Yes it is, and parents have a duty to prepare their children for the world, evil as it is. It’s very difficult to navigate. For example, there’s some credibility to the argument that raising a machiavellian child is in their own best interests and therefore moral. A more trivial example is purposefully infecting your child with chickenpox for future immune protection. Somewhere between those two (probably) lies the moral ideal, if such a thing exists.
purposefully infecting your child with chickenpox for future immune protection
Vaccines are infinitely safer than doing that. Your premise a bad example to give, as it’s the riskiest possible path to immunity, and an example of exceptionally harmful parental care given the vaccination options.
Don’t be ridiculous, it’s a hypothetical. Chicken pox parties were the only path to immunity before vaccines were introduced and it’s simply a good example of parents exposing their children to a little evil for their own protection. Clearly the example was chosen because of its applicability to a cogent point, and not because of its specifics.
However, instead of focusing on the salient argument, you’ve decided to engage in pedantry for what, the sake of argument? Would you have preferred it if I added the qualifier “in the 60’s”?
Or is this just a ridiculous attempt to frame this as an anti-vaccine argument? You’ll get no mileage there, because, again, it was just a fitting example.
Yes it is, and parents have a duty to prepare their children for the world, evil as it is. It’s very difficult to navigate. For example, there’s some credibility to the argument that raising a machiavellian child is in their own best interests and therefore moral. A more trivial example is purposefully infecting your child with chickenpox for future immune protection. Somewhere between those two (probably) lies the moral ideal, if such a thing exists.
Vaccines are infinitely safer than doing that. Your premise a bad example to give, as it’s the riskiest possible path to immunity, and an example of exceptionally harmful parental care given the vaccination options.
Don’t be ridiculous, it’s a hypothetical. Chicken pox parties were the only path to immunity before vaccines were introduced and it’s simply a good example of parents exposing their children to a little evil for their own protection. Clearly the example was chosen because of its applicability to a cogent point, and not because of its specifics. However, instead of focusing on the salient argument, you’ve decided to engage in pedantry for what, the sake of argument? Would you have preferred it if I added the qualifier “in the 60’s”?
Or is this just a ridiculous attempt to frame this as an anti-vaccine argument? You’ll get no mileage there, because, again, it was just a fitting example.