In July 2008, a Belgian couple sold their newborn baby to a Dutch couple on the Internet. It is thought the Dutch couple paid a decent five figure sum. The reason to do this is that they could not afford the baby and that’s why they decided to sell the baby boy to the highest bidder.
In this case we are concerned with a morally hard case; on one hand it’s possible to argue that the Belgian couple acted morally right by means of willing to give their baby the best future possible. They just didn’t have the money to raise the child and wanted to give him a secure future. On the other hand it’s not in accordance with the moral rules and principles of liberal society; it’s morally wrong to just sell your baby on the internet like he is a product. Besides, this is in conflict with the discourse of law, which says you should not trade human beings, and thus in conflict with the moral commandment to always obey the law.
Viewed from the perspective of the Dutch couple who bought the baby, the arguments mentioned above against the moral wrong actions of the Belgian couple are relevant to the actions of the Dutch couple too. They should not trade a human being according to the discourse of law and they should know this is not right from a moral viewpoint.
Background article
7 comments:
I do not agree with the statement that they acted morally right when selling their baby because they were willing to give their baby the best future. Even if you are not able to raise your child because you have not enough money, it is not morally right to sell your baby. There are alternatives, e.g. adoption, that are morally right and result in a better future for your child.
s289233
I agree with the student s289233. I think it is morally right that the parents want to give better future to their baby by giving the baby better parents. However as student above said there is good way that society allow. e.g. adoption.
In the case of trading human being, we can see the overlap between moral discourse and legal discourse. Society makes sure this overlap because this matter is critical and people within society should follow this behavior voluntarily. And our society sees trading human is morally wrong, so it made this overlap.
I agree with both previous comments, that it is morally wrong to sell your baby on the internet. Besides that I think the Belgium couple acted morally wrong by arguing that they wane give their baby boy a better future but they sold him to the highest bidder. Thus from a self-interest point of view with respect to the economic discourse, the Belgium couple sold their baby boy to maximize profit instead of taking his future into account.
I agree with the author of the principal comment that buying or selling a baby is morally wrong and in violation of the discourse of law.
However, I don't agree with the author that the Belgian couple acted morally right. If the Belgian couple really would have wanted to provide their newborn child 'the best future possible' they should not have sold their baby for a five figure number. This is not in the interest of the child, but in the interest of the parents themselves. This act is immoral as people should have some concern for others.
In addition, it would have been better if the Belgian parents would have given their child to an adoption agency. In such an institution, the employees try their best to find a suitable home for the child and as such provide the baby a good future. This is legal and morally right.
s926012
The parents acted wrong from a legal discourse, it is forbidden to sell a child. I think they also acted wrong regarding the moral discourse. If you give your baby to the highest bidder you only care for yourself and the bidders, the acting could be right if they give the baby to the best parents. From the business discourse I also think they acted wrong because I think the government will prosecute them and eventually they lose all their money and risk a prison sentence.In short, the parents acted wrong concerning every discourse of morality.
s888110
the double entendre in this case is from the one hand the parents want the best for their baby, which is a good thing. But if they only want the best future for their baby, it is acting out of duty and not of self interest. It is in their self interest to get a hugh amount of money.
If they would the best future for their baby, the wouldn't ask such a high price for the baby, and just select parents who could give the baby a fantastic future with lots of love and financial resources...
I agree on the first comment.
There is no good reason possible to talk about morally right to sell a human being even it is the case that the parents can’t affort the expenses of the baby.
What worries me the most is that they sold their baby to the highest bidder. In this way you can’t conclude that they wanted the best for the baby.
The Dutch couple is also morally wrong in this case. By buying a human being on the internet they are more or less supporting trafficking in human beings.
Also the internet site which allowed the bid must be held legally responsible for making bids on humans possible.
I conclude: morally wrong on every point (socially, legally and morally).
Post a Comment