I expected that my audience would already know that it was a bad idea to love a reborn doll because I expected them to be mostly male. Reborn dolls are marketed to females and everything I have seen about them (not a lot), suggests that males find them wrong. It is possible that we don’t have the same sort of machinery for attaching to babies and baby shaped things as females.
But what moral argument could I present to someone who did love their reborn doll? Let me present a brief discussion:
Doller: I love my doll, I want to spend all my money on repainting a room in pink and buying a new cot for it.
Moral Functionalist: Can’t you see that is wrong? Or at least can’t you see that lots of other people think it is wrong, which should give you evidence on the morality function?
Doller: Previously people have been agreed that crushing your neighbours tribe was the correct thing to do. At some point someone had to be the one to say no a raid now would not be a good idea (perhaps not saying that it was morally wrong but thinking it). Should he have been convinced by everyone else saying that neighbour slaughtering and daughter taking was the right and proper thing to do? How do you become the first one to strike out on your own to progress morally. Can you definitively say that I am not a pioneer in moral progress?
MF: But a reborn doll does not promote the properties of love and growth etc..
Doller: Oh but it does, without it I am listless and have feel I have no purpose with an aching hole in my life needing to be filled. With it I have something to protect and work for. A reborn doll is also a lot less time and effort for me than a real baby allowing me to spend more time working and sleeping well, so I am more productive in my job. Much like someone being in a relationship without a child gets the benefits of being in a relationship without the family obligations. People should be encouraged to have and love real dolls so that they can focus on immortality research without having to find ways to afford money for college for the next generation.
MF: ….
Feel free to try and end, or correct the argument to how you would actually take it. I feel I have been weak in the argument for the non-doller point of view, but I don’t really get how it is supposed to work.
In answer to your first question, I would use protection, but I have never claimed my meta-morality is consistent and don’t drive it to extremes. I just go with what seems to work for me, and not spend too much time and energy on the whole thing. Wasting time and energy is a pretty bad thing to do according to my morality.
I expected that my audience would already know that it was a bad idea to love a reborn doll because I expected them to be mostly male. Reborn dolls are marketed to females and everything I have seen about them (not a lot), suggests that males find them wrong. It is possible that we don’t have the same sort of machinery for attaching to babies and baby shaped things as females.
But what moral argument could I present to someone who did love their reborn doll? Let me present a brief discussion:
Doller: I love my doll, I want to spend all my money on repainting a room in pink and buying a new cot for it. Moral Functionalist: Can’t you see that is wrong? Or at least can’t you see that lots of other people think it is wrong, which should give you evidence on the morality function? Doller: Previously people have been agreed that crushing your neighbours tribe was the correct thing to do. At some point someone had to be the one to say no a raid now would not be a good idea (perhaps not saying that it was morally wrong but thinking it). Should he have been convinced by everyone else saying that neighbour slaughtering and daughter taking was the right and proper thing to do? How do you become the first one to strike out on your own to progress morally. Can you definitively say that I am not a pioneer in moral progress? MF: But a reborn doll does not promote the properties of love and growth etc.. Doller: Oh but it does, without it I am listless and have feel I have no purpose with an aching hole in my life needing to be filled. With it I have something to protect and work for. A reborn doll is also a lot less time and effort for me than a real baby allowing me to spend more time working and sleeping well, so I am more productive in my job. Much like someone being in a relationship without a child gets the benefits of being in a relationship without the family obligations. People should be encouraged to have and love real dolls so that they can focus on immortality research without having to find ways to afford money for college for the next generation. MF: ….
Feel free to try and end, or correct the argument to how you would actually take it. I feel I have been weak in the argument for the non-doller point of view, but I don’t really get how it is supposed to work.
In answer to your first question, I would use protection, but I have never claimed my meta-morality is consistent and don’t drive it to extremes. I just go with what seems to work for me, and not spend too much time and energy on the whole thing. Wasting time and energy is a pretty bad thing to do according to my morality.