RoR: Forum

How does the emergency in the case of a starving lone child magically make the situation any passerby's emergency? How?? Because MSK says so? Because not making a strange child's emergency Luke's emergency is too morally repugnant to allow it by law? How would a statute be written to coherently compel the good under threat of force in this case?

The law does not speculate on positive actions. No where does the law state "because it is good not to rob Sunoco gas stations, citizens will not rob any Sunoco gas stations under compulsion of law."

Nor could a good statute state:

"Because it is good to feed a strange starving child secluded from others, and because said child's emergency is hereby declared to be any citizen's emergency (any who are able to provide aid), temporary legal custody will automatically be rendered and forced onto any citizens who happen upon such children, regardless of a citizen's wish to assume such responsibility, under compulsion of the law."

Post 221

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:23am

MSK, you have basically stated that if you had the opportunity to jail or fine me for the "crime" of not assisting an infant in dire need, you would do so. You have said that you seek to become my very bitter enemy for asserting my right to live freely from such coercion.

Fine. We are now officially very bitter enemies.

I have no desire to starve anyone to death. I have even less desire to have some ranting emotionalist fine or jail me for asserting my right to freedom. A "sin of omission" is not a "sin of commission" and certainly not murder.

I cannot stop you from coming to any more local meetings. But rest assured that I will offer you a chilly welcome and no handshake. You are a fascist pure and simple.

Post 222

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:28am

Luke,

That's fine with me. You do not have a desire to starve anyone to death, but you are very bitter enemies with one who will not acknowledge your right to do so - and thus commit murder.

And that makes me a fascist. Hmmmm...

I will keep to myself my appraisal of you and your proclaimed right to commit murder in the name of your own freedom.

(Just saying murder ain't murder doesn't wipe that fact out of existence, either. The focus should be on defining what murder by starvation means, and only after that, analyzing examples, rather than jumping to conclusions.)

Once again, my problem is not endorsing altruism (or statism). It is against murder by starvation - and most particularly murder by starvation being lauded as Objectivism and an exercise in individual rights.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/21, 11:04am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/21, 11:08am)

Post 223

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:25am

"I will keep my appraisal of you and your proclaimed right to commit murder to myself." wrote Michael.

This is a whole new level of intellectual contortionism.

Frankly, I stand in awe.

I now have to question every instance where I defended a position of yours, every email exchange we had, and every positive opinion I held of you, Michael. Disagreement is one thing, evasion even, at times. But calculated misrepresentation of anothers position with the sole purpose of coming out on top is another thing entirely. You really are not interested in the truth are you, Michael?

I know *exactly* what you are doing here, on this thread, (esp with regard to Luke). You are transparent. A bit like Hemingway as a boxer. Though the man could really write some damned good fiction.

John

btw: Kindly remove me from the members list of ObjectivistLiving.

Post 224

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:25am

Do you believe that a child's right-to-life when a parent is not around is not worth considering as a legal matter?

I do not beleive that there is a need for a law to handle the "babe in the woods" scenario. I do not beleive that people would let the child starve. I do not beleive that you can write a law about doing the "decent" thing in this situation without violating the principles that underlie Objectivist ethics. As I said, I don't think its necessary though.
Choosing an emergency situation and then hinging the siutaion on actions that are so heinous as to be almost assuredly unlikely is a bad way to think about writing a law.

Why are people so concerned with the need to force someone to do the "right" thing? You come up with this wacky out-there situation to justify the use of force against someone for happening on a situation. Never-mind that everyone here says they'd do what you consider the "right" thing. That's not enough, you say that they must do this thing. If they don't do it they'll be murderers! Not that anyone would let the child die, but they must renounce there freedom or be murderers! Don't you see? Don;t you see that you are offering a false alternative to everyone here? We all know that we'd do the right thing and why, but you have to insist that doing it isn't even a choice. With you it is a must or else! Then you proclaim that we're all bad representatives of Objectivism. As I've said before, your scenario is preposterous and your force justification ridiculous as well as unecessary.

As far as a non-babe in the woods scenario. Someone would take care of the kid. There are thousands of people looking to do so every day. Force isn't necessary.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 2/21, 11:28am)

Post 225

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:33am

John Newnham wrote:

Kindly remove me from the members list of ObjectivistLiving.

Please remove me as well.

Post 226

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:36am

Micahel,

Unless you come clean on this railroad morality you'll have to take me off the list as well.

Ethan

Post 227

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:41am

And I as well.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:56am

MSK's "right to life" (positive rights) argument was refuted about 120 posts ago. Those who are hopping on now with the idea that a legitimate debate is taking place should read the whole thread before jumping in and addressing MSK's latest diversion as if he is raising some serious issues that deserve further consideration.

Using an outragous and dishonest argumentative manuver he has accused Luke of advocating murder. Indeed on several occasions in this thread he has openly stated that the Objectivist conception of individual rights can be equated with the advocacy of child murder. He does this with a grotesque twist of logic that can be witnessed if you go back and read the thread.

Once again -- Those of you who want to claim that some of us are ganging up and being unfairly harsh to MSK and that "there have been too many splits" should realize that MSK has called the defenders of individual rights in this thread advocates of baby murder. He deserves every bit of outrage he's been met with here and probably far more. Don't waste your time defending him and don't criticise those who are pissed off because MSK has earned every bit of that.

MSK is not an Objectivist -- He is a critic of Objectivism that attacks the very important principle of individual rights by claiming that Objectivists advocate murder. No amount of squirming by him in response to messages like this can hide the facts.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana
on 2/21, 11:59am)

Post 229

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:57am

****
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 2/21, 7:29pm)

Post 230

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 12:30pm

I have yet to see anyone on this thread address what murder by starvation means. I have seen you people trying to railroad me into being branded as an altruist. Insinuated some kind of single-handed conspiracy and God knows what else.

Well I am not an altruist. I am an Objectivist. And I am against murder. If any of you don't like my definition of murder by starvation, then please provide another one sometime. Is one ever forthcoming? No.

Does anybody address the right-to-life of the child? No.

Just grandstanding and parroting parts of the philosophy.

Talk about evasion!

John, where is your objection to that? And all those names I have been called?

Sorry. I forget. You guys call that rational discourse. Passion, right?

Right.

But I've had enough for now, too. I have my own Objectivist world to build.

(And I, on the other hand, do not wish my account canceled. I believe in interchange of ideas. The ideas better be good enough to be challenged and expressed well if they are going to convince anybody - not just name-calling. Good luck to you all. Even you, Jason, who has no answer whatsoever for two simple questions.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/21, 12:40pm)

Post 231

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 12:46pm

Why then Michael....you must be murdering all the people freezing to death on the streets of America this winter. Some are kids yah know. Why aren't you out in the alleys of the frigid north seeking to arrest everyone who walks passed a blanket-draped form? They're all murderers right. We should be out there lifting those blankets and checking the age of every one of those people to make sure we aren't murdering anyone.

Murderers?

My ass!

You leave as I said you would, proclaiming us all blank-out anti-life baby killers. Proclaiming nothing over a twisted bent warped pretzeled unreal emergency BS red herring. Enjoy making your own world with the morality beginning and ending with a gun. No benevolence, no love, just force to ensure compliance.

I have had the grace and pride to admit errors to people I don't even like, but you can't or wont see your own errors despite having them explained to you clearly. Yelling the same thing over and over isn't an argument. Very sad.

Ethan

Post 232

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 12:49pm

Come on, Ethan.

Do you have a definition for murder by starvation (as a crime)?

Do you have anything on the essentials of the rights of children?

I keep asking...

btw - I never called anyone here a baby-killer or any of the other stuff. The closest I came was in saying that one member wanted the right to do that through negligence, but he had no desire to do it. I believe that is accurate.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/21, 12:52pm)

Post 233

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 12:56pm

MSK asked:

I have yet to see anyone on this thread address what murder by starvation means. ... I am against murder. If any of you don't like my definition of murder, then please provide another one.

As a rocket scientist, I can honestly say that this is not rocket science. MSK evidently relies on us rather than referring to a dictionary:

noun: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

verb: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

These definitions imply some initiation of physical force against another, not an absence of force. I initiate no force against an abandoned baby in the woods. My action is not murder.

Murder investigations look for means, motive and opportunity. I have no motive to harm the baby. My action is not murder.

For me to murder someone by starvation, I would have to initiate physical force against him to prevent his access to his food, not my food. I have not done so in your situation. No amount of argumentation on Earth you could mount would dissuade me from that conviction.

I consider this explanation so plain and simple -- not "complex" as you say -- that only a pathological evader could not see it.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/21, 12:57pm)

Post 234

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 1:00pm

From dictionary.com

Murder

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock¹.

Starvation or any method makes no difference. Murder is murder.

I think I covered the legal arguemnt above for both the babe in the woods and the abandoned child scenario. The babe in the woods and the finder with lots of food who refuses to help scenario is a red herring. In the case of your everyday abandoned shild, someone personally or a provate group charity will gladly take them in. No murder. No one is going to throw the backpack of baby food over a cliff. No force. No problems.

Ethan

Post 235

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 1:01pm

Using an unproven conclusion (starvation is murder, etc etc, ad nausium) as part of the proof of that conclusion (you're all in favor of murder!) isn't an argument either, Ethan.

For a smart guy like this not to be able to see a violation as clear as that, I can't be generous and call it a "mistake." I won't fault other's who wish to see it as an honest error. I, for one, do not.

Post 236

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 1:18pm

Ethan,

If you are amenable, I will do some research on "depraved indifference homicide," but not right now. I will come back to this later. I, myself, want to see how USA law defines "depraved indifference" as motive.

There are two fundamental rights colliding here, and that makes this issue more complicated than it seems.

Once again, I am not arguing for curtailing anybody's rights, but in protecting very basic ones in emergencies.

Meanwhile, see if you wish to look into children's rights, especially the right-to-life.

Michael

Post 237

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 1:29pm

Michael,

I'm a parent, and what's more a damn benevolent fellow. I don;t think you can write a law that would stand in line with Objectivist views on personal freedom. I don't think it's necessary either. You want to write a law about a situtaion that just is so unlikely as to be laughable. Politicians love to crusade on BS issue like this. But go ahead and try.

Your attempts to argue the situtation have done more to make Objectivists look like wanton baby starvers than any non-objectivist could have hoped. If it was your desire to stop the use of starving babies to describe objectivist ethics then you've failed. The gof this arguemnt from starving kids in Africa to the red herring situation has been a disaster that you have fostered. In order to have this arguemnt about the need for laws you've had to use a nearly impossible siutation involving a starving baby in the woods and a sociopath food horder.

By all means. Come back to it later. I wont forget. Look up apology in the dictionary too.

Ethan

Post 238

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 1:34pm

Ethan,

Thank you. I'll be in touch.

This is an important issue.

Michael

Post 239

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 2:30pm