Active Users:1130 Time:22/11/2024 02:23:55 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
His point was taking responsibility for a life does not require taking responsibility for it. - Edit 3

Before modification by Joel at 23/08/2013 11:02:37 AM

Contradictions are self-rebutting, hence the subject line quote.

View original postHis core point, that objecting to unethical clean ups of problems by people who screwed up doesn't mean we should have to do clean up for them. Accidents happen, but they tend to happen when people aren't acting responsibly and its hard to call them an accident. Telling someone that the consequences are something they have to accept is not the same as me accepting a share of the effort for them dealing with those consequences.


View original post"I'm broke, I want correct that, I'm thinking about mugging someone"

"No, you can't do that."

"All right, can you give me some money then?"


Being not-broke is not a preeminent need; surival is. We must take Locke VERY literally to believe even POSSESSING—not just retaining—property a natural right; perhaps that was part of why Jefferson revised it to "pursuit [rather than attainment] of happiness." Otherwise we take Locke for a Marxist demanding wealth redistribution, which very few people would do.

"I'm starving; I'm thinking about stealing food."

"No, you can't do that."

"Alright, can you give me some food then?"

Most people agree the answer should be "yes," if only to prevent theft of food the moment our back is turned; that is why we have things like food stamps. There is no reasonable nor other doubt of a beings existence there, so societys active duty (and self interest) is clear.


View original postNow you raise the reasonable doubt issue about personhood and that's a fair point but also backwards. That's not how we do it. If I hear what I think is a child's voice coming from a well I need to go and establish that there is almost certainly not a person down there, not 'a non-remote chance that there isn't'. If we encounter artificial or alien intelligence which doesn't scream totally human we don't demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a person before we extend it the benefit of the doubt and demand people not kill them on whim. It is not how rational humanists think, but then I'm pretty convinced secularists are pro-choice mostly because religions are anti-abortion.

My position is a simple one, I don't know how to define 'person' or determine when something is one. I give the benefit of the doubt to them. I am not sure a fetus is a person, not sure an infant is either, since there is decent reason to believe they may be I will act as though that is true unless presented overwhelming evidence they aren't.


When reasonable doubt exists we cannot, or should not, INTERVENE over the objections of those involved. Supposing a child is trapped in a well does not justify ignoring a "no trespassing" sign unless one proves the childs presence. Now, I agree we should err on the side of caution in uncertainty; that, absent serious maternal risk, abortions should be neither obtained nor performed unless/until we establish fetuses are nonbeings. I have always encouraged that view in everyone: The difference is I will not MAKE others live in accordance with what I BELIEVE but cannot PROVE. In fact, I CANNOT, only imprison them for refusing—if they survive the added dangers legally imposing my beliefs places on refusal.

My concern for and obligation to their immortal souls does not justify me preventing their observance of other religions (or none,) and my concern for and obligation to their unborn children does not justify me preventing their abortion. It is NOT. MY. CALL.

Most Libertarians take exactly that view of (ironically) taxpayers feeding people who would otherwise starve and/or turn to crime, yet insist such life-saving intervention is obligatory prenatally. The state MUST forbid women kill possible beings in their own bodies, but must NOT take a dime from anyone to save those lives once unquestionably beings. That is contradictory: If life-saving society intervention over individual objections is obligatory for possible pre-natal beings, it is at least as obligatory for definite post partum beings. If the latter is state tyranny, so is the former. We cannot demand a possible beings right to life, then stand idly letting it die once born.

It is a question of active vs. passive, with multiple reasonable answers. No contradictory ones are reasonable though.


Return to message