Political Theory

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

Imperator03 — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:05:12 GMT

JCFolsom:
First off, "the children are the future" line is played out and then some.

You're right, that phrase has lost it's impact. Rather, let's say that the effort we put into things today has an effect on they way they play out. Look at baby boomers, for the most part they've been petted and indulged all their lives. That doesn't seem ready to change anytme soon.

JCFolsom:
You cannot force a parent to "parent" their children, but you can force them to pay for that parenting, even if that requires forced labor.

I disagree. Partially. You cannot for a parent to be a parent. The desire to do that is inherent in the parent. Nor can you force them using forced labor. You can jail them, I suppose, but look at what happens. You take someone who is shiftless anyway and put them in close proximity to people who rob others for a living. All you do is increase the ranks of the criminals. Now everyone has to pay for not only incarcerating these people, but also the social cost of turning them into criminals. Let's face it, if you put someone in jail, you've just excluded them from ever making something of themselves, barring an exception like Tim Allen.

It may be better to allow the kid to decide where and with whom to live. Granted that opens up another can of worms (what age should they be allowed to make that decision, etc.) but at the least you would be safeguarding liberty rather than using coercion and the evil that follows such a path. If in fighing an evil, we adopt some of the techniques of that evil and defeat it, who has really won?

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

JCFolsom — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:16:07 GMT

Imperator03:
People are going to do what they are going to do. Government intervention or the lack of it will make no difference to someone who is going to abandon a child. Deciding to raise a child or abandon it is a choice not a right. Most humane people would consider it a barbaric and ultimately stupid idea. Children are, after all, the future and to abandon children is to abandon the future.

First off, "the children are the future" line is played out and then some. Whether or not it is a strategically correct move to abandon a child in the woods is hardly the issue here. The issue is the moral obligation of parents.

Parents have an obligation to their pre-adult children. It is by their actions that the children were created into a state of dependency, and therefore parents have an obligation to provide for that dependency until their offspring grow out of it. You cannot force a parent to "parent" their children, but you can force them to pay for that parenting, even if that requires forced labor.

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

ChaseCola — Mon, 05 May 2008 05:41:00 GMT

If the parent were to drop the child in the wilderness it would either be

a) kidnapping(the child does not want to be dumped in the woods, and is forcibly tooken there)

b) fraud(the child wants to go to the woods, but there is an implicit contract that he would not be left there)

c) the child wants to be dropped off in the woods

d) the child was born in the woods and has not been moved there by force

e) the woods is directly outside of the parents property

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

Imperator03 — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:36:45 GMT

Your post and it's title are deliberately incindiary and provocative. People are going to do what they are going to do. Government intervention or the lack of it will make no difference to someone who is going to abandon a child. Deciding to raise a child or abandon it is a choice not a right. Most humane people would consider it a barbaric and ultimately stupid idea. Children are, after all, the future and to abandon children is to abandon the future.

Now, I've worked for the State for 6 years now, working with disadvantaged children. And I can say from personal experience that the State does not have the interests of their wards first and foremost. From caseworkers who have better things to do to care for their wards to administrators who are only interested in promulgating treatements of which they approve, to empire-builders who have their own interests first the State fails on multiple levels to safeguard children. At least in an unregulated market economy the companies that ran their busineesses in such a fashon would soon go out of business. Those that were able to meet the needs of their wards would prosper. In addition people who truly felt a calling to work with these children would naturally be inclined to go into this line of work. It's a win for the kids and those who provide services.

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

Dynamix — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:15:47 GMT

pairunoyd:

My goal was to see if the statement, 'procreation is murder', can be disproven w/o appealing to something besides logic. I dont think the 'non-aggression axiom' applies (sorry if I got the name wrong). A parent may wish their offspring never dies but its just a wish and unreasonable. It'd be like running over a baby w/ a truck and saying you wish it'd live.

Okay, I'm really going to try to untangle this here. First, an emphatic no: "procreation is murder" cannot be disproved without appealing to logic (which is how I think you meant to write it). The act of "proving" or "disproving" presupposes reason, i.e., the utilization of logic. It's absurd.

Second, murder makes one the proximate cause of another's death. Perhaps it could be argued that the act of procreation makes one the ultimate cause of death for his progeny, but, either way, this is not the same thing. Again, this strict treatment applies to naturalism only. Theism perhaps in a parallel way makes one the ultimate cause of a change in the nature of his progeny's existence, but this isn't murder either.

Whether or not being the ultimate cause of death (or change in existential nature) of another is moral or immoral is probably a topic for another thread.

Logic serves us well, but why do we suddenly become disagreeable w/ it?

You can't "disagree with logic" without dooming yourself to a performative contradiction. Maybe you don't like it on emotivist grounds, but, once again, that isn't the same thing.

What is it about some logical conclusions that make us find them repulsive and undesirable, even though that logic seemed to give us good answers before that point?

Truth is a harsh mistress.

Is there a gray area, where we begin to see results that don't appeal to us or is it usually black and white?

That depends on where your train of thought is taking you and whether or not you "like" that direction. Consistently applied, reason does often lead us to (at least initially) uncomfortable places. You get used to it. To answer your question, it could go either way.

Aristotle and Rand are humans and humans are fallible. If they proscribe a morality based upon their toughts, who is to say my thoughts are wrong?

They might not be. If your thoughts are an attempt at discovering objective morality you may well be right. There are two litmus tests to check them out:

1. Are your ethical assertions consistent with your worldview?

2. Is your asserted worldview consistent with what we know (or think we know) about reality?

That's it. Well, there is the issue of whether or not your behavior is consistent with your asserted ethics, but that's a question of hypocrisy, not truth. On the other hand, if your thoughts are simply of what you prefer, then we're in the realm of subjectivism where there is no right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with considering what you'd like to be moral, so no trouble there (notice I'm implicitly making my own objective ethical assertion here, which I have to tie down to my worldview and, by extension, reality).

If I think pink, teeth, hair and dogs are evil, what makes those assertions any less valid than Rand's or Aristotle's?

Have you gone to any lengths to run those thoughts through the gauntlet of the above two tests? Maybe they pass, maybe they fail--no less Rand or Aristotle or Grandma Sue.

Must we appeal to man or must we appeal to a perfect entity to determine good and evil? Is man capable of producing a perfect standard of right and wrong?

I'll address the second question first. Producing? No. "Producing" a standard won't get you anything more than subjectivist hot air. If you want a meaningful, objective system of ethics (provided your worldview offers the possibility of one) you have to discover it. This is in much the same way that we discovered--not produced--the law of gravity.

Your first question is harder to answer. I personally am of the persuasion that a morally perfect entity and behavioral pattern--such as a God or Goddess or gods or goddesses--is a necessary prerequisite for objective morality. Many here undoubtedly disagree, but that discussion isn't for this thread.

If reason alone can't determine the absolutes or rights and wrongs, at what point does reason fail us and at what point do we assert these rights and wrongs 'arbitrarily'?

I wouldn't want to assert rights and wrongs arbitrarily. If I subscribed to a worldview which didn't allow an objective code of ethics I'd be honest with myself and swallow the subjectivism-to-relativism-to-nihilism pill and get on with my life in my perfectly arbitrary manner (or else look for a reason to believe in another worldview). But I wouldn't try to tell anybody else that they should live according to my subjective whim.

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

A.L.Pruitt — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:27:42 GMT

So Nihilism is the answer? ; )

Has this statement "procreation is murder" been proven? I thought the discussion had only just begun. Although this tangent should be continued in another thread.

Earlier you wrote.."The human created can NOT die unless you procreate". Read that sentence. I know what you meant by it, but the way it is stated is incorrect. The human created cannot exist unless procreation occurs.
Also this statement assumes death is murder. But that is not true. In fact that unravels this whole line of thought. Because this entire issue rests on death equaling murder. But as humans we have no right to immortality. When are bodies give they give, and murder is only when another initiates violence. Death is not immoral nor is it a contradiction of property when it is due to our own limited physical being.

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

pairunoyd — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:48:00 GMT

My goal was to see if the statement, 'procreation is murder', can be disproven w/o appealing to something besides logic. I dont think the 'non-aggression axiom' applies (sorry if I got the name wrong). A parent may wish their offspring never dies but its just a wish and unreasonable. It'd be like running over a baby w/ a truck and saying you wish it'd live.

Logic serves us well, but why do we suddenly become disagreeable w/ it? What is it about some logical conclusions that make us find them repulsive and undesirable, even though that logic seemed to give us good answers before that point? Is there a gray area, where we begin to see results that don't appeal to us or is it usually black and white?

Aristotle and Rand are humans and humans are fallible. If they proscribe a morality based upon their toughts, who is to say my thoughts are wrong? If I think pink, teeth, hair and dogs are evil, what makes those assertions any less valid than Rand's or Aristotle's? Must we appeal to man or must we appeal to a perfect entity to determine good and evil? Is man capable of producing a perfect standard of right and wrong? If reason alone can't determine the absolutes or rights and wrongs, at what point does reason fail us and at what point do we assert these rights and wrongs 'arbitrarily'?

Sorry. I'll leave it there unless others wish to carry it much further.

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

Dynamix — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:13:11 GMT

Inquisitor:

In this case, wouldn't ethical positions stemming from Objectivism/Aristoteleanism and perhaps Satanism provide an answer, as they all see human life as valuable, and thus procreation as a positive phenomenon?

Depends on your worldview.

In a worldview that holds that human life is valuable, it seems obvious prima facie that any act that increases the amount of human life is a good one (discounting any relevant negative obligations that might restrict the way in which that life is created). So, yes, those ethical frameworks are helpful if they provide a reason to procreate (which is what you want to do) in such a manner as to be consistent with your worldview.

[EDIT: Of course, if one's worldview turns out to be false, trotting down Path X might not be what you want to do, even if...it's what you want to do.]

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

Inquisitor — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:47:55 GMT

In this case, wouldn't ethical positions stemming from Objectivism/Aristoteleanism and perhaps Satanism provide an answer, as they all see human life as valuable, and thus procreation as a positive phenomenon?

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

Dynamix — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:39:10 GMT

pairunoyd:

So maybe the power of logic and reason can only be a useful tool if it's w/i the parameters of a premise, a premise which seems to us, arbitrarily created by whatever power it is that gave us reason. Maybe reason can only work for our good if it is used w/i the parameters of some absolute, unquestionable or sovereign standard. So how do you resolve the 'procreation is murder' issue w/o abandoning reason and logic? It seems we always have to posit something beyond reason before we can reason.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this. It seems as if you are concluding, "you should not procreate" because it is immoral. But in order for you to know what is moral or immoral, you need an objective standard with which to measure your assertion. That is your frame of reference. In the case of Christianity, the standard claims, "you should procreate." In order for you to disagree, you must abandon that frame of reference. But if this is where you're sitting, you cannot postulate that procreation is wrong, because even if procreation is murder, you have lost your frame of reference by which you denounced murder itself as immoral. You are simply floating in subjective space, where the meaningfulness of every ethical assertion resides on the plane of, "I like chocolate, you like vanilla." Any condemnation of procreation at this point is a metaphysical fart into the void.

The only way out is to assume a new worldview with a new (again, alleged) objective standard that conforms to your "intuition" that procreation is, ultimately, immoral.

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

pairunoyd — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:57:27 GMT

So maybe the power of logic and reason can only be a useful tool if it's w/i the parameters of a premise, a premise which seems to us, arbitrarily created by whatever power it is that gave us reason. Maybe reason can only work for our good if it is used w/i the parameters of some absolute, unquestionable or sovereign standard. So how do you resolve the 'procreation is murder' issue w/o abandoning reason and logic? It seems we always have to posit something beyond reason before we can reason.

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

Dynamix — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:28:48 GMT

pairunoyd:

There's nothing murderous about delaying one's death. Death occurs only once. You are delaying the death that can only occur because of the procreators. You can't undo one's procreated state w/o killing them, but you can abstain from procreating. Regardless of the results of such logic, 'procreation is murder', can you point out the error in it's logic or assumptions or wherever it might be in error?

I'm thinking about this a bit more.

I said above that the death of one human can only occur once and this would seem to mitigate a 'life saver's' culpability since that inevitable death was set in motion by the procreation. However, the procreators exist only because of THEIR procreators. So their procreation was only possible due to their procreators' procreation. We can take this back to the first man, Adam, if you believe in such. But Adam is dead. We can't bring him to justice. So this would seem to imply that every procreative act coming after Adam and Eve's is only possible because of their first procreative act.

You may wish to blame god for our deaths, but can we bring god to justice? If we blame him anyway, then maybe that implies that all the acts of man that follows creation or the emergence of man are justifiable because no man can do evil unless he was created. But, if you believe the bible, god said he gave Adam and Eve a choice and if they chose wrongly, they would 'surely die'. So did their choice murder us all? Did god create beings he knew would choose wrongly? Does this make him culpable? But where do we even get the notions of good and evil? Is there even a right and wrong unless god reveals it to us, by whatever means he does so? Is god himself good? Does he determine what is good and what is evil? I could say, Pink is evil or Teeth are evil. Would it make it so? It seems to be saying that the actions of man w/i this universe, apart from god, apart from an absolute standard, are neither good or bad in and of themself and maybe, just maybe the absurdity of such logic, "procreation is murder", is due to the fact that we seek what is good and what is evil arbitrarily, rather than basing it upon what the super-procreator (creator of all things) has commanded they be.

I apologize for going on a tangent that most will deplore. I actually usually just type such type in Notepad and look over it as I think of new things, but I decided to go ahead and throw it out there. Forgive me, brethren. lol

I might be able to help you out a little bit. For one, we know that actions must be consistent within their ethical framework, and that an ethical framework must be consistent within its worldview. If we're assuming a Christian (or Judaism) worldview, we simply look to the Bible (or Tanakh) for a lens with which we may judge the morality of human action (I'm bringing this up because you mentioned Adam and Eve).

In the case of procreation we have, "God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." - Genesis 1:28

There you go. Assuming God is good (integral to the above two worldviews), anything He says we should do is good, including procreation. In this case, we would have a positive obligation, though not in an absolute sense, as any Biblical exhortation involving sex is predicated on the act being performed within the sphere of both love and the marriage-bond. I'm not sure what the other major worldviews say about it (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, naturalism). Actually, in the case of naturalism it seems there would be no official critique.

Secondly and finally, if we're assuming a theistic worldview we don't have to assert procreation's cause of an inevitable end to life in any absolute sense. These worldviews teach the existence an eternal soul (note: I could be wrong about Buddhism), and as such any end to this life on earth is followed by another kind of life (perhaps another earthly life, as in the case of Hinduism). An argument could be made that the theistic procreators are involuntarily signing up another life for an eventual change in the nature of his existence, but a change is not an end, strictly speaking. In any event, a positive obligation to procreate (limited or absolute) nullifies philosophical meandering on the possibility of immorality in procreation per se, as an act cannot be both moral and immoral simultaneously.

Does this help?

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

pauled — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:04:29 GMT

I don't know the answer to this one. Is to have a baby to commit murder? It takes a true philosopher to pause for long to ponder the question.

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

pairunoyd — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:25:05 GMT

pauled:

To the extent that to be alive means that you will eventually die, this could be argued. By this reasoning, it can also be argued that to save or spare a life today is to commit that person to dieing at some future time. So to save a life, or not murder then, is also to murder, and to be avoided. The problem with such questions and lines of reasoning is that they quickly become contradictory, confused and useless.

There's nothing murderous about delaying one's death. Death occurs only once. You are delaying the death that can only occur because of the procreators. You can't undo one's procreated state w/o killing them, but you can abstain from procreating. Regardless of the results of such logic, 'procreation is murder', can you point out the error in it's logic or assumptions or wherever it might be in error?

I'm thinking about this a bit more.

I said above that the death of one human can only occur once and this would seem to mitigate a 'life saver's' culpability since that inevitable death was set in motion by the procreation. However, the procreators exist only because of THEIR procreators. So their procreation was only possible due to their procreators' procreation. We can take this back to the first man, Adam, if you believe in such. But Adam is dead. We can't bring him to justice. So this would seem to imply that every procreative act coming after Adam and Eve's is only possible because of their first procreative act.

You may wish to blame god for our deaths, but can we bring god to justice? If we blame him anyway, then maybe that implies that all the acts of man that follows creation or the emergence of man are justifiable because no man can do evil unless he was created. But, if you believe the bible, god said he gave Adam and Eve a choice and if they chose wrongly, they would 'surely die'. So did their choice murder us all? Did god create beings he knew would choose wrongly? Does this make him culpable? But where do we even get the notions of good and evil? Is there even a right and wrong unless god reveals it to us, by whatever means he does so? Is god himself good? Does he determine what is good and what is evil? I could say, Pink is evil or Teeth are evil. Would it make it so? It seems to be saying that the actions of man w/i this universe, apart from god, apart from an absolute standard, are neither good or bad in and of themself and maybe, just maybe the absurdity of such logic, "procreation is murder", is due to the fact that we seek what is good and what is evil arbitrarily, rather than basing it upon what the super-procreator (creator of all things) has commanded they be.

I apologize for going on a tangent that most will deplore. I actually usually just type such type in Notepad and look over it as I think of new things, but I decided to go ahead and throw it out there. Forgive me, brethren. lol

Re: The right to abandon & neglect children

pauled — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:05:20 GMT

pairunoyd:
Is it accurate to say that procreation causes life AND death? The human created can NOT die unless you procreate. If and ONLY if you procreate can the human die, so your actions inevitably lead to the child's death. Why is procreation not murder?

To the extent that to be alive means that you will eventually die, this could be argued. By this reasoning, it can also be argued that to save or spare a life today is to commit that person to dieing at some future time. So to save a life, or not murder then, is also to murder, and to be avoided. The problem with such questions and lines of reasoning is that they quickly become contradictory, confused and useless.

The point of political philosophy - property ethics - is to recognize and adhere consistently to the valid norms of justice, whatever they can be determined to be, and to reject norms that represent a contradiction to justice. We eventually die because that is our physical nature. Yet it is also our nature to prefer to live and prosper in peace. Libertarian property norms are specified to achieve the latter. A system that encourages it is a just system. Once the rules are established however, one must endeavor to apply them, in principle, as consistently as possible.