Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ensorceled | Hacker News Reader

> there is a subjective argument that they've got a better incentive to steer you into an optimal basin than anybody, relatively speaking

Many parents do not have their kids best interest at heart; from religious fanatics to divorced parents using their kids as pawns to failed athletes living vicariously through their "he'll be in the NHL someday" fantasies to just parents who didn't want have kids and don't care at all.

Then there a whole slew of parents who genuinely want what is best for their kids but won't succeed due to incompetence or their own issues with drug addition or passing on generational trauma.

View on HN

The quotation in the GP’s post does seem to evince little appreciation (if not outright disdain) for ties to family and local community across the generations. But what if the potential harm caused to some kids by bad parents, is an unavoidable part of the social-cohesion benefits to all society that would be caused by young people not moving far away?

I don’t necessarily want to have a dog in this fight myself. But I immediately thought of how that quotation would jar with some cultures represented on HN, where children stay close to parents all their lives and it is widely felt that the West is doing it wrong.

Agreed! I think blanket assumptions the other way are bad as well.

> where children stay close to parents all their lives and it is widely felt that the West is doing it wrong.

It's interesting to see how close some 1st/2nd/3rd generation European families are, having first hand experience with Italian, Portuguese and Spanish families. It might be only certain parts of the West that is "doing this wrong".

a.k.a. America

I’m reasonably sure that religious fanatics usually have their children’s best interest at heart. Their value function is just different from that of less religious people.

Something something a different enough value function is indistinguishable from malice.

More seriously, like the old adage about everyone being the hero of their own story, all parents think they have their children's best interests at heart. There's probably no such thing as universal best interests. Gets at some of the thorny problems - personhood, adulthood, cultural values.

It depends on the person, and it depends on the religion. There are positive and negative values, and a misaligned person may well believe they are doing right but actually causing damage. That is why humility, compassion, and honesty are prerequisites for all successful undertakings.

The difference between a malicious value function and unethical conduct is intent; at least in some systems of ethics. Beyond that I think the discussion shifts to the realm of philosophy papers and becomes unsuited for HN comment boxes.

I mean, sure, from a certain technical point of view you could say "honour killings" are done to "save the soul of the child" and hence come from a place of "in their best interests" but by then the "value function" has gone totally awry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com