jdcoffey: If there is no God, there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE morality or right
this is an assertion not an argument. its an assertion i disagree with. the concept of god is a contradictory concept, that is no help in explaining or justifiying anything, let alone morality
jdcoffey:If God exists, then he created everything, including aliens if they exist. I won't venture to guess what rights he would have bestowed upon them
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
First, if atheism is true, objective moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us? Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science from the University of Guelph, writes,
The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .
As a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality" which functions well in the perpetuation of our species in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true.
Moreover, on the atheistic view there is no divine lawgiver. But then what source is there for moral obligation? Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, writes,
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are 'morally wrong,' and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.
Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are 'morally wrong,' and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.
Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.
He concludes,
Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.
since you freely grant your ignorance as to what god hath decreed for aliens, perhaps you will tell us how you can know what he hath agreed for humans, did jesus tell you?
Yes.
ok, well, i dont come to mises.org to talk about faith in the divine.
so this conversation between you and i is over. of course if others want to discuss thats fine by me.
nirgrahamUK: ok, well, i dont come to mises.org to talk about faith in the divine. so this conversation between you and i is over. of course if others want to discuss thats fine by me.
No, but you came to this thread to discuss childrens' rights, as did I. To say that some humans have rights while others do not is arbitrary. I merely state that the concept of objective rights and morality in the absence of God is absurd.
its not arbitrary. arbitrary is just whimsically without reason. i gave a reason. my reason is rationality. presence or absence. even if you think i am a godless heathen please have the grace to concede that my stance is not arbitrary since it is justified.
nirgrahamUK: its not arbitrary. arbitrary is just whimsically without reason. i gave a reason. my reason is rationality. presence or absence. even if you think i am a godless heathen please have the grace to concede that my stance is not arbitrary since it is justified.
Arbitrary - adjective - subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion.
I used the word correctly.
your use of it was arbitrary
your concept of god is arbitrary.
arbitrary arbitray arbitrary.
explain how linking moral agency to rationality is at my discretion, and not necessary. it is surely necessary.
nirgrahamUK: explain how linking moral agency to rationality is at my discretion, and not necessary. it is surely necessary.
Can you first define "moral agency" for me so I'm sure I answer your question appropriately? Does that term mean "has moral rights" or does it mean "is able to understand and act morally" or something else entirely?
Spideynw: AJ: Would you consider it OK to kill an orphan vagrant toddler? I would say no wrong has been committed.
AJ: Would you consider it OK to kill an orphan vagrant toddler?
Would you consider it OK to kill an orphan vagrant toddler?
I would say no wrong has been committed.
What do you mean by wrong? In the legal sense, that we cannot justifiably convict such a person of a crime?
Spideynw:My question to you though, is who has been wronged, if the child cannot tell us whether or not he or she did not want to be beaten?
I agree that we cannot be 100% certain the child has been harmed against his or her will, but neither can we know the opposite. And the opposite - beating or killing a child who wishes not to be beaten or killed - is a grave atrocity. I suppose what you say still can make sense depending on how you're defining a "wrong." It seems that for legal purposes we wouldn't want it to be acceptable to kill a vagrant orphan toddler, say, but it seems you make a distinction between "an act that is not acceptable" and "a wrong." Can you articulate the difference?
Why anarchy fails
Moral agency is a person's responsibility for making moral judgments and taking actions that comport with morality
A Moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong"
nirgrahamUK: Moral agency is a person's responsibility for making moral judgments and taking actions that comport with morality A Moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong"
This is of course what makes your definition of a human so arbitrary. How can we test your defintion if someone is a human or not? Who would administer the test? Presumably, one could fluctuate from being human to non-human over the course of a lifetime. How do we resolve the disagreement between who is human and who is not?
By your defintion, all people not capable of acting with reference to right and wrong (however you are defining that) are not human. So for historical example the defining of Jews by the Nazi's as sub-human is something that should in your mind seriously be debated.
Maxliberty:This is of course what makes your definition of a human so arbitrary
wrong. where have i tried to define human?. ive been discussing moral agency.
Spideynw:The younger the human being, the less capable of granting or withholding consent. So they actually start out with no rights. No wrong has been committed unless a being has the ability to grant or withhold consent, and then withholds consent. Parents should be able to legally torture their children. However, there are quite a few things to stop them from torturing their children. First of all, is nature. People generally do not have children just to torture them. Second of all, is the fact that children have two parents. If one parent does not consent to torturing the child, then that parent's rights will have been violated. Lastly, is the fact that we all die, and someone who is known to torture his or her children may soon end up finding his or her self dead.
Parents should be able to legally torture their children. However, there are quite a few things to stop them from torturing their children. First of all, is nature. People generally do not have children just to torture them. Second of all, is the fact that children have two parents. If one parent does not consent to torturing the child, then that parent's rights will have been violated. Lastly, is the fact that we all die, and someone who is known to torture his or her children may soon end up finding his or her self dead.
It is comments like this that have me confused in my learning and understanding of liberty. I'm still fairly new to this line of thinking and maybe I don't understand all the implications, but claiming that parents have a "right" to torture and harm their children sounds rather morbid and absurd. I don't understand how a political philosophy based on NAP could lead to such ends or conclusions. In similar fashion, how is a child any different than someone who is asleep or incapacitated or handicapped? If Stephen Hawking didn't have a computer to speak for him and "grant or withhold consent", would he just be like a wild animal for the taking? Please shed some light on this since it doesn't make any sense to me.
Note: I am not advocating any positive rights or entitlements to these people, only that their negative rights not be infringed.
Thanks for the definition. It seems to me that one must be rational to act morally. However, one need not be rational to have moral value or rights.
Orthogonal: Spideynw:The younger the human being, the less capable of granting or withholding consent. So they actually start out with no rights. No wrong has been committed unless a being has the ability to grant or withhold consent, and then withholds consent. Parents should be able to legally torture their children. However, there are quite a few things to stop them from torturing their children. First of all, is nature. People generally do not have children just to torture them. Second of all, is the fact that children have two parents. If one parent does not consent to torturing the child, then that parent's rights will have been violated. Lastly, is the fact that we all die, and someone who is known to torture his or her children may soon end up finding his or her self dead. It is comments like this that have me confused in my learning and understanding of liberty. I'm still fairly new to this line of thinking and maybe I don't understand all the implications, but claiming that parents have a "right" to torture and harm their children sounds rather morbid and absurd. I don't understand how a political philosophy based on NAP could lead to such ends or conclusions. In similar fashion, how is a child any different than someone who is asleep or incapacitated or handicapped? If Stephen Hawking didn't have a computer to speak for him and "grant or withhold consent", would he just be like a wild animal for the taking? Please shed some light on this since it doesn't make any sense to me. Note: I am not advocating any positive rights or entitlements to these people, only that their negative rights not be infringed.
Do not be confused. Those who think there's nothing wrong with torturing children are confused as that kind of behavior has nothing to do with liberty.
jdcoffey:Thanks for the definition. It seems to me that one must be rational to act morally. However, one need not be rational to have moral value or rights.
yes, you want to make a special case for things with souls in them. the 'soul theory of moral value' its not worthy of serious discussion in my honest opinion.
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty:This is of course what makes your definition of a human so arbitrary wrong. where have i tried to define human?. ive been discussing moral agency.
You are using your moral agency arguement to define humans. If we are discussing human rights then what is the definition of a human is the only defintion that matters.
Maxliberty:You are using your moral agency arguement to define humans
no. i am not. im leaving it undetermined as to whether some biologically human body is a moral agent or not. that depends on things like, is the human body rational or not . (hint: most of the live ones are)
nirgrahamUK: jdcoffey:Thanks for the definition. It seems to me that one must be rational to act morally. However, one need not be rational to have moral value or rights. yes, you want to make a special case for things with souls in them. the 'soul theory of moral value' its not worthy of serious discussion in my honest opinion.
Yes, we are at an impasse in this discussion. I believe that objective morality does not exist in the absence of God. You disagree. If you care to take the time, please read the following which is a decent explanation of my position. I'd be interested in a response if you wish to post one.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html
It's a long read and I won't judge you if you don't have the time. William Lane Craig is the author and has many debates on this subject that you can view on YouTube if you prefer.
jdcoffey:A human has rights by their virtue of being human.
Great. So now answer me this. Has a baby's "rights" been violated by rubbing its private parts in a sexual manner?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Orthogonal: It is comments like this that have me confused in my learning and understanding of liberty. I'm still fairly new to this line of thinking and maybe I don't understand all the implications, but claiming that parents have a "right" to torture and harm their children sounds rather morbid and absurd. I don't understand how a political philosophy based on NAP could lead to such ends or conclusions. In similar fashion, how is a child any different than someone who is asleep or incapacitated or handicapped? If Stephen Hawking didn't have a computer to speak for him and "grant or withhold consent", would he just be like a wild animal for the taking? Please shed some light on this since it doesn't make any sense to me. Note: I am not advocating any positive rights or entitlements to these people, only that their negative rights not be infringed.
First of all, I think most libertarians disagree with me on this, as far as I know.
Second of all, the libertarian philosophy is based on the idea of not harming someone's person or property without his or her consent. This is how we know someone has been wronged, if his or her person or property has been harmed without his or her consent. However, if this is the limit of the philosophy, then anytime one harms a child or animal or bug without getting consent first, this would be considered wronging the person or animal. So obviously consent is not the only factor. One must not only be able to withhold consent, but one must be able to grant consent for the same action. In other words, for us to know that we have wronged another, the other must be able to grant consent, but the other does not. For example, death. Humans, at some point, are able to ask someone else to kill them. However, humans do not start life with this ability. Humans start life just like any other animal, and do not have the ability to consent to things, only to withhold consent or just not communicate it at all. Which means there is no wrong that can be done to them.
As to the whole sleeping thing, again, it has to do with whether or not one has the mental capacity. Going to sleep does not take away one's mental capacity.
As to Stephen Hawking, words are not the only way humans have to communicate with others.
Orthogonal:In similar fashion, how is a child any different than someone who is asleep or incapacitated or handicapped?
Someone who is asleep still has the mental capacity for granting consent. I do not know enough about the mentally handicapped to say what their rational capacity is.
Anyways, there is one more thing. There are only two purposes of law, either to resolve disputes between individuals or to control behavior. If the purpose is to control behavior, well, then it fails completely. Not only does law fail to control behavior, but it is up for debate as to what behavior should be controlled, as such it becomes completely arbitrary. Given that the only just purpose of law is to resolve disputes, how is an animal or a baby or a young child supposed to bring a case before the law?
Spideynw: jdcoffey:A human has rights by their virtue of being human. Great. So now answer me this. Has a baby's "rights" been violated by rubbing its private parts in a sexual manner?
And the Austrians wonder why it is so difficult to win converts to liberty. Yes, the baby's rights have been violated.
The Austrians have a a hard time dealing with the humanity of being human.
To the part about your views being isolated amongst Austrians...hardly the case on this forum...all of the moderators here basically share your views that child molestation and child murder should be permissable.
The more I hear Austrians argue for the their view of freedom without responsibility the more evil it appears.
Maxliberty: Spideynw: jdcoffey:A human has rights by their virtue of being human. Great. So now answer me this. Has a baby's "rights" been violated by rubbing its private parts in a sexual manner? And the Austrians wonder why it is so difficult to win converts to liberty. Yes, the baby's rights have been violated.
I do not wonder at all. I understand most people are of average or below-average intelligence.
Why? Is it wrong to touch someone sexually?
BTW, I have a two year old girl, and I could touch her sexually if I wanted all the time, and no one would know. So how is your law going to magically stop someone from doing it?
Spideynw: Maxliberty: Spideynw: jdcoffey:A human has rights by their virtue of being human. Great. So now answer me this. Has a baby's "rights" been violated by rubbing its private parts in a sexual manner? And the Austrians wonder why it is so difficult to win converts to liberty. Yes, the baby's rights have been violated. Why?
Why?
Is that why Austrians have a hard time attracting people to liberty? Advocating child molestation is something abhorred by most people.
Do humans have inherent rights? Yes. The baby is human. The baby has the rights to it's own body. Humans understand that sex with children is inappropriate as there bodies are not developed for that human activity. Humans are biologically designed to protect children it si part of our nature. This was my point about Austrians wanting to project theories on the human species that don't take into account what humans think and are biologically designed to do.
Even if you think you have a 100% logical arguement as to why its acceptable to rape and murder babies....humans wont accept it so by definition your theory doesn't apply to humans. Same thing with Jon, BAAWA and LS, like you they advocate child murder.....sorry humans just don't think it's ok to rape babies or intentionally leave them in the desert to die and if your theory concludes it is ...then your theory doesn' t work for humans.
Maxliberty:Humans understand that sex with children is inappropriate as there bodies are not developed for that human activity.
Sure, they are plenty developed to be touched on their private parts.
Maxliberty:Humans are biologically designed to protect children it si part of our nature.
Really? Then why do some people kill their own children?
Maxliberty:Even if you think you have a 100% logical arguement as to why its acceptable to rape and murder babies....humans wont accept it so by definition your theory doesn't apply to humans.
It is not a theory. It is a fact.
Regardless, how is your law going to stop me from sexually touching my 2 year old girl, if I were so inclined? Do you think laws are like magic?
And yes, I think you make a valid point, the same point I make. Just because it is legal to do something, does not mean it is smart. Why do you think most people that kill their own children kill themselves as well? You think they are scared of the law? My guess is that it has nothing to do with the law. Otherwise, anyone that killed another would kill his or her self. Do you think that just because it is legal to perform abortions, that certain individuals will allow a doctor to perform them? One was just killed recently for performing legal abortions.
Maxliberty:Same thing with Jon, BAAWA and LS, like you they advocate child murder
Advocating parent's rights is not the same as advocating child murder...
Maxliberty:sorry humans just don't think it's ok to rape babies or intentionally leave them in the desert to die
How does one rape a baby? And yes, I am sure there are instances of people leaving babies in a desert to die, so you are wrong to claim all humans think the same.
Harming, molesting or murdering a child is evil whether someone finds out about it or not. You make it seem like the absence of punishment validates the morality of the act. By that logic, if you killed another adult and were never found it then you would have commited no wrong.
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Torture and violence against children is prevalent. Good growth and health of children depends on the mental health of parents. For this reason there is to that psychologists should use. The parents should be responsible and ensure the child care. If people are not able to grow normal children, they should not make children.
jdcoffey:Harming, molesting or murdering a child is evil whether someone finds out about it or not.
You like to use very subjective words, don't you? Harming and molesting are completely subjective. And no, there is no such thing as "evil and good".
jdcoffey:You make it seem like the absence of punishment validates the morality of the act.
Nice strawman.
jdcoffey:By that logic, if you killed another adult and were never found it then you would have commited no wrong.
Again, nice strawman.
My argument is that a wrong has only been committed, if someone has the capability of granting or withholding consent, and withholds consent. If someone who has the capability of granting or withholding consent was killed without consent, then a wrong would have been committed.
Using your logic, killing an animal or not compensating an animal for taking its property is wrong.
I think some people are off base in this thread....
Babies/children are potential moral agents, unlike other animals. This is why they are not the same as lamp posts, sex toys, cows for slaughter, or daisies to be slowly ripped limb from limb. Children are unlike adults in that they haven't reached the point of full moral agency yet. (The case of invalids or the mentally handicapped isn't too dissimilar from children). The average 2 year old is different than the average 14 year old first that they have no sexual desire, and girls have not yet become capable of giving birth. There is still the potential to gain this aspect of total moral agency in the two year old, so the existence of the ability to grant consent at the time of the rape is not what matters.
Anyhow, I have been reading this section from Mises' Socialism to round out some work I am doing on these subjects. At least the full section 3 is worth reading but here is a bit:
Mises:Nowadays only one opinion is expressed about the influence which the "economic" has exercised on sexual relations; it is said to have been thoroughly bad. The original natural purity of sexual intercourse has, according to this view, been tainted by the interference of economic factors. In no field of human life has the progress of culture and the increase of wealth had a more pernicious effect. Prehistoric men and women paired in purest love; in the pre-capitalist age, marriage and family life were simple and natural, but Capitalism brought money marriages and mariages des convenances on the one hand, prostitution and sexual excesses on the other. More recent historical and ethnographic research has demonstrated the fallacy of this argument and has given us another view of sexual life in primitive times and of primitive races. Modern literature has revealed how far from the realities of rural life was our conception, even only a short while ago, of the simple morals of the countryman. But the old prejudices were too deep-rooted to have been seriously shaken by this. Besides, socialistic literature, with the assistance of its peculiarly impressive rhetoric, sought to popularize the legend by giving it a new pathos. Thus today few people do not believe that the modern view of marriage as a contract is an insult to the essential spirit of sexual union and that it was Capitalism which destroyed the purity of family life. ... As the idea of contract enters the Law of Marriage, it breaks the rule of the male, and makes the wife a partner with equal rights. From a one-sided relationship resting on force, marriage thus becomes a mutual agreement; the servant becomes the married wife entitled to demand from the man all that he is entitled to ask from her. Step by step she wins the position in the home which she holds today. Nowadays the position of the woman differs from the position of the man only in so far as their peculiar ways of earning a living differ. The remnants of man's privileges have little importance. They are privileges of honour. The wife, for instance, still bears her husband's name. This evolution of marriage has taken place by way of the law relating to the property of married persons. Woman's position in marriage was improved as the principle of violence was thrust back, and as the idea of contract advanced in other fields of the Law of Property it necessarily transformed the property relations between the married couple. The wife was freed from the power of her husband for the first time when she gained legal rights over the wealth which she brought into marriage and which she acquired during marriage, and when that which her husband customarily gave her was transformed into allowances enforceable by law. Thus marriage, as we know it, has come into existence entirely as a result of the contractual idea penetrating into this sphere of life. All our cherished ideals of marriage have grown out of this idea. That marriage unites one man and one woman, that it can be entered into only with the free will of both parties, that it imposes a duty of mutual fidelity, that a man's violations of the marriage vows are to be judged no differently from a woman's, that the rights of husband and wife are essentially the same—these principles develop from the contractual attitude to the problem of marital life. No people can boast that their ancestors thought of marriage as we think of it today. Science cannot judge whether morals were once more severe than they are now. We can establish only that our views of what marriage should be are different from the views of past generations and that their ideal of marriage seems immoral in our eyes. When panegyrists of the good old morality execrate the institution of divorce and separation they are probably right in asserting that no such things existed formerly. The right to cast off his wife which man once possessed in no way resembles the modern law of divorce. Nothing illustrates more clearly the great change of attitude than the contrast between these two institutions. And when the Church takes the lead in the struggle against divorce, it is well to remember that the existence of the modern marriage ideal of monogamy—of husband and wife with equal rights—in the defence of which the Church wishes to intervene, is the result of capitalist, and not ecclesiastical, development.
...
As the idea of contract enters the Law of Marriage, it breaks the rule of the male, and makes the wife a partner with equal rights. From a one-sided relationship resting on force, marriage thus becomes a mutual agreement; the servant becomes the married wife entitled to demand from the man all that he is entitled to ask from her. Step by step she wins the position in the home which she holds today. Nowadays the position of the woman differs from the position of the man only in so far as their peculiar ways of earning a living differ. The remnants of man's privileges have little importance. They are privileges of honour. The wife, for instance, still bears her husband's name.
This evolution of marriage has taken place by way of the law relating to the property of married persons. Woman's position in marriage was improved as the principle of violence was thrust back, and as the idea of contract advanced in other fields of the Law of Property it necessarily transformed the property relations between the married couple. The wife was freed from the power of her husband for the first time when she gained legal rights over the wealth which she brought into marriage and which she acquired during marriage, and when that which her husband customarily gave her was transformed into allowances enforceable by law.
Thus marriage, as we know it, has come into existence entirely as a result of the contractual idea penetrating into this sphere of life. All our cherished ideals of marriage have grown out of this idea. That marriage unites one man and one woman, that it can be entered into only with the free will of both parties, that it imposes a duty of mutual fidelity, that a man's violations of the marriage vows are to be judged no differently from a woman's, that the rights of husband and wife are essentially the same—these principles develop from the contractual attitude to the problem of marital life. No people can boast that their ancestors thought of marriage as we think of it today. Science cannot judge whether morals were once more severe than they are now. We can establish only that our views of what marriage should be are different from the views of past generations and that their ideal of marriage seems immoral in our eyes.
When panegyrists of the good old morality execrate the institution of divorce and separation they are probably right in asserting that no such things existed formerly. The right to cast off his wife which man once possessed in no way resembles the modern law of divorce. Nothing illustrates more clearly the great change of attitude than the contrast between these two institutions. And when the Church takes the lead in the struggle against divorce, it is well to remember that the existence of the modern marriage ideal of monogamy—of husband and wife with equal rights—in the defence of which the Church wishes to intervene, is the result of capitalist, and not ecclesiastical, development.
So, I think some similar ideas will apply to the case of children. I want to review some things on contract theory, but I was curious what other's think.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
in my opinion, saying that something has the potential to become something that it isnt yet, is to acknowledge what it presently is not.
Spideynw: And no, there is no such thing as "evil and good".
Spideynw:My argument is that a wrong has only been committed, if someone has the capability of granting or withholding consent, and withholds consent
What?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
nirgrahamUK: in my opinion, saying that something has the potential to become something that it isnt yet, is to acknowledge what it presently is not.
That's fine. We agree that children are not full moral agents. If we want to be more precise, I think we could call them non-adult humans. Their nature is that they have the potential to acquire moral agency.
Why do parent's "own" children in your opinion? Parents and children are a special case of ownership. I think terming it 'acquiring guardianship' is more accurate. What follows from creation as full, unending ownership violates the NAP.
GilesStratton: Spideynw: And no, there is no such thing as "evil and good". Spideynw:My argument is that a wrong has only been committed, if someone has the capability of granting or withholding consent, and withholds consent What?
My thoughts exactly. That is an obvious contradiction. If there is no "evil and good" then there can be no "wrong" to commit. You are trying to ignore objective morality when it doesn't suit you and employ it when it does.
Spideynw:As to the whole sleeping thing, again, it has to do with whether or not one has the mental capacity. Going to sleep does not take away one's mental capacity.
Going to sleep temporarily takes away one's mental capacity. If not, imbibing significant amounts of adult beverages certainly does, as would a sharp blow to the head. Does it follow, then, that the cash in the pocket of the unconscious drunk in the alley is fair game? I tend to think not. This reduced mental capacity is only temporary. Would you argue that this temporary lapse in mental capacity leads to a temporary loss of rights?
faber est suae quisque fortunae
This, like all philosophical topics is torturous, but here are my musings:
do whatever you like to a dead body, it wont wake up and talk to you. it lacks the capacity to wake up. it has not the capability.a sleeping person generally has the capacity to wake up. or we operate under this presumption. and not jud to wake up, but to think as well.
to my mind, its not more mysterious than asking whether your car could go under its own propulsion 50miles an hour or not.and contrasting that question with asking whether your heap of unconstructed metal could similarly go 50 miles an hour or not
a heap of metal has the potential to be made into a car with the capacity to drive places.
I'm sure it is a boundary problem but it seems tolerable and workable to me
nirgrahamUK: This, like all philosophical topics is torturous, but here are my musings: do whatever you like to a dead body, it wont wake up and talk to you. it lacks the capacity to wake up. it has not the capability.a sleeping person generally has the capacity to wake up. or we operate under this presumption. and not jud to wake up, but to think as well. to my mind, its not more mysterious than asking whether your car could go under its own propulsion 50miles an hour or not.and contrasting that question with asking whether your heap of unconstructed metal could similarly go 50 miles an hour or not a heap of metal has the potential to be made into a car with the capacity to drive places. I'm sure it is a boundary problem but it seems tolerable and workable to me
I'm actually interested in the timing. Does someone who has drunk himself into unconsciousness temporarily lose his rights, until he sobers, or at least wakes up? If not, is it because he demonstrated mental capacity before he passed out, or because it is assumed he will once again demonstrate his mental capacity once he is awake?
nirgrahamUK: ... do whatever you like to a dead body, it wont wake up and talk to you. it lacks the capacity to wake up. it has not the capability.a sleeping person generally has the capacity to wake up. or we operate under this presumption. and not jud to wake up, but to think as well. ...
Shouldn't the body go the heirs?
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."
sure