Spideynw:And I am still waiting for an explanation as to how that helps parents decide when they have violated a child's rights.
I have no idea. What do you want? Assume that the child has the right to be free from aggression and then don't aggress. Next you're be asking be for example, other than sex and murder. of aggression. You are an intelligent man. You can figure out what is aggression and what is not. If not, I'm really not interested in discussing it. Our disagreement is not, and has not been about that. We disagree on whether a child has the right to be free from aggression or not.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
nirgrahamUK:well, the answer is rape at 20 violated the body property rights of a self-owner, who has reason and will and is comprehensible from a teleological analysis. (this makes rape comprehensible as a term in that context) if the same goes for a 4 year old, terrific, but then the 4 year old is a sovereign and is not in the 'potential sovereign requiring a custodian' camp a la Block/Rothbard
Aster_Lacnala:Then we are back to ability to argue one's complaint as the defining measure of rights? In that case, the story someone posted about the 40+ year old locked as a sex slave in a German basement contains no rights violations. She was physically unable to argue her case, therefore it wasn't a violation. For that matter, if someone is murdered and has no surviving heirs to their property, no injustice has been done.
Stranger:That's about right.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not.So what? Try again. I will answer your question when you provide a satisfactory answer to mine. Period. You will not have an answer until then. You are the one claiming that somehow, it magically becomes rape upon the ability to reason. You need something more.
Spideynw:A 20 year old has the ability to reason and a four year old probably does not.
I will answer your question when you provide a satisfactory answer to mine. Period. You will not have an answer until then. You are the one claiming that somehow, it magically becomes rape upon the ability to reason. You need something more.
I don't think you are interested in an honest discussion, KoB. Even someone that claims that children have rights will admit that at some time in her life, she can have sex and magically it will not be rape anymore. So it is obviously impossible for me to give you a satisfactory answer when you do not even want to discuss reality.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Stranger:What is the difference between the powers that be declaring a murderer not-guilty and simply letting him walk away?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Stranger:Because at 20 years old, the victim can argue her complaint in front of a judge.So what? If you cut out a person's tongue and cut off the person's hands, it no longer becomes rape? WTF?
Stranger:Because at 20 years old, the victim can argue her complaint in front of a judge.
true... consent and refusal have teleological meanings separate from, but related to, the causal meanings whereby we generally gather evidence of other peoples teleological /internal/ states.
The issue is that there is ambiguity between zygotes that we don't pretend to ourselves and others have internal representations of things like consent and refusal, and substantially developed children who we understand as having and using them. Plus in cases where we conceive of the young child as being a self-owner we have a harder task than normal (than when we deal with mature self-owners) given the limitations of communication possible.
cutting off a persons tongue and cutting off the hands without consent is a horrendous crime, with consent a horrendous(aesthetically) voluntary act. It is a conventional wisdom, a kind of thymology , or familiarity with cultural, species related, and psychological norms that cause us to assume crime and lack of consent has happened in a tongue and hand cutting case, because it seems so unlikely that consent and voluntary act has arisen.
If the premise is that there was no consent, then crime falls out of the analysis, and vice-versa if we assume consent. a philosophic difficulty is to determine the truth of actual cases....
lol. i think economics is way easier than ethics ....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Spideynw:I don't think you are interested in an honest discussion, KoB.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: filc:Why do I need to do anything about it? It's not my confusion, yours. If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination. Why and how so? That's self-evident.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: filc:Why do I need to do anything about it? It's not my confusion, yours. If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination. Why and how so?
Stranger: filc:Why do I need to do anything about it? It's not my confusion, yours. If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination.
filc:Why do I need to do anything about it? It's not my confusion, yours.
If you claim that such rights should exist, you actually need to go around enforcing them, otherwise they are only a figment of your fertile imagination.
Why and how so?
That's self-evident.
Prove it. Or is that also self-evident.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
JackCuyler: Spideynw:And I am still waiting for an explanation as to how that helps parents decide when they have violated a child's rights. I have no idea. What do you want? Assume that the child has the right to be free from aggression and then don't aggress. Next you're be asking be for example, other than sex and murder. of aggression. You are an intelligent man. You can figure out what is aggression and what is not. If not, I'm really not interested in discussing it. Our disagreement is not, and has not been about that. We disagree on whether a child has the right to be free from aggression or not.
That was a non-answer. Obviously, you are not interested in an honest discussion. I don't see the point in discussing this with you anymore.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:I don't think you are interested in an honest discussion, KoB.Thank you for your concession. You now agree with me that it is rape.
Can you prove it? If not, will you stop lying?
Spideynw:Even someone that claims that children have rights will admit that at some time in her life, she can have sex and magically it will not be rape anymore.
Consent is magic?
nirgrahamUK:true... consent and refusal have teleological meanings separate from, but related to, the causal meanings whereby we generally gather evidence of other peoples teleological /internal/ states. The issue is that there is ambiguity between zygotes that we don't pretend to ourselves and others have internal representations of things like consent and refusal, and substantially developed children who we understand as having and using them.
The issue is that there is ambiguity between zygotes that we don't pretend to ourselves and others have internal representations of things like consent and refusal, and substantially developed children who we understand as having and using them.
nirgrahamUK:Plus in cases where we conceive of the young child as being a self-owner we have a harder task than normal (than when we deal with mature self-owners) given the limitations of communication possible.
nirgrahamUK:cutting off a persons tongue and cutting off the hands without consent is a horrendous crime, with consent a horrendous(aesthetically) voluntary act.
Spideynw:Can you prove it?
JackCuyler: Spideynw:Even someone that claims that children have rights will admit that at some time in her life, she can have sex and magically it will not be rape anymore. Consent is magic?
Ask Bawaa, he called it magic.
Rather, it is your position that it is magic; I merely elucidated it for you.
Spideynw: JackCuyler: Spideynw:Even someone that claims that children have rights will admit that at some time in her life, she can have sex and magically it will not be rape anymore. Consent is magic? Ask Bawaa, he called it magic.
Ahh. I must have missed that. Falling into the category on those who claim children have rights, I don't think I would make the magic claim, though.
This thread is devolving. I'm honestly waiting for someone to bring up Hitler or Nazis (oops, looks like I have). The sad thing is, I agree with you, even in this thread, much more than I disagree with you. Most participants are horrified that one could hold the position that sex with a child should not be illegal, ignoring that fact that this position is not advocating such behavior.
Beyond, that, if I were to accept you premise that children have no rights, then I would be in full agreement with you. Parents would certainly have the right to use them as they see fit, as a buching bag and a blow-up doll and in any other manner. There is no other logical conclusion.
You've also agreed with me that if you accept my premise that children to have rights, then having sex with a child would be a crime, even if only the child could make a valid claim.
I'm not sure how much more there is to discuss. You're certainly not going to convince me that children do not have the right to be free from aggression. I highly doubt i will convince you that they do.
JackCuyler:This thread is devolving. I'm honestly waiting for someone to bring up Hitler or Nazis (oops, looks like I have). The sad thing is, I agree with you, even in this thread, much more than I disagree with you. Most participants are horrified that one could hold the position that sex with a child should not be illegal, ignoring that fact that this position is not advocating such behavior.
Knight_of_BAAWA: JackCuyler:This thread is devolving. I'm honestly waiting for someone to bring up Hitler or Nazis (oops, looks like I have). The sad thing is, I agree with you, even in this thread, much more than I disagree with you. Most participants are horrified that one could hold the position that sex with a child should not be illegal, ignoring that fact that this position is not advocating such behavior.Rather, I believe the position is that it doesn't violate the child's rights.
Actually, no. Reread Spidy's posts. His claim is that children are not self owners and are the property of their parents, and therefore have no rights.
JackCuyler: Knight_of_BAAWA: JackCuyler:This thread is devolving. I'm honestly waiting for someone to bring up Hitler or Nazis (oops, looks like I have). The sad thing is, I agree with you, even in this thread, much more than I disagree with you. Most participants are horrified that one could hold the position that sex with a child should not be illegal, ignoring that fact that this position is not advocating such behavior.Rather, I believe the position is that it doesn't violate the child's rights. Actually, no. Reread Spidy's posts. His claim is that children are not self owners and are the property of their parents, and therefore have no rights.
Then, following from that, why do the children have rights once they begin to be able to bring a case to court?
Daniel Muffinburg: JackCuyler: Actually, no. Reread Spidy's posts. His claim is that children are not self owners and are the property of their parents, and therefore have no rights. Then, following from that, why do the children have rights once they begin to be able to a case to court?
JackCuyler: Actually, no. Reread Spidy's posts. His claim is that children are not self owners and are the property of their parents, and therefore have no rights.
Then, following from that, why do the children have rights once they begin to be able to a case to court?
I'm not really here to explain Spidy's position, but that wasn't him. He claimed that children gain rights when they gain the ability to think critically, not anything to do with courts. You're conflating his position with those of others who may agree with him in part.
JackCuyler: Daniel Muffinburg: JackCuyler: Actually, no. Reread Spidy's posts. His claim is that children are not self owners and are the property of their parents, and therefore have no rights. Then, following from that, why do the children have rights once they begin to be able to a case to court? I'm not really here to explain Spidy's position, but that wasn't him. He claimed that children gain rights when they gain the ability to think critically, not anything to do with courts. You're conflating his position with those of others who may agree with him in part.
Very well. Then, following from that, why do the children have rights once they gain the ability to think critically?
EDIT: I was conflating two of his own positions, not his position with that of others.
JackCuyler:Actually, no. Reread Spidy's posts. His claim is that children are not self owners and are the property of their parents, and therefore have no rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA: JackCuyler:Actually, no. Reread Spidy's posts. His claim is that children are not self owners and are the property of their parents, and therefore have no rights.Which is actually the same as what I wrote, since you cannot violate that which doesn't exist, right?
I can go along with that. i think my way of stating it is more clear, as it give more information, but your way is not untrue.
Spideynw:That was a non-answer. Obviously, you are not interested in an honest discussion. I don't see the point in discussing this with you anymore.
It was 1) an admission that I probably don't know the answer 2) On the off chance #1 is wrong, it was a request to rephrase the question, as I clearly don't understand it, and 3) an attempt to answer even though I probably am misunderstanding what you're asking.
I'm certainly interested in an honest discussion, and I'm sorry you misunderstood me misunderstanding you.
Spideynw:Parents own their children until the children reach the age of reasoning.
I'm just wondering why you believe this. I'm not asking to be argumentative at all nor trying to make any judgment. I just want to know the reasons that led you to believe this. How did you come to realize that parents own their children? Is it because that legal system would have the best consequences, or is it because of some objective ethical belief you have? Or none of the above?
Why anarchy fails
JackCuyler: He claimed that children gain rights when they gain the ability to think critically, not anything to do with courts.
He claimed that children gain rights when they gain the ability to think critically, not anything to do with courts.
Spideynw: Animals do not have "rights", because a "right" is a legal "claim", and animals cannot make a legal claim. Now, of course, neither can a dead person, but a dead persons family sure can.
Animals do not have "rights", because a "right" is a legal "claim", and animals cannot make a legal claim. Now, of course, neither can a dead person, but a dead persons family sure can.
He can either retract that claim or be guilty of special pleading. One or the other.
Stranger:That's self-evident.
If you believe that positive law dictates human rights your delusional. The courts have ruled that smoking pot is illegal. You have not the right to smoke pot eh? How nice for you that your judicial system to dictate what our rights are. Such nonsense does not belong on an Austrian Economics forum.
Your trying to guilt people into this 'honest discussion' nonesense when it has been you and stranger who have been evasive. We have been brutally honest. The truth of the matter is the entire construct of principles from which your fabricating your beliefs are nothing more then mear opinions. You cannot prove deductively that children have no rights. There is no logical way of doing this short of re-defining key terms and methods which you have done.
Your entire argument is a strawhouse of opinions. That is all. Fortunately I don't have to agree to opinions.
spideynw:Can you prove it? If not, will you stop lying?
Prove what? That raping a child is rape? Well lets see do we use the webster dictionary or the Spidey dictionary which excempts people with alhzeimers and innocents children? Anyone can make up a nonsensical platform of beliefs which would be entirely consistent in and of itself, simply be changing terms and key definitions which best suits their desires. You have done as much and have fooled a few with you.
What scares me the most is your motivation for wanting to enslave your children. I see no economic reason to do this unless the incentive was a subjective incentive that most men would not want to share with the public. Why do you want to enslave your children Spidey?
AJ: Spideynw: filc: Please answer the following questions with Yes, or No. Using the principles you have created. Is Killing a child ethically, morally, and legally justified? Is raiping a child ethically, morally, and legally justified? In answer to the first, yes. For clarification, only if the child's guardian consents to having someone do it or does it himself. Did you arrive at this conclusion purely through logical reasoning, based on the principles of natural law?
Spideynw: filc: Please answer the following questions with Yes, or No. Using the principles you have created. Is Killing a child ethically, morally, and legally justified? Is raiping a child ethically, morally, and legally justified? In answer to the first, yes. For clarification, only if the child's guardian consents to having someone do it or does it himself.
filc: Please answer the following questions with Yes, or No. Using the principles you have created. Is Killing a child ethically, morally, and legally justified? Is raiping a child ethically, morally, and legally justified?
Please answer the following questions with Yes, or No. Using the principles you have created.
In answer to the first, yes. For clarification, only if the child's guardian consents to having someone do it or does it himself.
Did you arrive at this conclusion purely through logical reasoning, based on the principles of natural law?
"Another common charge is that natural-law theorists differ among themselves, and that therefore all natural-law theories must be discarded. This charge comes with peculiar ill grace when it comes, as it often does, from utilitarian economists. For economics has been a notoriously contentious science — and yet few people advocate tossing all economics therefore into the discard. Furthermore, difference of opinion is no excuse for discarding all sides to a dispute; the responsible person is the one who uses his reason to examine the various contentions and make up his own mind.[22] He does not simply say a priori, "a plague on all your houses!" The fact of man's reason does not mean that error is impossible. Even such "hard" sciences as physics and chemistry have had their errors and their fervent disputes.[23] No man is omniscient or infallible — a law, by the way, of man's nature."
Now how about you stop trying to make the case that the natural law, objective ethics approach fails because some people use it to draw erroneous and fallacious conclusions. As you have tried elsewhere. Doesn't work, sorry.
E. R. Olovetto:The funny thing about all this is that I bet Spidey doesn't have the balls to express his "theory" to his wive and two young daughters.
Spideynw:Why would I be afraid to tell my wife that I think children don't have rights? Are you afraid to tell people that animals don't have rights? Regardless, I talk to my wife about everything. And if you are wondering, she will not talk to me about this subject. She gets upset.
It seems you lack massive credibility with your children, and as such - you need to beat compliance into them?
Conza88: These may help... you become a better father Simply: Itunes store -> freedomain radio -> subscribe to all four volumes -> go to podcasts -> scan the list of undownloaded podcasts and click "get" on ones that interest you. Freedomain Radio! Volume 1: Introduction - 271 Freedomain Radio! Volume 2: Shows 272 - 561 Freedomain Radio! Volume 3: Shows 562 - 897 Freedomain Radio! Volume 4: Shows 898+
These may help... you become a better father
Simply: Itunes store -> freedomain radio -> subscribe to all four volumes -> go to podcasts -> scan the list of undownloaded podcasts and click "get" on ones that interest you.
Freedomain Radio! Volume 1: Introduction - 271 Freedomain Radio! Volume 2: Shows 272 - 561 Freedomain Radio! Volume 3: Shows 562 - 897 Freedomain Radio! Volume 4: Shows 898+
862: Parents using Children using Parents - Listener Conversation777: Children in Crisis772: Parenting: Time Outs and Universally Preferable Behavior for Children 729: Your Children Do NOT Love You... but they will hate you if you think they do562: Universally Preferable Behavior for Children 509: Assaulting Children473: Children: Selfish and Evil? (Part 2)472 Children: Selfish and Evil? (Part 1)422: Maternal Passive Aggression370: Slaves, Statists and Children - Compliance (Part 2)369: Slaves, Statists and Children - Compliance (Part 1)198: Parenting Part 3: Communication197: Parenting Part 2: Authority196: Parenting Part 1: Credibility130: Betraying Children: Dr Phil Punks Out
Spidey, let me attempt to answer your question. I believe that children are self owners and so, yes, it is a violation of their rights to do things such as bathe them, feed them, clothe them, etc. without their consent. Now consider...
It is a beautiful summer day, and my neighbor is in his pool. I see him climb up on the diving board over and over, jump off, and land in his pool. But then something goes wrong. He slips, hits his head on the board, and sinks to the bottom of the pool. There is a red cloud floating in the water and he's not coming up. I run over, jump in, and haul him out. I give him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and bandage his bleeding head.
I have just violated this man's rights! I entered his property, physically removed him from his pool, shoved my hands into his chest, breathed into his mouth, and wrapped things around his head, all without his consent. He has every right to take me to court for violating him. The likelihood, however, is that he will THANK me for violating his rights.
It was not legal to save his life. It was moral, however. So we can argue that there are occasions where it is moral to violate someone's rights if we think it is in their best interest. They are free to disagree, and sue. That's the risk you take in performing illegal actions.
Now, if we apply this to a child, who is self owned... every act we take to care for the child is illegal, but it is moral. The children may sue as soon as they are able, but the likelihood is that they won't. Further, if we are violating the child's rights, someone else may free the child, but to do so they commit exactly the same crime.
With rape and murder, however, you cannot argue that you are acting on the child's behalf. Here, the action isn't for the good of the child, it is simply for the sick pleasure of the parent. Thus, it is both illegal AND immoral.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
As for Stranger... why are you an anarchist? After all, if the government has the power to force you to do something, they are justified in it, right?
Conza88:Now how about you stop trying to make the case that the natural law, objective ethics approach fails because some many people use it to draw erroneous and fallacious outrageous conclusions.
I think my corrections better reflect the situation...but actually that's not the argument I was going to make. For now, I am just genuinely curious how he arrived at his philosophy.
AJ: Conza88:Now how about you stop trying to make the case that the natural law, objective ethics approach fails because some many people use it to draw erroneous and fallacious outrageous conclusions. I think my corrections better reflect the situation...but actually that's not the argument I was going to make. For now, I am just genuinely curious how he arrived at his philosophy.
AJ. That's collectivists thinking to label "many". slippery slope to communism you protray..hmm.
Conza's approach is standard logic. For it's not 'none' and it's not 'universal', but it's some. But you are trying to provide a not standard account of "many", therefore it is collectivist thinking on your part AJ.
Oh, and thanks for proving AE, but as some know here, you are simply going to be evasive, continue to put on a charade, and definitely continue to be disingenious. You've definitely been in the habit recently of giving falsities in your posts. I suggest stop the red herrings and actually focus on liberty for once.
Oh, thank God... I had accidentally left the "email me replies" box on one of my posts, and just checked my email. Hundreds of messages in my inbox... it was a nightmare... luckily I just found how to make them stop.
Y'know, for a first post I think I made a pretty active thread.
Hehe. Gmail 4tw! Bundles all the emails into one single conversation. :)
Aster_Lacnala:So we can argue that there are occasions where it is moral to violate someone's rights if we think it is in their best interest.
I think you are at least being intellectually honest. But as I said a few pages back, given that anything I do to my child is a violation of the child's rights, legally, I am obligated to let my child die. To get around this, you argue that a child will not sue the parent for taking care of her, as such you might as well care for the child. Is this not a slippery slope though? Does that not mean that as long as I think something is moral, that it is OK to violate the rights of someone else? As such, if I wanted to break someone of the habit of smoking, could I not justify imprisoning the person against the other person's will?
Also, it is not about moral vs. immoral. It is about whether or not you think your neighbor will sue you and whether or not you are willing to deal with the consequences if he does. If you thought your neighbor would sue you for rescuing him and if you thought you would have to pay a million dollars if you did, do you still think you would try to rescue him regardless of how "moral" you feel your action is?
Aster_Lacnala:With rape and murder, however, you cannot argue that you are acting on the child's behalf.
Really? You do not think I can argue it is on the child's behalf? Do you want to bet on that?
Also, what is the difference between me actively killing my child or letting the child starve to death?
Spideynw:Really? You do not think I can argue it is on the child's behalf? Do you want to bet on that?
Spideynw:As such, if I wanted to break someone of the habit of smoking, could I not justify imprisoning the person against the other person's will?
Certainly, you could. And likely, when they were freed and actually able to take you to court, you would be royally screwed.
Spidey:If you thought your neighbor would sue you for rescuing him and if you thought you would have to pay a million dollars if you did, do you still think you would try to rescue him regardless of how "moral" you feel your action is?
Actually, yes. I would. That said, if he developed a reputation for suing people who saved his life, I might well be the only one who would.
Spidey:Really? You do not think I can argue it is on the child's behalf? Do you want to bet on that?
Bet on your actions? Not a chance. I'm sure you could pose some retarded argument that it was in the best interests of the child. In the case of rape, the child taking you to court when it became able to would disabuse you of that notion. In the case of murder... I think in that case, I'd argue that you effectively abandoned the child (since what is in your care is no longer a child). As such, anyone has the right to homestead the child, and as their new legal guardians they have the right to prosecute you for your actions against the child.
Spidey:Also, what is the difference between me actively killing my child or letting the child starve to death?
I personally don't see a difference between letting your child starve to death and actively killing it, but that's only because after this thread I finally realized I can't hold the NAP as my highest moral value. (Congratz, Spidey, you were instrumental in firmyl rooting me in minarchy, where before I was on the fence.) You'd have to ask someone else here about that.
AJ: Spideynw:Parents own their children until the children reach the age of reasoning. I'm just wondering why you believe this. I'm not asking to be argumentative at all nor trying to make any judgment. I just want to know the reasons that led you to believe this. How did you come to realize that parents own their children? Is it because that legal system would have the best consequences, or is it because of some objective ethical belief you have? Or none of the above?
Because a non-reasoning being cannot have rights to oppose to a reasoning being. That would be absurd. If you ask a dog where it would like to reside or whether its rights have been violated, you are only demonstrating that you are a complete idiot. As concerns the court, a dispute over a dog does not involve the dog's opinion. The same is true for a zygote, or a fetus, or a baby, or a child. A child, even with the faculty of speech, will not understand the terms of the justice system. If you ask a child with whom he wishes to go, he will always choose his parents, simply because any other choice is unimaginable. If it comes to be that the child leaves home of his own will, then we can assume that he has become a reasoning being and has reasoned that his rights are not being respected in that household.
So, having established that non-reasoning beings cannot participate in a justice system, it becomes a matter who has the right to dispose of this non-reasoning being. Here there are only two ethically justifiable alternatives: either the mother owns the child (the parents if the terms of a marriage contract split ownership), or the child is owned in common by everyone. If anyone could take a child from his mother's home and do with it as they please, it is easy to see that children would all be exploited and destroyed within days, as would any other form of common property. This means that the state would have to step in and claim ownership of all children. (Something that it already does to an extent.)
In a world without a state, we are back to common ownership of children, and the destruction of all children as common property. The only valid alternative is parental ownership of children.
Now at this point a lot of indignant nonsense will be replied that will go on and on about how children have "natural rights" that cannot be violated based on some convoluted philosophical principle. They can be safely ignored, as they are irrelevant to any system of justice and exist only on paper.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Yeah, all the logical, philosophical objections mean nothing to Might Makes Right!
Stranger: AJ: Spideynw:Parents own their children until the children reach the age of reasoning. I'm just wondering why you believe this. I'm not asking to be argumentative at all nor trying to make any judgment. I just want to know the reasons that led you to believe this. How did you come to realize that parents own their children? Is it because that legal system would have the best consequences, or is it because of some objective ethical belief you have? Or none of the above? Because a non-reasoning being cannot have rights to oppose to a reasoning being. That would be absurd. If you ask a dog where it would like to reside or whether its rights have been violated, you are only demonstrating that you are a complete idiot. As concerns the court, a dispute over a dog does not involve the dog's opinion.
Because a non-reasoning being cannot have rights to oppose to a reasoning being. That would be absurd. If you ask a dog where it would like to reside or whether its rights have been violated, you are only demonstrating that you are a complete idiot. As concerns the court, a dispute over a dog does not involve the dog's opinion.
Indeed, that kind of thing sounds pretty absurd.
Stranger:A child, even with the faculty of speech, will not understand the terms of the justice system. If you ask a child with whom he wishes to go, he will always choose his parents, simply because any other choice is unimaginable.
Agreed.
Stranger:If it comes to be that the child leaves home of his own will, then we can assume that he has become a reasoning being and has reasoned that his rights are not being respected in that household.
A reasonable assumption.
Stranger:So, having established that non-reasoning beings cannot participate in a justice system, it becomes a matter who has the right to dispose of this non-reasoning being. Here there are only two ethically justifiable alternatives: either the mother owns the child (the parents if the terms of a marriage contract split ownership), or the child is owned in common by everyone.
Ownership implies absolute control over your property even to the point of ending its life (if it is alive) for any arbitrary reason, right?
If so, why are the only two alternatives that the mother has absolute control OR everyone has absolute control? How did the option that no one has absolute control over the child - no one has the right to end the child's life for an arbitrary reason - get ruled out?
Stranger:If anyone could take a child from his mother's home and do with it as they please, it is easy to see that children would all be exploited and destroyed within days, as would any other form of common property. This means that the state would have to step in and claim ownership of all children. (Something that it already does to an extent.)
Let's note here that if the above dichotomy proves false, then this would be a strawman of anyone who advocates a third option.
Your position seems to hinge on the fact that only the two options you present can be ethically justified. Can I ask 1) How you came to realize that those two options could be ethically justified, and 2) How you came to realize that no other positions could be ethically justified? Particularly, by what ethical starting principles did you reach those conclusions?