My bad. I had been reading about how there's a frustration in the community that allistic people refuse to explain why such statements are wrong, and instead just repeat "you know what you did!" to people who genuinely don't.
I tried to be the one who didn't do that, but missed the mark. I'd delete it if I could.
Only 1% of the population has autism. Presenting autism as a considerable possibility for trollish behavior isn't much different than what the parent commenter did.
Is there more context to this question? I couldn't read the article because of the pay wall. But in isolation, this is a dumb question. All decent parents want their child to live as long as possible and be as healthy as possible. Is there something deeper you were trying to get at?
So what? So a father shouldn't celebrate medical advances that mean their kid doesn't have to die after a week? And if it does, they should just be like "Ah, that's life!"
Oh, sorry. I definitely think a father can (should?) celebrate medical advancements like this, and definitely shouldn't undermine death like "Ah, that's life". My point is that people often worry about their children's death when they themselves are still alive. Death seems okay if it's when they don't get to see it
You are trying to frame this as pure “logic” but if you had read a single book on ethics or even philosophy you would see that’s not the case. You are basically asking “but why is good better than bad?” Acting as if you are logical but failing basic premises of logic or ethics. Any ethical framework is going to have axioms, typicslly these axioms are things that are inarguable for any person, namely its better to live than die, or to reduce suffering, etc. using basically any ethics system and pure logic you will quickly reach a conclusion that a baby living is better than one dying.
This really has nothing to do with the inevitability of death. Death is inevitable, however there is a difference between a child dying and an elderly person dying. A child has potential, they have not lived their lives. A child has not actually lived the full basic human experience, they havent had a crush, or fallen in love or married or had children or had any great successes or failures or close friends or anything, these things everyone does. An older person has, they are not a pure soul who hasnt experienced life. After 70 years you can be sad for the individual passing but happy that they have experienced life. This is why when a parent has a child they arent sad that their child will die in 80 years, but are devasted if they die at a week. The child never even had a chance. When you actually have a child, its an emotional and fulfilling experience, and to have that torn out so early is damaging.
From an empathy and emotional pov these things are so extemely basic and foundational aspects of being a human, a 10 year old from any culture on earth can undersrand this with no difficulty. And any person with even a passing familiarty with logic, ethics or philosophy will dismiss you as being earnest. Which is why people are assuming you are a troll.
A parent's obligation is to try and do everything they can to make their child's life good. I think most people would agree that living more than a week is a good thing.
