Here in (country) everyone on the left hates surrogacy with a burning passion, since it involves rich people essentially buying babies and using the bodies of poor women for their own benefit. Even the right wing parties feel sliiightly uncomfortable discussing said topics (with the exception of the extremely liberal ones who also love to act all european and modern).
Even sitcoms such as Friends or Always Sunny in Philadelphia had plotlines where this happened and they didn't pointed out how some rich fuck was taking advantage of a poor person. (Well, it was a sitcom so the poor person was either an asshole or doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but you get the picture: whitewashing surrogacy is also bad).
So yeah, what's the deal with that? No one points out how fucked up it is???
you're not a wild animal, and justifying unethical bullshit with "muh biological drives" does in fact make you reactionary
Yeah, we are. We're Social Animals, and consequently significantly smarter & more complex than ones that aren't; we are more capable of self-reflection, and self-restraint as a consequence of it. Nevertheless, that is in fact still a kind of animal, and we are still going to be driven impulses to survive & to reproduce ingrained into us by the processes of evolution. You want to argue against this from a moralistic basis, which is nice, but you are also kind of just abandoning the principles of historical materialism in order to maintain that.
How would "modes of production", or the material bases of society have any relation to how we organize ourselves socially if we could just do whatever we thought was "the best idea" at any time, completely independent of our material needs or natural impulses?
I'm going to assume you're here to discuss in good faith, so I'm going to ask you to reread what you quoted and then perhaps look up the definition of "wild animal." You are not, in fact, a wild animal.
Why don't you just explain to me directly what you think the significance of that, to me somewhat pedantic & inscrutable, distinction is?
Come on. It's very difficult to believe that you don't understand what a wild animal is.
What I'm saying is that you are a moral agent. You can make decisions based on what is right, not what feels good or what your instincts tell you to do.
"What is right" is not a fixed proposition, it's historically determined, and within a society of classes it's determined by the material interests of that class which rules over all others.
I can choose to do many things, but it is foolish to expect me to choose self-destruction, and unwise of me to pursue it.
Adopting a child as opposed to creating a new one is self-destruction???
Lmao believe whatever you want
Continue to be puzzled at people engaging in a behavior which has been unchanged for forever
Continue thinking I'm endorsing it because you're too fucking stupid to separate the observation from your thinking I believe it's good
sarcastically saying "how dare people do x" is not an endorsement of x?
Im not going to blame the human species for not, as one, rising above being horny things made of meat sculpted by an absolutely blind process with only one "goal," the continued reproduction of that meat.
That doesn't mean I think everybody SHOULD, IN AN IDEAL SOCIETY, have some fucking right to have their own kid just because. Just that Im not enough of a twat to like blame people for desires and urges that are fucking built into them.
Like damn dawg
do you apply this same logic to all selfish, unethical acts taken as a result of biological urges?