h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>Further, the parents have decided they would prefer a deaf child, and parents almost always place a high priority on the happiness of their offspring<

And there's the fatal flaw in the argument. The *parents* have 'decided' what they want. That choice is to limit the possible experiences and life quality of their child because they cannot know what they are condemning the child to miss.

And if I read utilitarianism rightly, I think it would suggest that an evolutionary advantage that is not a positive hindrance due to modern living styles should be maintained. Deafness being, at best, a null position, hearing being a positive...

> "I think [Utilitarianism] would suggest that an evolutionary advantage that is not a positive hindrance due to modern living styles should be maintained"

I'm not quite clear what you're saying here. Can you give an example of an evolutionary advantage that *is* a positive hindrance due to modern living styles? By 'maintained' do you mean that it should be available in the gene pool, or that it should be universal in the gene pool, or something else?

> "I think [Utilitarianism] would suggest that an evolutionary advantage that is not a positive hindrance due to modern living styles should be maintained"

I'm not quite clear what you're saying here. Can you give an example of an evolutionary advantage that *is* a positive hindrance due to modern living styles? By 'maintained' do you mean that it should be available in the gene pool, or that it should be universal in the gene pool, or something else?

Really just a way of stopping somebody shouting 'oh blind cave bats blah blah blah' or something similar.
I'm more interested in whether it would view a null point, deafness, as of equal merit to a positive point, hearing.

Well I think I answered that in the entry. In the general case it's bad for the deaf child and bad for the rest of society. In the specific case, it's probably roughly neutral for the child, good for the parents, and bad for the rest of society. IMO.

Going wider than deafness, a psychic ability to cause people pain would certainly be an evolutionary advantage, but it would probably decrease total happiness, so utilitarianism would view it as a bad thing.

-M

A fascinating article. And an interesting rebuttal.

Codas (children of Deaf adults) tend to have a hard childhood, and then to end up well educated. They're more likely than most to go to college. But interpreting for your parents is no fun, and sets up awkward power differentials in the family.

Deaf children of Deaf parents tend to gain high social status in the Deaf Community, which is a rich and vibrant (if occasionally insular) place.

Now what's best for the child?

TRiG.

I don't think I could choose. What would you say?

Me? I dunno. I'd go with the parents' decision, I think. Deaf children of Deaf parents usually grow up happily and well adjusted, to judge by the books I've read.

TRiG.