undefined | Better HN

0 pointsWarOnPrivacy6y ago0 comments

> "it creates a debt to children so massive, that it can't be fully repaid in a lifetime."

> This is just an idea you made up.

I'd agree that it's a bit on the melodramatic side and it'd be fair to call it arbitrary.

However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest.

It works against the common assumption that kids owe their parents for their upbringing (If you feel I made that up then I can't help you here).

I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome and that it's main purpose is to demean & degrade kids (children & adult) - to bully them into some sort of compliant behavior.

That's the core behind the principle. If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

javert6y ago

> However, I offer that the sentiment behind it is honest.

No doubt about that. I think the sentiment behind it is that you love your kids greatly.

> I propose that common assumption leads to no beneficial outcome

I agree, but your principle is pretty similar to the one you are criticizing. They are two sides of the same coin. Neither principle is grounded in empirical reality. Both can lead to bad outcomes.

> If there's fault in my overall reasoning, this is where I'd recommend you look.

I mean, to be clear, I think the fault in your reasoning is to try to create a universal moral imperative based on an emotion you feel about your own kids. There is a gap there. That is not a justified move. Universal moral imperatives would have to be better grounded than that (just like scientific claims have to).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse