Trespassing foetuses? Leaving aside your view on abortion, I’ve got to wonder about someone with such faith in a political system this nutty.
Let’s call the guy who tied the fellow up and put him on my boat a kidnapper.
The kidnapper’s actions cannot create an obligation in the shipmaster. The kidnapper has wronged the stowaway, he has violated his rights. That does not obligate the shipmaster to allow an infringement of his own rights just to make the stowaway whole. It wasn’t the shipmaster’s doing. The actions of the kidnapper cannot give rise to a positive obligation in the shipmaster, only the shipmaster can create such obligations, when and if he chooses to do so. The shipmaster might choose to help the stowaway, whether for a promise of payment at a later date, or to garner good will, or simply out of the “goodness of his heart”, but he has no moral obligation to allow his continued trespass.
In most cases the costs of the stowaway’s continued presence may be so low that the shipmaster wouldn’t even bother. But he’d have the right to expel him.
But I reject the notion that part of “life” is having to clean up other people’s messes. Yeah sure, we all have to do plenty of that at work to keep our jobs (along with a healthy amount of passing the buck, I’m sure), but we could always quit rather than do so. I’m talking about inescapable moral obligations. I’m responsible for those trespasses upon the rights of others that I myself make, and no others. I am obligated to fulfill the debts that I myself incur, and no others.
If the stowaway thinks it should be the shipmaster’s moral duty to take care of him, well why not tell him “life sucks, get used to it”? When somebody wrongs you, that person and only that person is obligated to make you whole.
If somebody injures you in a hit and run car accident, you don’t sue me, you sue the guy who caused the injury. It’s not my problem.
D’oh! I forgot that was you. I must have just read that essay I mentioned and her in mind. I suppose it would be much easier to just find a couple articles on the 'net and refer you there. I think I’ve given the basic framework for my analysis, it’s pretty simple. It really isn’t that complicated, I have no idea why I would have told you that.
Just like in the “hypothetical ethical dilemma” thread, I reject this moral stance on the grounds that it creates a less pleasant world to live in than my moral stance. If you don’t agree that the point of morals is to create a pleasant world to live in, then I guess the chasm between us is truly unbridgeable.
Because as long as there is enough food and so on, it is a much more pleasant solution to let the stowaway tag along. Now if the food is in fact scarce, then we have a difficult situation. And you’ll note I never said life was easy.
I’m still not talking about laws or suing, I’m talking about morals. And if you come driving, see me lying there bleeding, and neglect to call an ambulance or help me, then you’re an (checking to see that we’re still in the Pit) asshole.
Probably because I didn’t ask you to explain your moral system; I asked you to explain why you had it. Anyone can say “human rights” as the answer to why murder is illegal, but to explain human rights is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Well, I don’t particularly find a world wherein my rights mean nothing and another person’s misfortune becomes a burden on my shoulders to be particularly pleasant.
But at any rate, you’re right, there is a chasm between us. I don’t think rights can be ignored simply to maximize pleasure or minimize pain/suffering, and you do. There’s really no middle ground in which to meet.
Well, then take the law away. If you are crippled in an auto accident and I have the means to help you rehabilitate, would you demand that I give up my resources to that end even though I had nothing to do with the accident?
Well, I claim only that I have no obligation to stop and help you. Whether or not I would is a different bag o’ worms. If the cost to me of aiding you was minimal, I might. Since I, like most people, have a cell phone, I probably would go ahead and call emergency, the cost is low and helping out earns good will and yields positive feelings. But if the balance tipped another way, say I had no cell phone to call for aid and my pregnant wife was in the car about to give birth, then I guess I wouldn’t stop to help you, since it would put a life I cared about more than yours at risk. But this isn’t really about what I would or wouldn’t do, it’s about what I would or would not be obligated to do.
It’s the price to pay for surviving when you’re an involuntary stowaway, so to speak.
I quite frankly don’t believe in “rights” at all, so whether to ignore them becomes a moot point.
If you have the means to reasonably comfortably do so, yes. Of course, in my ideal society, the government would help me rehabilitate. That’s what taxes are for.
Well, since I see no reason to not require that which is morally right, I’d say you’re obligated to stop and help me. This is of course dependent on the circumstances, but childbirth is routine and hardly a circumstance severe enough to let me die and my family and friends suffer.
Well, Priceguy, I suppose we have indeed hit the wall on this little discussion.
What really does puzzle me is that you seem to see no sphere of action that is neither obligatory nor forbidden. You believe minimizing suffering is morally right and people are always obligated to do what is morally right. Under your conception of morality, do humans ever have any choice? Are there actions which, to your mind, are neither “right” nor “wrong”? Does a moral obligation attach to such decisions as which brand of toothpaste I ought to buy, which movies I attend, what time of day I wake up in the morning? If there are any such actions for which one is not morally bound either way, at what point does the realm of “must and must not” begin?
Interesting question. Yes, the brand of toothpaste you buy may well have a moral significance. If one company employs slave labour and another doesn’t, then the nonslave company gets my money. This is of course a fairly extreme example, which is why I don’t spend much time researching what brand of toothpaste to buy. But it is why I don’t buy meat products unless I know how the animals are treated. The same thing goes for watching movies. Getting up in the morning… haven’t thought about that one. Can’t see off-hand why it would have moral significance.
Certainly there are morally neutral actions. I’m currently playing with my wristwatch, that’s morally neutral. Many things are. It’s just that when it starts affecting other people, you have a responsibility.
Is it just me, or is this whole boat analogy completely irrelevant and masturbatory?
Certainly. But when we consider such a question as abortion, we cannot exclude emotion as a consideration. In the case of rape, for example, the emotional difficulties will likely outweigh the question of health risks or whether a zygote is a person. In passing any law, we can’t ignore emotional risks.
The point I am trying to make is that in deciding whether a fetus or embryo is a worthwhile human life is usually more a matter of opinion than fact. One’s political motivations are the primary reality here, not the hard science of when a cell magically becomes a citizen with a social security number. If science were to come out with a statement tomorrow that an embryo becomes a human life at exactly 2184 hours 23 minutes after conception, I’d bet that almost everyone would challenge that finding, and further, that the nature of such a challenge would depend on one’s political leanings. In this case, moral relativism is all we have.
Gotcha ya. The distinction here becomes important when pro-lifers say that the “baby” suffers. I doubt that a fertilized egg suffers much.
It’s difficult to decifer what point you’re trying to make here. Logic cannot decide personhood, therefore logic should decide personhood? Logic demands a cutoff point, yet logic cannot provide a cutoff point? Can you please retype the last three paragraphs more clearly?
If what you’re trying to say is that logic is all we have, and logic is not up to the task, therefore we should criminalize all abortions, then I couldn’t disagree more. But it’s hard to tell if that’s what you’re saying.
I will happily and with a song in my heart retain posession of my own money.
RexDart, you seem to greatly value property rights. Can you explain why your property rights are of greater significance than the hypothetical involuntary stowaway’s right to life?
Ah yes. Yet another display of that famous liberal inclusiveness and tolerance for people with other views. Talk about your fucking sanctimonious zealots. You obviously know them well, being one yourself.
My god, man. You’ve really lost your fucking marbles haven’t you? That is very likley the most loathsome and disgusting and even disturbing comment I’ve yet seen on these boards. And I’ve been here since there we but a few thousand posts. That’s nearly four and one half million remarks that you you have eclipsed. Quite an achievement - color me impressed. Leaves me wondering what you’re gonna do for an encore though.
It’s called sarcasm, Beer. Should I have used a :rolleyes:
Wish death upon a pro life poster?
Oh, but in a “sarcastic” manner…to be sure. :rolleyes:
I’ve never come close to wishing death on a poster, sarcastic or otherwise.
BTW, is it not over the top for pro-lifers to call abortion “murder,” and, by implication, anyone who has had one or paid for one a “murderer?”
Oh golly, I dunno. I generally don’t use the term “murder” in the debates.
Of course then, it’s “over the top” for folks to refer to Bush Jr as a murderer vis a vis Iraq…right?
If appending an outrageous statement with something like this, “Fuck you, you fucking sanctimonious zealot,” is supposed to indicate sarcasm, then I’d suggest you consult a more reputable Style Guide. Yours is obviously of the very poorly edited Compleat Style for Mooncalves series. I’m calling bullshit on your explanation; it’s a pretty thin and pathetic piece of crap. As pathetic as you yourself give every indication of being.
And even if I were to accept that you intended sarcasm, your statement would simply be despicable and heinous sarcasm.
Are you warning me as a mod or just calling me an asshole. I can live with the latter but if you think I went over the “jerk” line, I’ll retract my offending remarks.
By libertarian standards, as soon as you want that passenger gone, he has to leave. As soon as you retract the invitation, or when the party ends, he can be forced out. Since when have libertarians believed that if you ever invite anyone onto your property they are allowed to stay forever?
In any case, your analogy is poor. I’d say it’s more like this:
You’re throwing a party on a boat. No matter how hard you try to hide your party, there will be gatecrashers. You’re trying to lessen the damage they can do by corraling half of them in the engine room and the other half up on deck. Some get loose anyway, wreak havoc, and you want them gone–by any means possible.
Are there libertarians who would truly argue that you have to allow those gatecrashers to stay on board? Are there libertarians who would truly argue that if someone comes to a party they can stay forever?
As for South Dakota, I think Ohio politicians have paid SD’s politicians in the vain hope this will make Ohio not look so rabidly, disturbingly, medieval.
Julie
That would be a judgment call. From the POV of the pro-lifer … it would still depend on the pro-lifer, since that group of people (FTR, I’m not exactly on either side on this one; I don’t think nonmedical personnel should be writing rules dealing with medical issues) is not exactly the homologous, all-think-the-same-way entity that is often put forth by various well-meaning (and some less so) groups. To someone who operates under different premises from those of a pro-lifer, it is egregious to use those terms in that manner. To some pro-lifers (but not all) it is simply calling a duck a duck.
I don’t know specifically what it says about South Dakota, but in my research on teacher salaries, I came to the knowledge that the Dakotas are near dead last in the nation. Back in the mid-late 90s the average grade school teacher salary was close to, if not under, $20K/annum. Now they are still dead-last in the nation at just over $30K/annum, as compared with the national average some 9K+ more/annum. See this and especially this site, with more current numbers. I would hazard a guess that this is not exactly a new development.
Unfortunately, some people’s morals would make the world a much, much more unpleasant place for a lot of us to live in. Those of us who have a uterus and an absolute horror of being parasitized for nine months, or who have medical conditions that would make carrying a pregnancy physically harmful, it would make our world suck ass. Deliberately creating a world where a substantial part of the population has to live in fear ain’t making the world a more pleasant place, darlin’. I guess, by your standards, outlawing abortion would actually be immoral.
No mod remarks intended, although I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some forthcoming - I have inside information, you see. That was just me calling you an asshole, or despicable trash, or whathaveyou, and a disgrace to the liberal principles to which you purport to adhere. Pretty pathetic display, Dio. I’ve long thought you were somewhat of a jerk. This simply cements it. But hey, if you’re okay with being that, it ain’t no skin off my nose.