Hey all PPEists
I've been re-reading the original posts made by London Prophet, and found two of the questions posted quite interesting/difficult, and wondered if I could get any valuable advice on them:
I'm familiar with Utilitarianism, and have looked around for answers to this, and have found this
, although it's 2:25am and I've just skimmed the first few pages.
As for the second one, I don't really have a clue on how to ascertain the 'structure' of the argument.
Help's greatly appreciated
EDIT: For the child-suing-parents thingy, I think I might've gotten somewhere:
I thought the 'if the child was never born she wouldn't be in this position' argument gets you no-where (at least I couldn't get anywhere with it), and so I switched focus.
The child is suing as a means to some end - I took that end to be a better life (be it in the form of money, or whatever the rewards would be from winning). I believe she's suing on the basis that she'd be better off dead. If she won the case, however, she wouldn't be better off dead, and so her grounds for winning the case would be wrong. Therefore, as a judge, I could never award the case in her favour, as doing so would give her a 'good life' (or whatever), when she's basically suing on the grounds that she can't live a 'good life'.
^is that 'correct' or 'not wrong'? :P I'd still like to know someone else's opinion on it.