Why not the greatest glory for the smallest child? Why give happiness/honor to adults, why not the greatest glory to the smallest child? Surely small children are cuter than adults, so if they are cuter, they should have more glory?
Prove me wrong. If utilitarianism says that you must give the greatest honor (because happiness entails honor and social position) to the greatest number, why not give the greatest glory to the smallest child, since small children have not done as many bad things as adults.
Why are you racist against children?
43 comments
Oh yes, let's spend more than 6000 annual bucks, whether we have them or not, not sleep at night for a while, take major responsabilities that we may or may not be able to face, out of the blue just because the child is cute.
1) If utilitarianism says that you must give the greatest honor (because happiness entails honor and social position) to the greatest number, then
2)why not give the greatest glory to the smallest child, since small children have not done as many bad things as adults.
Sorry, was there an awful lot of argument that actually connects these two statements that you forgot to type?
"because happiness entails honor and social position"
"why not give the greatest glory to the smallest child, since small children have not done as many bad things as adults."
"Why are you racist against children?"
(because happiness entails honor and social position)
Wow, why are you such a classist asshole?
Alrighty, let's give 50% or more glory to the great and noble race of children, especially the smallest ones, 'kay? Now let's just put away that crack pipe before someone gets hurt...
Seriously though, I think it is either a "creatively" worded anti-abortion statement ending on a rhetorical question, or a very creepy pedophile on the verge of a psychological breakdown.
If utilitarianism says that you must give the greatest honor (because happiness entails honor and social position) to the greatest number, why not give the greatest glory to the smallest child, since small children have not done as many bad things as adults.
More leaps here than at the ballet.
Children isn't a race.
Utilitarianism says that that which makes the greatest amount of people happy is probably the right thing to do. There is no MUST in it, and it's not either grown-ups or children, but hopefully both, and all other groups as well. That which brings harm to the smallest possible group is the least bad thing.
I've met cute children who were evil to the core (blame the lack of parental supervision), and I've met what some who would uncharitably be called "ugly" who were good as gold. I've also met attractive adults who were dumber than a bag of hair.
How does "cute" have anything with utilitarianism? I have two phones, an Androis, and something I borrowed off of my 5 year old niece from a Barbie set. The Barbie "phone" is clearly cuter, but it can't do jack.
"why not give the greatest glory to the smallest child"
From a utilitarian view, children are pretty useless (unless you want to bring back child labor). Infants are utterly useless (except as an investment).
From a religious view, children are pretty useless (can only be used as pawns). Infants are tremendously useful (as propaganda material).
Why are YOU "racist" against children?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
