This is a report of philosophy cafe session #51 on 16 April 2008.
The question for the night is as in the heading: Should childbirth be outsourced?
No, it should not be outsourced, because pregnancy is a joy and a privilege. But this is a selfish reason. Selfishness is ok, so long as it benefits me.
No, it should not be outsourced, because then there will be no bonding of mother and child. This is also the case in adoption, so this is not a good reason. Indeed, in the case of adoption, the case is even further removed, as there is no genetic heritage.
Yes, it should be outsourced, because it is more convenient for the couple. Indeed, many other events should also be outsourced, such a birthdays, schooling, bedtime stories. Then why have a child? For tax reasons.
An observation: Adoption is also oursourcing of childbirth, except that it occurs after the fact. The difference in outsourcing childbirth here is the child takes its genetic heritage from its adoptive parents. So outsourcing childbirth (that is, surrogacy) is better than adoption.
Yes, childbirth should be outsourced, as it provides employment for the surrogate mothers (clinically referred to as incubators).
No, childbirth should not be outsourced, as this will make the husband respect the wife less. The comparison is with a layabout husband, who is then not fulfilling his duty of bringing home the bacon.
Post-cafe reflection
The temptation here is to consider the above as three arguments against outsourcing childbirth, and two arguments in favour of it. This is the wrong perspective. In evaluating moral questions teleologically (by reference to its consequences), the correct approach is to consider all the consequences, and to judge if there is a nett of benefits over harms. If there is a nett of benefits over harms, it is a moral act; if there is a nett of harms over benefits, it is an immoral act.
Philosophy cafe is held every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free (and so is parking). All are welcome. (For more information, please follow link to my website.) The next philosophy cafe session will be on 21 May 2008.
Monday, 21 April 2008
Monday, 31 March 2008
Which road do I take?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 19 March 2008. We again use the Instrument.
1. What do we wish to do? We wish to address a question.
2. Write down our question in under 10 words. Which road do I take?
3. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
4. Write down our new question in under 10 words. What are the roads?
5. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
6. Write down our new question in under 10 words. What is meant by roads?
7. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? No.
8. Do we have an answer? No.
9. What is our question form? What is P?
10. Define P lexically, stipulatively, ostensively, or denotatively. We do not understand.
11. Find the word in a good dictionary. Does the definition suit our needs? No.
12. Can we just say what P shall mean? Yes.
13. Define P to suit our purpose. "Roads" is "a series of life choices".
1. What do we wish to do? We wish to address a question.
2. Write down our question in under 10 words. Which life choice do I take?
3. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
4. Write down our question in under 10 words. What are the life choices?
5. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? No.
6. Do we have an answer? Yes.
7. Write down our answer, and reasons, using "therefore" and "because".
Therefore: Advance in my career.
Because: I'm afraid of having no income later in life.
8. Identify key words and phrases. Advance, career, afraid, no income, later in life.
9. List any repeated word or phrase. None.
10. Shall we test for informal fallacies? No, go directly to rigorous test.
11. Recall our answer. Let this be Q. Q = Advance in my career.
Recall also our reason. Fear of no income later in life.
12. What is our argument type? We do not know.
13. Does our answer involve Q and an alternative P? Yes.
14. An argument involving alternatives is a disjunctive argument. The alternatives are disjuncts.
15. Let P represent the other disjunct. P = No income later in life.
16. Do Q and P have undesirable consequences? Yes.
17. This is a dilemma.
18. Can we prevent, reverse or remedy the undesirable consequence of one disjunct?
Yes: No income later in life.
19. Choose that option. Our question is answered.
Reflection
The Instrument continues to function well, but it offers little entertainment value and hence will not be conducive to greater attendance. We may have to revert to a more free for all approach -- and offer only sporadic guidance on the techniques of clear thought.
Philosophy cafe is held every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, Singapore, 8-10pm. No prerequisites. All welcome.
1. What do we wish to do? We wish to address a question.
2. Write down our question in under 10 words. Which road do I take?
3. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
4. Write down our new question in under 10 words. What are the roads?
5. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
6. Write down our new question in under 10 words. What is meant by roads?
7. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? No.
8. Do we have an answer? No.
9. What is our question form? What is P?
10. Define P lexically, stipulatively, ostensively, or denotatively. We do not understand.
11. Find the word in a good dictionary. Does the definition suit our needs? No.
12. Can we just say what P shall mean? Yes.
13. Define P to suit our purpose. "Roads" is "a series of life choices".
1. What do we wish to do? We wish to address a question.
2. Write down our question in under 10 words. Which life choice do I take?
3. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
4. Write down our question in under 10 words. What are the life choices?
5. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? No.
6. Do we have an answer? Yes.
7. Write down our answer, and reasons, using "therefore" and "because".
Therefore: Advance in my career.
Because: I'm afraid of having no income later in life.
8. Identify key words and phrases. Advance, career, afraid, no income, later in life.
9. List any repeated word or phrase. None.
10. Shall we test for informal fallacies? No, go directly to rigorous test.
11. Recall our answer. Let this be Q. Q = Advance in my career.
Recall also our reason. Fear of no income later in life.
12. What is our argument type? We do not know.
13. Does our answer involve Q and an alternative P? Yes.
14. An argument involving alternatives is a disjunctive argument. The alternatives are disjuncts.
15. Let P represent the other disjunct. P = No income later in life.
16. Do Q and P have undesirable consequences? Yes.
17. This is a dilemma.
18. Can we prevent, reverse or remedy the undesirable consequence of one disjunct?
Yes: No income later in life.
19. Choose that option. Our question is answered.
Reflection
The Instrument continues to function well, but it offers little entertainment value and hence will not be conducive to greater attendance. We may have to revert to a more free for all approach -- and offer only sporadic guidance on the techniques of clear thought.
Philosophy cafe is held every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, Singapore, 8-10pm. No prerequisites. All welcome.
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Introduction
Hi,
My name is Lau Kwong Fook. I am a Singapore philosopher. I have decided to dedicate the rest of my life to promoting clear thought, and teaching people to think clearly. This is not as ridiculous as it sounds. Chess has rules, dressing has rules, mathematics has rules, music has rules. In fact, everything in life has rules. Then why is it everyone thinks thinking can be done intuitively, without reference to any rules? Clear thought is governed by rules, but these are never taught in schools. That is why everyone thinks thought is intuitive, and so they think muddle-headedly while imagining they think clearly. I have had the good fortune to have studied philosophy, and specifically logic, so I am acquainted with the rules of clear thought. I have crystallised these rules into a course entitled "NOUS: A Practical Guide to Clear Thought". A course outline can be found at this website: http://philocafesg.tripod.com/.
I host Singapore's first (and so far only) philosophy cafe. It is held on every third Wednesday of the month, at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Rd, Singapore, from 8-10pm. It's free, and all are welcome. You can find reports of the proceedings on this blog from time to time, and you are welcome to post comments.
I also create philochart puzzles. These are graphical "puzzle" representations of famous arguments by famous philosophers. Solving the puzzle will yield the argument. Almost all introductions to philosophy focus on the philosopher's position, that is, his conclusion -- and neglect his argument. This is wrong. The argument is the key. If the argument is not sound, the conclusion cannot follow, however attractive it may be. These puzzles focus on the argument, and only finally reveal the conclusion or position. It's a new way to learn philosophy.
There is one more thing I do, but it is still too early to reveal it yet. So be patient. All will be revealed shortly.
What else can be found on this blog? Why, anything else I care to put up, of course.
Hope you enjoy dipping into this blog occasionally.
See you soon.
Kwong Fook
My name is Lau Kwong Fook. I am a Singapore philosopher. I have decided to dedicate the rest of my life to promoting clear thought, and teaching people to think clearly. This is not as ridiculous as it sounds. Chess has rules, dressing has rules, mathematics has rules, music has rules. In fact, everything in life has rules. Then why is it everyone thinks thinking can be done intuitively, without reference to any rules? Clear thought is governed by rules, but these are never taught in schools. That is why everyone thinks thought is intuitive, and so they think muddle-headedly while imagining they think clearly. I have had the good fortune to have studied philosophy, and specifically logic, so I am acquainted with the rules of clear thought. I have crystallised these rules into a course entitled "NOUS: A Practical Guide to Clear Thought". A course outline can be found at this website: http://philocafesg.tripod.com/.
I host Singapore's first (and so far only) philosophy cafe. It is held on every third Wednesday of the month, at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Rd, Singapore, from 8-10pm. It's free, and all are welcome. You can find reports of the proceedings on this blog from time to time, and you are welcome to post comments.
I also create philochart puzzles. These are graphical "puzzle" representations of famous arguments by famous philosophers. Solving the puzzle will yield the argument. Almost all introductions to philosophy focus on the philosopher's position, that is, his conclusion -- and neglect his argument. This is wrong. The argument is the key. If the argument is not sound, the conclusion cannot follow, however attractive it may be. These puzzles focus on the argument, and only finally reveal the conclusion or position. It's a new way to learn philosophy.
There is one more thing I do, but it is still too early to reveal it yet. So be patient. All will be revealed shortly.
What else can be found on this blog? Why, anything else I care to put up, of course.
Hope you enjoy dipping into this blog occasionally.
See you soon.
Kwong Fook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)