Since Spidey has realized that his basis for claiming that children do not have rights is fundamentally flawed, but doesn't have the courage to admit, I ask the following question to the rest of the forum:
Can children reason?
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."
comment: that's a very broad class, not least because a 90year old is still someone's child. If specifically, 'the young' is meant, well, that's still a very broad class....
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
I was once a child. As a child, I was able to reason. Maybe not all the time, but often. I think that children can reason. They might not be mature, or have a very balanced temperament, but they can reason.
nirgrahamUK: comment: that's a very broad class, not least because a 90year old is still someone's child. If specifically, 'the young' is meant, well, that's still a very broad class....
Ah! Further destroying Spidey claim.
Of course they can reason. It is not something that suddenly makes a nest in someone's mind at some arbitrary age. The young have the ability to reason (some are more capable of it than others), it is simply in a stage of crucial development that grows and learns as they make decisions, mistakes, take actions and then experience consequences.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
There is a problem of precision when we try to boil down complex ideas into just a few words.. hence my suggestions of refinement.
Spidey and I have actually discussed these issues privately at some length and we have surprisingly close positions.
You'll be surprised how well they can reason, if you treat them in a way that assumes they can.
And if they reason wrongly, you're still there to overlook them if necessary. But if you don't guide them to self-responsible understanding, they will pick it up far later than otherwise.
From my own experience I can tell you that I was utterly disappointed in my parents' ability to offer sound reasoning for their directives; which is probably why their directives were stupid.
Nielsio:From my own experience I can tell you that I was utterly disappointed in my parents' ability to offer sound reasoning for their directives; which is probably why their directives were stupid.
nirgrahamUK: There is a problem of precision when we try to boil down complex ideas into just a few words.. hence my suggestions of refinement. Spidey and I have actually discussed these issues privately at some length and we have surprisingly close positions.
Fine. Spidey says that children cannot reason. I asked him how he knows that. He says that they haven't been proven to reason. I ask him what evidence he requires to prove that children can reason? In other words, what proof is there that non-children can reason. But he keeps dodging this.
Or is it self-evident that children cannot reason?
nirgrahamUK: Nielsio:From my own experience I can tell you that I was utterly disappointed in my parents' ability to offer sound reasoning for their directives; which is probably why their directives were stupid.can parents reason?
If they are given an incentive to be reasonable. If they can command a child to do what they are told, knowing that if the child tries to leave he will be brought back to their property like a slave who tried to leave his master's plantation, then they have far less reason to... well, reason.
Daniel Muffinburg:Fine. Spidey says that children cannot reason. I asked him how he knows that. He says that they haven't been proven to reason. I ask him what evidence he requires to prove that children can reason? In other words, what proof is there that non-children can reason. But he keeps dodging this. Or is it self-evident that children cannot reason?
nirgrahamUK: Daniel Muffinburg:Fine. Spidey says that children cannot reason. I asked him how he knows that. He says that they haven't been proven to reason. I ask him what evidence he requires to prove that children can reason? In other words, what proof is there that non-children can reason. But he keeps dodging this. Or is it self-evident that children cannot reason?If this is about what Spidey thinks, the impression I got from him was that he has a similar understanding to mine, i.e. that fetuses don't reason, and that more mature 'children' do reason, and that 'a child' can span the continuum between the two and therefore there can be a child that is particularly young and so more like the non-reasoning fetus than the older child that takes instruction in mathematics. As such the sweeping statement that 'children do not reason' seems overly strong. I don't know whether I have misunderstood spidey or he has changed his opinions or what have you, but in the hope that my reflections on our conversations might help, there it is....
Yeah, I reject the notion that there is an age that determines whether or not a person can reason. Perhaps a 3-year-old can reason or perhaps it cannot. All I want to know is what evidence is needed to prove that anyone can reason. Otherwise, how else would we or do we know that anyone can reason?
I offer the following not as an 'answer' but as data to be interpreted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development
I think this stuff is useful to consider, also I have a paper I uploaded to the community files here on the topic of Sorites Paradox's of which it seems to me 'growing into rationality' is an exemplar
Can babies/toddlers understand property rights?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Daniel Muffinburg:Yeah, I reject the notion that there is an age that determines whether or not a person can reason. Perhaps a 3-year-old can reason or perhaps it cannot. All I want to know is what evidence is needed to prove that anyone can reason. Otherwise, how else would we or do we know that anyone can reason?
I would guess a child psychologist or pediatrician would have a better answer for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages
Dondoolee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages
Hmm, so I wonder at what age a person generally understands property rights? As I have stated before, I would guess sometime between the ages of 6-12, depending on the child.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:Yeah, I reject the notion that there is an age that determines whether or not a person can reason. Perhaps a 3-year-old can reason or perhaps it cannot. All I want to know is what evidence is needed to prove that anyone can reason. Otherwise, how else would we or do we know that anyone can reason? I would guess a child psychologist or pediatrician would have a better answer for you.
Which child psychologists or pediatrician do you recommend?
Spideynw: Can babies/toddlers understand property rights?
Perhaps. Can they not?
Spideynw: Dondoolee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages Hmm, so I wonder at what age a person generally understands property rights? As I have stated before, I would guess sometime between the ages of 6-12, depending on the child.
The crazy socialists obviously don't understand property rights. Do they have rights?
Daniel Muffinburg:The crazy socialists obviously don't understand property rights. Do they have rights?
Sure they understand property rights. They just do not want them.
Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Can babies/toddlers understand property rights? Perhaps. Can they not?
As far as I know, they don't.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:The crazy socialists obviously don't understand property rights. Do they have rights? Sure they understand property rights. They just do not want them.
[deleted because I want to keep this on-topic]
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Can babies/toddlers understand property rights? Perhaps. Can they not? As far as I know, they don't.
How do we know that adults understand property rights?
Sun. 10/03/21 18:59 EDT.post #15
Daniel Muffinburg:Can children reason?
Children can reason fine. They lack cognition as Nir reminded us earlier.
The biggest problem Spidey has is an acurate method of measuring when a child has the capacity of being a self owner and when not. Such a test would be fabricated by human's who they themselves will at times in their life show signs of being unable to reason. Such tests would check arbitrary points. I'm sure we could find various adults who failed such a criteria, does that then mean that the adults are also homesteadable?
Why not just make an arbitrary test to see who can solve complex calculus, and all those who fail are now up for grabs as homesteadable property. The notion is silly. Rights are not derived from one's ability to reason.
The whole premise stems from a bad definition of rights, a worse definition of reasoning, and a pathetic understanding of children(Especially as a father, shameful).
Ask the children, then make up your own mind.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Ask the children, then make up your own mind.
Took you long enough to respond with that. I'd wondered why no one had said that yet.
Anyway, what are the implications of the child responds "yes" or "no"? Or should I ask a child psychologist or pediatrician?
Daniel Muffinburg: Anyway, what are the implications of the child responds "yes" or "no"? Or should I ask a child psychologist or pediatrician?
If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions.
You have to accept them to have them.
Stranger:If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions.
Assuming you know the right answer doesn't make you the one qualified either. Asking an honest question doesn't make you unqualified either.
Republican's think they know how to run the country. Asking a question like "Do republican's really know how to run the country?" doesn't mean we are unqualified to make such judgement. And your assumption that you know doesn't make you right. You are no pediatrician and know very little about the cognitive attributes of children.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Anyway, what are the implications of the child responds "yes" or "no"? Or should I ask a child psychologist or pediatrician? If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions.
Since Daniel can't figure it out in Stranger's opinion, then the reasoner position would simply default to: 'Daniel you don't have rights since you don't understand this!'
This thread asking if children reason seems more to do with showing how the question itself involving rights isn't valid. This was a good post to elaborate on why reasoning doesn't pertain to rights to begin with.
are you saying that reasoning does not pertain to rights... except for that potential to reason does? If so..., its a claim that always struck me as odd, where can I read the 'best'(or at least strong) exposition on that?
nirgrahamUK: are you saying that reasoning does not pertain to rights... except for that potential to reason does? If so..., its a claim that always struck me as odd, where can I read the 'best'(or at least strong) exposition on that?
I think he's sayign that in a case where a greater claim is self evident, little to no reasonign is necessary. For example, if you ask me to wiggle my toe only I can choose to comply or not. In the case you are my slave master the fact remains STILL that only I can choose to comply or not. Little to no reasoning is necessary for things that are self-evident.
If you wanted me to wiggle my toe you would ask me, and therefore concede the point that only I own my toe, and only I can control it.
and is this seen as proof that all animated life is self owning, cockroaches and all? or does reason have a part to play, not just in 'action' but by consequence in the question of moral agency?
nirgrahamUK:and is this seen as proof that all animated life is self owning, cockroaches and all? or does reason have a part to play, not just in 'action' but by consequence in the question of moral agency?
If it's assumed that at one point a cockroach will become amoral agent then yes. Otherwise no. Still, reason is only wisdom. It is a decision making process that grows based on cognition. It is not something that naturally grows over a specific set of time periods. (Like you get 1 RP, reasoning point, each year and you need 18 to be an adult) It is not something you are granted at school, it is something that is learned from a cause and effect relationship when dealing with the real world. Some people learn to make wiser decisions earlier then others depending on the situations they placed them into.
Attempting to measure ones competency in the level of reasoning cannot be done, short of assumgin the roll of good able to have to have the forsight to know before hand what will result in each human action. A stock trader, in the mechanics eyes, may make unreasonable decisions regarding his vehicle. Likewise however the stock trader would see the mechanic as making unreasonable decisions in his investments. Both are a result due to a lack of knowledge and experience. It could be argued in both cases that the men are unreasonable.
A human cannot judge another human's reasoning and decide if they are ready to be self owners. We can judge action, but it as always such judgments will be biased and often arbitrary.
nirgrahamUK:are you saying that reasoning does not pertain to rights... except for that potential to reason does? If so..., its a claim that always struck me as odd, where can I read the 'best'(or at least strong) exposition on that?
In a way yes, that's what I meant, with some explaining that is usually hidden in the background that doesn't always enter each and every post.
I don't know if there is a work that directly connects to answering the question if children have rights in terms of potential and actual. I'm going by what I've come to know. Saying that, Thomas Aquinas' "Human Nature" is one of the best books I've read that elaborates on human nature, ie. defines what it is, not psychologically, but philosophically. The terms potency and actuality were used by Aristotle. That book was a commentary on Aristotle's book of that title.
Potency and actuality are ontological in nature. It is the recognition of be as becoming, therefore, these terms are ontological descriptions of change in the context of whatever it is that is becoming. In terms of the nature of a child as becoming mature, potency and actuality are descriptive of child development. These terms are also descriptive of evolution. But when I say all of this I'm understanding the underlying categories that I'm referring to as well. In other words, change happens in nature universally, but I'm specifically focused on the category of the human species, ie. Homo sapiens, and not in terms of the evolutionary order Primates, for example, in this current post.
Outside of child rights when it comes to human nature, the terms potency and actuality are pertinent in regards to social evolution too. Cultures generate or degenerate. They become in both instances.
Here's a decent excerpt of an article on this with the title of the section within the article here underlined. A quote of Aquinas is given with mention of Aristotle and others as well:
"Social Ontology and EvolutionThomism defines the axiom of action as a judgment, but analyzes the knowledgeproblem with universal theory. This is criticized by the evolutionists and, inparticular, Hayek who thinks that "Aristotle was opposed to evolution of any kind"(Hayek 1994, p. 45). Thomism does not account for historicity and changesoccurring over time.Such criticism is incorrect, however, in that Aristotle is not hostile to evolution,and pragmatic judgments are based on contingencies and history. Indeed, we havejust come to understand how the human mind discovers reality: it apprehends reality,i.e., the only thing common to all things. "Beyond the diversities between beings,there is only being which belongs to everyone" (Daujat 1974, p. 37). That common,
underlying reality is, in fact, stable. It is therefore unreasonable to claim that reality
is unknowable because the sense data are constantly changing (Moreau 1976, p. 8).
What comes first in the act of knowledge is the recognition of the identity ofsomething with itself. Each thing is what it is (the principle of identity) and a thing isnot what it is not (the principle of contradiction). To understand why the identity of athing does not negate change, it is important to introduce the distinction between theactual and the potential (Aquinas 1961, p. 654). The actuality of a thing is the thingas it exists. If only the actuality existed, there would be no change. The potential is athing as it could be, but is not yet. It is becoming. The potential of a thing, thatwhich it can be, marks the point of departure. Change comes neither from whatalready is, nor from what is not, but from what is potential but not yet actualized(Daujat 1974, p. 62).
For potency and actuality are referred in most cases to things in motion,because motion is the actuality of a being in potency. But the principle aim ofthis branch of science is to consider potency and actuality, not insofar as theyare found in mobile beings, but insofar as they accompany being in general.Hence potency and actuality are also found in immobile beings, for instance, inintellectual ones. (Aquinas 1961, p. 654)
On this basis we can reconcile two facts: that the human being is not perceived
as an actor and that human rationality is an essence. History discovers human
rationality (magic) and individualism (holism). The history of human societies doesnot change the nature of human beings but increases the knowledge that men andwomen have of themselves. Knowledge is not, pace hermeneutic philosophy, merely"a history of problems" (Foucault). It is about familiarity with the particulars of timeand place, as they relate to universal categories. Thomist philosophy thus reconciles
the historicity of the categories of action with their universality." - Francois Facchini; Apriorism, Introspection, and the Axiom of Action: A Realist Solution
Rly? So if I do not know the answer to a question, then I shouldn't ask the question?
Stranger: If you can't figure this out, you're probably not the one who should be asking these sorts of questions.
Daniel Muffinburg:Rly? So if I do not know the answer to a question, then I shouldn't ask the question?
step down Daniel! Your not competent enough to be asking such questions!