze in a children's drug.
You might find this book interesting: https://www.amazon.ca/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
Un bouquin anti-nataliste qui est pas trop mal si t'as le courage. Rien que le titre donne bien le ton.
I bought the Blackwell Anthology for a course maybe three years ago, and still refer to it from time to time. Timmons also has an anthology called Disputed Moral Issues that is much more basic, but has a bit of a primer before each of the sections which may be useful.
Lastly, if you want to look specifically at how ethics is currently being done, probably the most pervasive ethics text is Beauchamp and Childress' the Principles of Biomedical Ethics. As far as existent policy on research ethics, you could take a look at the Canadian Tri-Council Policy on Ethics has a free education module, the Declaration of Helsinki or the Belmont Report.
Let me know if this helps or of you need anything else along these lines!
Singer addresses this in his book Practical Ethics. First, most mammals and some birds are not only sentient as well as self-aware. Thus, they can have "goals" for the future (for example, some mammals have life-long partners, and killing them would basically frustrate their preference of always being with them), and thus it becomes wrong to take those from them.
But fishes and bugs are not self-aware, and so as long as we keep the overall "quantity" of happiness, it is acceptable. That means tough, that for each being killed, we need a new one to appear.
> I would suggest that all problems can (at least theoretically) be philosophised away. Problems only exist because ideals exist. And ideals can be changed or discarded.
Exactly, that's what I wanted to say: for ex., the asteroid impacting earth is only a "real" problem because we all just happen to share the same unstated philosophical assumption that "living is better than dying". But one could philosphically argue precisely the opposite: that living is inherently harmful and that mass extinction would be a blessing, not a catastrophe. There's at least one philosophical essay, that I know of, which takes this view (I haven't read it, though): Better Never to Have Been, by David Benatar. Has anyone read it around here, by any chance?
I also would recommend Albert Jonsen et al.'s Clinical Ethics for practical case examples. Here's the structure of the book:
>Each chapter of the book begins with some general considerations about the topic, and the ethical principle relevant to that topic. The clinical situations that generate ethical problems are then described and illustrated by clinically realistic medical cases. A short distillation of current opinion from the bioethical literature is provided, followed by an analysis of the cases.
This is a good accompaniment to B&C I think. I haven't read it is as extensively, but that which I have read I have liked. It's very practical in its approach. A good starting point for deeper and more thorough reflection with other sources.
You could also read some essays from this Hastings Center Report collection on narrative ethics, which is growing increasingly popular in bioethics. If you want specific readings on specific topics too I could recommend some pieces that I like.
>From a purely rational perspective, existence is all that you really have. A mind that can perceive suffering is still a mind, and infinitely more valuable than a rock. It would definitely be irrational for me to choose to simply stop existing.
If you actually think that it would be worth it to spend all eternity having a power drill driven into your skull simply so that you could exist, we have nothing more to discuss. Your view of rationality, or existence, or something is apparently so diametrically opposed to mine that we would simply be talking past each other. We'll have to agree to disagree.
By the way, you should check out antinatalism, particularly David Benatar's book Better Never to Have Been. It would probably make your head explode.
Someone wrote a book on that very idea.
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199296421
In a medical ethics class I took, we read a book called The Brewsters. It's basically a novel that presents multiple ethical scenarios and you can see how one should respond from different POVs. It's an interesting way to teach medical ethics outside of the typical academic books.
>So ethically, we could abort every foetus on the grounds that they would have no frame of reference to object to it? It would certainly ensure nobody had to suffer.
That makes sense to me.
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
Someone asked me about abortions the other day. My response was:
the case of abortion is inherently different to the case of eating meat, in that in the case of eating meat it is the life of the animal at stake, whereas in the case of abortion we have two bodies & lives to consider - that of the mother and that of the embryo/infant. Still, as with all demographics, it is a contentious issue amongst vegans.
I am pro-choice for a number of reasons, including ones that are entirely consistent with my reasons for being vegan - environmental & human health reasons for starters, but also re. better to never exist than to live a life of suffering.
At the same time, I would be against people falling pregnant and having abortions for personal kicks, or e.g. to eat it for healthier looking skin or something like that... and of course, prevention is always better than cure...
https://www.amazon.com/Below-Thousand-clinician-led-safety-culture/dp/1925959279
Looking for:
Doing Right: A Practical Guide to Ethics for Medical Trainees and Physicians ebook or pdf
$5, will pay $8 for latest third edition
https://www.amazon.ca/Doing-Right-Practical-Trainees-Physicians/dp/0199005524/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Biomedical-Ethics-Beauchamp/dp/0199924589
https://www.amazon.com/American-Sickness-Healthcare-Became-Business/dp/1594206759/ref=sr_1_1?crid=12GOKZ3DTRX3W&keywords=an+american+sickness+by+elisabeth+rosenthal&qid=1550980133&s=books&sprefix=an+american+sic%2Cstripbooks%2C151&sr=1-1
>Nobody's saying "we need more abortions! Abortions are great!"
Well actually…
This would just reinforce the idea that some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
I'm a Lange series shill. YMMV, but I loved this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Ethics-8th-Practical-Decisions/dp/0071845062/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497411123&sr=8-1&keywords=lange+medical+ethics
The original question I answered was to explain why Eugenics is wrong, to which I provided an answer by demonstration citing the worst case yet of Eugenics actually being implemented. But, as your condescending attitude tells me you will press the point I will shift to your clearly moved goal posts.
Eugenic abortion sets a precedent. It allows us to kill something with Human DNA because it is easier than treating. You may say "so what, a fetus isn't a person and we've drawn a clear line at birth so there is no risk." The problem is people do use this as justification for post natal intervention. In the Netherlands there is a legal concept known as "the Groningen Protocol" wherein doctors are not prosecuted for non-voluntary euthanasia of children with extreme conditions (with parental permission of course) this goes beyond the per birth = fetus, post birth = human with all the associated rights. But you will say "those are just extreme cases, no one is advocating going further"
This again establishes precedent. One of the most respected ethicists and philosophers of our time, Peter Singer, openly advocates allowing parents to terminate children up to a certain age if their condition would be troublesome. This is a very dangerous path to take.
Now before you shout slippery slope, I might remind you those are valid arguments if you are actively skiing. Now, how does this relate to the holocaust? The final solution did not spring up in 1942 ex nihilo. It was the final culmination of the growing acceptance of Eugenics in the U.S. and Europe. Action T4 called on parents to submit their children for sterilisation and euthanasia. Buck v. Bell which upheld the constitutionality of state sterilisation programs without medical approval, was cited by Nazi doctors at Nuremberg. It would have protected most of them too if they were on U.S. soil.
My point is that eugenics starts off in ways where you wouldn't expect it to go full holocaust, but that where it went last time, all it takes is a few determined individuals and precedent to make sure the rest of the populace is okay and you gave a recipe for genocide. This is why I oppose eugenics. The burden of proof is on eugenicist to prove they won't fuck up again.
If you haven't already read it,
'Better Never to Have Been' by David Benatar,
is a very thought provoking book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
> your determination to catapult this question I had into a debate … Instead of hopping on to assume the worst about mothers who may have a question to ask another
I don't want to catapult this into a debate. I was just interested in the answer to my question. And I don't know why you think I assume the worst, far from it. I'm just wondering why you'd not be interested in a dad's perspective on this question. I don't think it's similar to asking about "how come I have erectile dysfunction?" - and even so, there are plenty of female sexologists that have a 100x better answer than any random dude.
> I do feel asking other mothers about their experiences was warranted due to the hormonal aspects involved
Thanks, I can get that, I guess that could make it more likely for women/moms while men/dads can have the same experience. And...you know, that answer was basically all I was wondering about. Other people have tried to turn this into a debate.
Have you heard of David Benatar's "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence", I also found it after the fact. Perhaps you might find that interesting.
Believe it or not, there is a fairly well-defended philosophical thesis somewhat similar to your defense of anti-natalism, although the position it takes is possibly even more extreme.
The short version is: Failing to bring a person into existence means that they do not experience certain benefits, but a person who is not brought into existence cannot be said to be deprived of such benefits. However, a person who is brought into existence experiences serious harms that otherwise would not have befallen them at all. Thus, even if beneficial experiences outweigh harmful ones in the end (as you concede they might), the harm incurred in bringing someone into existence is always greater.
The name of the book is Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar.
edit, since I've apparently violated rule 1: Why would consent be important? In our society, we regularly entrust legal guardians with the power to give consent on behalf of family members or loved ones who cannot legally consent.
You are right in that you only get one shot at UCL but you only need one. I did an EPQ and talked about it quite a lot. Mine was something like "do the benefits of stem cell research exceed the ethical complications" or something like that. It's something I'm really passionate about and I'm sure you won't struggle to keep talking about it. If your's is something you are interested in try an steer the conversation that way early. I don't know whether it was just by the time I did my UCL interview I was getting better at them or the nature of the interview but I felt like I controlled the direction of the conversation and lead it the way I wanted it to go, if you can try and do the same, if you can go in with a few points that you want to make and lead the conversation that way you will do well. Don't worry about silly questions, I'm afraid I'm from a preposterously privileged background and had enough interview practice to get someone in who had been lobotomised but I know most people are in your situation. Some of my friends who are much better people than I am are involved in a thing called target medicine, they go to schools like yours and do practice interviews and BMAT prep, it's worth finding out if they are at your school. I would say the main questions to be ready for are: why medicine, why UCL, possibly a tell me about yourself (I always hate that as it's almost impossible to tread the line of not underselling and not seeming arrogant.), Work experience (I had a few things and people I saw that had an impact on me and tried to talk about that rather than general things as it seemed more personal). Then obviously anything on your personal statement, go back through it and see what you would ask about or get someone else to do that for you, if want I can send you my email and I'll do it for you but you might find it more useful to do it with a teacher or someone else who knows you. Once you've done that just drill answers in your head, don't go through them entirely because it will sound scripted but have the phrases you want in your head and the ideas you want to express and know them like you would know material for an exam. I used this which was quite helpful and it's reassuring when you hear a question that you've already thought through. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Interviews-Questions-Analysed-Multiple-Mini-Interviews/dp/1905812051/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421325700&sr=1-1&keywords=medical+school+interviews.
I also read ths but it wasn't as helful. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Ethics-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192802828/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1QZ21GB5NZE9YRJE84PN
That's about all I can think of at the moment but keep asking questions if you have any and I'll keep thinking about stuff. On the day try and keep relaxed as best as possible if you don't know what sort of person you are when you are afraid yet but you will know soon but most quiet people get chatty and chatty people go quiet. Some people will talk about all this stuff they've done, I don't know whether they do it to get into people's heads or to reassure themselves but ignore it. I met some really lovely people on my interview at UCL but there are a lot of arseclowns too, just let their crap wash over you and keep your head in as relaxed as space as possible and think about what you want to say. One last point is script links between your ideas, if you can go from why UCL or why medicine into other things like work experience or your job there make your last sentence leading. Don't think of it as them asking you questions, you can influence the questions they ask you. Of course you won't get 20 minutes perfectly moving from one thing to another under your control but doing it a bit will help your rhythm but don't fall into the trap of saying what you wanted to say next instead of answering their question. If they do blindside you don't say the first thing in your head, wait a few seconds, under that kind of pressure you think at a million miles an hour 3 seconds will feel like forever in your head because you are thinking so fast but you can use that time to think it through and say something sensible. I guess most of my advice is really on mentality largely because it's probably what I do best as you might guess from my username I'm a jump jockey in another life so I'm quite used to being in
high pressure situationscrapping myself with fear, so I have routines to put it to one side and relax which makes all the difference in the world. I can talk about that stuff if you are interested but I've always found it a very personal thing and what works for me may well not help you and it takes time to do well which you might find better spent on other things. Good luck with it all and remember that even the people the other-side of the table where in your position once and just see them as no different from you just further down the line. If it doesn't happen this year almost everyone else will consider you next year so don't build it up into a do or die thing in your head and good luck.David Benatar is pretty well known for explicitly arguing that having children is unethical (see his *Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence)
Peter Singer is phenomenal for his breadth of topics, he does discuss the ethics of overpopulation and consumption fairly regularly (see this little speech or his book The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty).
Other than that, as TychoCelchuuu suggests, the SEP is a good place to start.
First, join VHEMT (wiki because website is down) and then read this book.
In 2001 Hoffmann-La Roche's drug Accutane was selling in its billions worldwide as a treatment for acne. For those who suffered from extreme scarring acne, it was something of a miraculous treatment, however evidence started to mount that for others it was a death sentence. Over the next few years it was estimated that between 300 and 3,000 young people being prescribed Accutane since its launch had committed suicide or killed others. In 2001 the father of young man in Ireland who had committed suicide approached Dr. Doug Bremner as Professor of Psychiatry & Radiology at Emory University to see if he could find a causal link between the drug and depression. His findings were that the drug did have an effect on the brain likely to cause acute depression in some patients, which was not surprising as it is a molecular cousin of Vitamin A which is known to cause depression in excessive quantities. One might think that Hoffmann-La Roche would have welcomed these findings. After all, no-one was doubting that Accutane was an extremely effective remedy in many cases, it was just that it appeared to have lethal side-effects in others. You might like to think again on that one. 'The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg' is the account of what Hoffmann-La Roche did next, which was to prosecute a determined, energetic and vindictive campaign against Dr. Bremner designed to suppress his findings and destroy his career and livelihood. Nonetheless, Dr. Bremner persisted and Hoffmann La-Roche have since withdrawn Accutane from the US market, not only for its potentially depressive effects, but also for the likelihood of its causing birth defects and stunting growth. From the pen of the author of 'Before You Take That Pill: Why the Drug Industry May Be Bad for Your Health: Risks and Side Effects You Won't Find on the Label of Commonly Prescribed Drugs, Vitamins, and Supplements', this is a truly riveting and emotional read detailing just what it costs to take on the full might of one of the largest corporations in the world when you have never claimed to be a saint and have no desire to become a martyr.
Arguably
>(This could be entirely different but) she mentioned the idea of concluding life isn't worth it because the harms and atrocities it brings outweigh the good.
It is entirely different, but there are two names to look up related to that: Arthur Schopenhauer and David Benatar. Benatar is much more contemporary, here's a link to his book.
A book you might be interested in: Better to Never Have Been
I read Better Never to Have Been (which is not pro-suicide but rather anti-natal, but comes across as bleak if you haven't encountered the argument before) and immediately afterward picked up Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow. It was the perfect emotional counterpoint, if not a perfect logical one (to Benatar's argument at least).
David Benetar would argue the exact opposite and makes a very thorough case for it (from a materialist world viewpoint).
If you want to research the different stances yourself, you can look up anti-natalism in general. Personally, I subscribe to David Benatar's idea (taken from summary of this [book] (http://smile.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=smi_ge_rl_btns4_setch?_encoding=UTF8&%252AVersion%252A=1&%252Aentries%252A=0&%3Fie=UTF8&pldnNew=1)):
>David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived.
Most of our understanding of freezing and hypothermia comes from experiments carried out by the Nazi Dr Sigmund Rascher.
There were a lot of other medical experiments on prisoners including bone and nerve transplants without anaesthesia and treating infections combat wounds... that they'd inflict first, of course. Wiki
The Abuse Of Man (Amazon) is an awful and interesting read.
On existence:
One of the premisses for Harris' argument is that existence is preferable to non-existence. The opposite view, that non-existence is preferable in all cases (even though this seems counter intuitive at first glance) is debated at great length in philosophy.
In David Benatar's book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, for instance, he argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence. A consequence of this view, is that death in itself is a "positive state" compared to existence.
From Amazon reviews:
> His argument rests on an intuitive asymmetry between the 'good' that is the 'absence of pain', and the 'not bad(ness)' (or neutralness) that is the 'absence of pleasure'. His argument also turns on the distinction between two ways of talking about 'a life worth living'. We can (and ought to) separate our ideas on 'a life worth starting' from 'a life worth continuing'. This is very important. Where as some lives may be worth continuing (he agrees most are) NO life is worth starting. If i come down with a painful condition i may consider my life to still be worth continuing. However if i am faced with the choice whether to create a being who has such a condition it is As all life contains guaranteed harm the interests of a conceivable person are best served by not creating them.His argument rests on an intuitive asymmetry between the 'good' that is the 'absence of pain', and the 'not bad(ness)' (or neutralness) that is the 'absence of pleasure'. His argument also turns on the distinction between two ways of talking about 'a life worth living'. We can (and ought to) separate our ideas on 'a life worth starting' from 'a life worth continuing'. This is very important. Where as some lives may be worth continuing (he agrees most are) NO life is worth starting. If i come down with a painful condition i may consider my life to still be worth continuing. However if i am faced with the choice whether to create a being who has such a condition it is As all life contains guaranteed harm the interests of a conceivable person are best served by not creating them."
On suffering:
A theist's best response to Harris' argument is that we do not know the full scope of things, and sometimes suffering is necessary to allow for good, like a doctor prescribing bad tasting medicine.
Let's assume it is the the case that God offers eternal happiness after we die. You then live in this superorgasmic state for 90 million years. Then a reporter ask you how bad the stuff that happened to you on earth was in the full scope of things.
Even in a case where you were tortured for all your life on earth, the suffering on earth will seem like something equivalent to you looking back now and remembering the suffering you experienced when you fell playing basketball as a kid. If you feel you have a good life now, was the suffering you felt that day in the basketball court worth it?
For some theists the time scope is eternity, so suffering on earth is completely insignificant.
Here is the mobile version of your link
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.
Basically makes the argument that life is a poor form of existence and we are done great harm by being born. I'm dying to read the whole thing (only seen a few excerpts), and it's weirdly appropriate considering it's your berfday (have a happy one, by the way, dude).
/r/Antinatalism's Wiki presents the basic arguments better than I can. But reading https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265 may be obligatory for more details.
> No need to worry about hypothetical people who never existed.
While I admit that this seems intuitive, this very point is hotly debated among philosophers. On one side is this, and you can easily google responses to that book that argue the other side, if you feel so inclined.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
>Hoping for a car to run you over is not going to help you or your family.
No it wont help my family; they'd hate to have to pay my half of the rent.
but it would help me. I bought this book the other day.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
and its all making a lot of sense to me know. it's like its all coming together for the first time in my life.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
Greatest book about parenting, your life will never be the same again.
His utilitarianism is based on his personal, pragmatic, double-entry-bookkeeping values for 'good'. Even Mill had doubts, but not Singer.
Yet: “an ethical judgement that is no good in practice must suffer from a theoretical defect as well, for the whole point of ethical judgement is to guide practice.” (Singer, Practical Ethics, 1993) and he often admits he fails in his own silly standards yet doesn't admit his edifice of morality is fundamentally flawed.
I confess I prefer American pragmatism and some elements of relativism, but still.
I wouldn't tell her parents they made an immoral choice because I have a heart, but in my opinion, it's always morally questionable to have children.
20,000 children starve to death each day. Is it moral that people continue to have children despite such abominations?
Here's a book that espouses my beliefs:
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265