.agree

What is the liberalist objection to this?

Okay, so a person must consent to undergo such a transforming possibly permanently damaging process

I agree

I just don't see the justification for this in liberalism

well, you might be able to make the case that this violates the child's individual rights

ultimately I think you must impose a particular moral authority to fully make the case that this is wrong, though

in that case wouldn't he be his parents responsibility? if there is no responsibilty to society as a collective

and it isn't the parent's right to do this because

and I would agree Stargazer, the child must subject to an authority that has his best interests at heart

this is the best thing for society

it would seem the "liberal" thing to do would be to not interfere in the affairs of the parent and child, right?

good point, it's about the child's liberation

but on what grounds is this bad way of raising the child? Is it more liberating for the parents to be raising them as they see fit, is it more liberating to let the child do what he wants, or is it more liberating for the state to intervene when necessary?

doesn't this entirely depend on a separate moral judgement than what is "liberating"

isn't it what is good for the self, family, and society in a particular balance what is ultimately important??

and wanting to push your idea of "good," instead of leaving people as they are in a state such as this is anything but "liberal" but is the moral thing to do?

ah, so it is a particular process of raising children that you want to enforce. at least, it is bounded where this in particular is out of bounds

they must be raised in such a way that they become an "individual"

makes sense

under the classical liberal ideology it makes sense to recommend children be raised in such a way that they become capable members of a classical liberal society and will champion your ideals

but is that not enforcing your values onto a collective?

I just don't think you can only take individual rights into some kind of calculus without appealing to some kind of societal (collective) good

tricky situations like this, with families and children, expose this

classical liberalism tends to abstract people away into atomized individuals with no past, group associations (like one's family) and no duties or obligations to those groups

but we are all part of families and it's by no means a trivial case

well, we wouldn't want people tyranized by their group, right?

except

this kid could use a little tyranizing don't you think?

in a direction that is positive for his personal growth

rather than the trajectory he is on

Their parents as individuals can make those judgments for them? True, but on what grounds is this a bad judgment made for him? What stops his best direction of "personal growth" being becoming the best boy-tranny ever?

So, it's societal intervention

You tell me, aren't we violating individual rights here? what if the child consents? (I'm being facetious)

how does individualism address the rights of children

huh?

I could answer that, but I don't see the relevance

in the case of the boy becoming a tranny, it is liberal policy then to come his defense

for an adult it's just his responsibility though

okay so he is still treated as an individual, it's just that his individual rights are being violated because he cannot consent to sexual exploitation as a child

right

Alright how about this: we are still deciding as society what the best course of his life should be and enforcing it if we intervene here

here, we are deciding what this individual should want and should be

it just isn't allowed to be anything sexual since he's a child

but the reasoning for this doesn't have anything to do with violation of individual rights does it?

an outside force is deciding what his well-being should be... because he isn't capable of knowing the right decision?

would that not apply to people outside of just children, unconscious or disabled?

It seems that sometimes a societal entity or member of an incapacitated or not-fully-matured individual must make a decision for them, but what is the basis of this moral decision?

what counts as "defense" for a child/incapable person?

Surely this individual liberty can't come at the expense of that of others, right?

But also surely, people should be allowed to compete under some conception of a meritocracy. That would result in the meritorious triumphing over not meritorious, at their expense.

However that would be a valid expense, yes?

not everyone can have the "liberty" to be the best

but some conceptions of competition do not benefit the group, and it is only a tyranny of the strong over the weak by some definition

so then what we really care about is what moral system, what moral principles we should compete under, that benefit the group

did I use any sleight of hand there?

or is it that individual rights and benefits must be balanced with the good of the collective?

what defines that balance?

well, that would be what I suggest as the basis for morality: principles that promote survival and reproduction within the group, that promote power and stability for competition with other groups

and against nature

a balance completely toward individualism would dissolve the group and turn individuals against each other in destructive way

as for a balance skewed completely toward collectivism, it's a bit harder to show why that is not a good idea

I need to introduce a few more things

but the point is... morality is affected by evolutionary forces that act on the survival and reproduction of the group, not necessarily just the individuals

the same morality that we use to make our moral judgements, ostensibly in defense of individual rights, is grounded in a balanced individualist/collectivist morality

and you can call that "individualism" but really this is a misnomer

at least for the principles that allow for moral intervention of children/incapacitated etc.

reproduction does in fact spread ideals, allow me to explain

first of all, many traits like personality and IQ are partially heritable

secondly, those who get to breed are those at the top of social hierarchies

third, the people at the top of social hierarchies are those that most embody the ideals of the group

those that embody those ideals have traits that allow for it

they get to breed

and pass on those traits

oh and those traits affect what one's principles are

so, the principles are then passed on

the ideals are then protected by them for the sake of retaining the position of themselves and their progeny in the social hierarchy

of course, these actually need to be effective principles or else the group perishes against nature

or other groups

yes, without that it only passes them on insofar as personality and IQ traits are passed down. These traits would need to give rise to values all over again if nothing were passed down orally

however, as it is effective, passing down the principles, the tradition, becomes part of an effective culture

this causes the following feedback loop:

environment -> traits give rise to principles/culture -> cultural development affects environment -> repeat

yes. however it is also an effective aspect of a culture to allow for adaptation

not entirely

yes

this will then cause certain personalities to be favored and they will reach greater heights of the social hierarchy which will cause them to reproduce

over the less favore personalities

hm? that is the natural mating process. have good traits that are suited for the social group's ideals, reach high in the hierarchy, get laid

status helps you get good mates. following the group's ideals gets you status. having traits suitable for those ideals lets you follow those ideals

status may be retained by some other means, but that must be attained at some point

A completely descriptive morality based on evolution

bypassing the is/ought problem

and also reframing our idea of "individualism"

yeah basically

I wouldn't say "create" but yeah

derive from evolutionary principles

theory, rather

I think it is "practicable" in the sense that it can provide a better perspective on moral issues especially to handle moral "relativism" between groups, to justify and work with our tribalistic tendencies