RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Altruism Against Freedom

Monday
February 6, 2006

Altruism Against Freedom by Joseph Rowlands

Politics is a branch of ethics. It is defined by the ethical system at its root. You can't just pick and choose ethical standards and political systems. Some are necessarily incompatible, and others are mutually reinforcing. The combination I want to focus on is the political system of liberty and the ethics of alt... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (372 messages)

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:47pm

Bill,

Once again, where we run into problems is that a child depends on adults to provide protection for his right to life and we are dealing with an emergency. This might be a simple case for you, but it is not for me. (Your continual question about extending this to other children in other parts of the world, care packages, etc., was answered several times in earlier posts.)

Nothing you have said has convinced me that watching a child starve to death is correct or virtuous - or that it is not evil. That is evil.

This obviously is a sore point with everybody because it cuts into the heart of human nature. The fact that it cuts so deeply has led me to question it.

Michael

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:08pm

     I've managed to read as far as page #9 and, after seeing so much redundancy in arguments and 'counter'-arguments, plus the creeping additions of allusions to negatives, insinuations, innuendoes, name-calling, blatant insults, etc, (but, for a thread this long, ironically, chronic consistency in subject matter) decided to skim through the rest to Mike's post #320.

     So much spleen-venting vitriol over a hypothetized (though probably actualized somewhere, sometime) 'example'! Can one say a question/debate slowly evolved into an out-and-out ye-olde-'flame-war'?

     Suffice that I've covered the nature (and worth) of 'flame-wars' in other threads (not to mention forums!) Ntl, I must repeat my paraphrase of Tramp: "When the personal-insults slide in, rational-debating moves out."

     Re MSK's place in all this, I must totally agree with Mike Erickson's post #177. Sometimes MSK (as many here !) get a bit emotionally carried away in handling emoted responses by others rather than keep things on an even keel...especially on pet subjects. Clearly MSK (hereafter 'Mike') has this 'babe-lost-in-the-woods' one...and others have lost sight of his then focusing on his take re those who appear to put words in his mouth (and he does the same back; yes: I HAVE read up to #9!) The analysis of others may (or may not)be correct re Mike's developing views, but, let's distinguish the Singer from the (unfinished) Song here, hmmm? EVERYBODY's going overboard in their conclusions about the other's views.

     Mike's concerns/points may seem ethically 'altruistic' in where they may seem to ultimately (never stated by him, though!) end...but...he clearly doesn't quite see things that way. His 'difficult' responses HAVE been to responses that were as negative to him. Let's give things a break here. I do believe that he's sincere, AND, really wants no truck with 'changing' O'ism. He's mainly arguing that re the 'babe-in-the-woods' situation (and equivalent scenarios)...something's lacking in either O'ism or, in O'ism's 'spokesmen' (at least in the diplomacy of their answers) re the ethics (with no danger to one person) of similar 'emergency' situations. Is he correct? Or...is he not?

     Mike's wrong, he's wrong; then spell it out...and don't bother reading anymore if one's going to get upset at him. He's right, he's right; then, there's some problem 'gap' in O'ism that needs Identifying (which seems to be what he's implying.) --- Let's stick to the subject rather than complain about implications of what's induced as his view about one's own moral worth as a human being...rather than allow one's self to be angrily provoked into provoking more anger from another (like Hong and Luke needlessly challenged each other into doing.)

     I've commented at Mike's and Kat's new site re this subject in one of their 'Rant' threads already; didn't realize 'till after that that THIS thread was all about that! --- Since it is, let me mention (movie-buff that most who've read my posts must now know me as) what I suggested there: get and see the tape (no DVD at present) of the theatre-movie The Earthling. A 1980 film starring William Holden in his next-to-last movie and Ricky Schroeder. They both play through the EXACT scenario fitting Mike's original archetypical concerns: ignorant, innocent, just-orphaned 'lost-babe-in-the-woods' discovered by an adult who ignores (I'll leave you to discover the 'reasons') the needs-of-the-'child' (granted, 'for a while' anyways; point is: the 'ignoring' is there, and made a point about in Holden's [voice-over thinking/self-questioning/ambivalence] 'justifications', while the child clearly suffers, for a good 1/2 hr of the movie!) --- As I suggested to all commenters THERE, I'll suggest same for those here: before commenting any further on the 'right's aspect of Mike's original scenario, catch the movie-tape.

     That covered, I've one last thing to point out to all...including you, Mike. No one's analyzed Mike's developing sequence of...implied...arguments.

     Correct me if I'm wrong Mike, but, you argue (across ALL posts) the following:

     1) an 'adult' possessing food who just met a clearly-hungry 'child' who clearly has no food-acquisition ability, by NOT sharing the food (for WHATEVER 'reasons')...is actively 'starving' the child. Correct? --- Given your apparent view that this is (morally/ethically) 'wrong', this view implies that there is some moral obligation of sharing in this 'emergency-for-the-child' situation.
      2) ergo, such refusal is an actual 'starving' of the child. Correct?
      3) ergo, should the child die (presumably across a day or two), the adult actually 'murdered' the child. Correct?
           - Question: suppose the adult 'shared' some food...then told the kid to 'Get Lost; don't follow me' and then the kid slipped and hit his head on a rock as the adult was leaving. Would this also be 'murder'? I.E: upon their meeting, if the adult had any moral obligations, was it ONLY to 'share' some food...at the moment? Or, did the adult have MORE obligations as well?
           - at this level of analyzing 'obligations'/owed-by-'A'-to-'B', who has what right to 'claim' what, becomes relevent. Rights determine who is 'owed' what in which situations, non? So any answer to this scenario (as in all other semi-'emergency' ones) re who is 'owed' what, DEPENDS on just who has a right to what. Or, would you disagree on that?

      (This may seem irrelevent, but I must bring up what I thought was a GREAT 'ethics' argument at the very end of Batman Begins. Bats appears to be ready to kill 'al Ghul'/Ducard and Ducard taunts him about 'executing', and Bats responds with, "No, I'm not going to kill you." And, as the open-backed train speeds to it's crash, Bats gets up, opens his cape-wings backing to the opening to glide out, and says "But, I don't have to save you." --- Ie: there's a moral diff between actively throwing someone into quicksand...and refusing to throw them a rope if you find that s/he's there...whether they're Hitler/Tokyo Rose or not)

      Apart from my above parenthetical, then, assuming that I'm correct on the previous numbered points, suppose it's not a 'child' we're talking about, but merely an 'adult' lost in the woods, obviously ignorant of woodsmanship skills, meeting a hermit-oriented 'mountain man' who has no interest in any community dealings...and upon meeting, the mountain man said 'Get Lost', turned around and left. The ignorent feller got caught by a bear and died. Did the 'mountain man' murder him? --- I suspect, Mike, that you'd say no to this, so, therefore, much depends on what we mean by 'child' in your original example, correct? If I'm incorrect, then, you may have to clarify a bit as to what your criteria is for calling someone's action murder...whether of a 'child' or an 'adult.'

     All in all, re this whole subject, my biggest problem is understanding just what is...and IS NOT...included in everyone's use of the term 'child.' (And, I've covered THIS subject elsewhere, as well.)

     Short of talking about 'infants' which is fairly clear, using the term 'child' raises Shakespeare's concern: "Aye; there's the rub": What, contextually, one means by the term 'child.' THAT has covered (with no consensus) more than one thread already (besides pedophilia/hebephilia). It's unfortunately a very ambigous term (re any/all of physical/legal/psychological 'age') too open to equivocation-use in any and all arguments. Whereas 'infant' is fairly clear-cut. --- Interestingly, Mike, that book-review I WILL get to re Spartan-A Novel starts right off with a practice of ancient Sparta that does fit into this whole subject: abandoning infants; but, I'll leave that to later...on your site).

     Hope I've given all some food-for-thought...and reason to "Think Twice"

LLAP
J:D

P.S: A word of advice re 'criticism.' Many dislike the form of 'quote'-comment, 'quote'-comment. I find that style the BEST way to avoid 'flame-wars', indeed, to avoid even simple insulting side-innuendoes (assuming one wishes to avoid such...some clearly don't.)

If one 'criticizes'/'attacks' a quote re it's being 'ad hominem'/'equivocation'-filled/pick-your-fallacy, the statement/proposition is all that's faulted, and, if the quote's accurate, there's no argument about what's quoted per se. O-t-other-h, if instead, one's criticizing a poster in terms of paraphrasing what they supposedly said (or, just asserting what they must've meant over-all in some last post), T-H-E-N things are oriented not at what's said, but at who (supposedly) said/meant whatever. THIS is the accidental/incidental spark that starts personality-oriented 'flame-wars.' --- Been there; learned from that. I'll stick to quoting as a style of critique.

Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 12:05pm

Michael wrote,

Bill, Once again, where we run into problems is that a child depends on adults to provide protection for his right to life and we are dealing with an emergency.
Correction: You are talking about protection for the child's life, not for his right to life. To say that he has a right to be fed by a perfect stranger and that for the stranger to let him starve violates his right to life begs the question. That's what needs to be established. It is true that the child depends on adults to provide protection for his right to life in the sense that that right would be violated by preventing him from being fed by another willing party, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not the child's rights are violated simply by the refusal of someone who is not his legal guardian to allay his starvation.
This might be a simple case for you, but it is not for me. (Your continual question about extending this to other children in other parts of the world, care packages, etc., was answered several times in earlier posts.)

Really? I was not aware of that. Would you mind referring me to your answer? Simply indicating the post number(s) will suffice.

The problem that I have with the distinction between a starving child that you come across in person and one that exists in another country is that there is no difference in principle between the two as far as the child's requirements for survival are concerned. The only real difference is that you actually have to see the child starving if you come across him in person, whereas you don't have to see the children starving in other countries. So your sensibilities are more engaged in the first case than in the second. In the second case, it is simply a matter of "out of sight, out of mind." But that doesn't alter the fact that in both cases, the children are starving and need help. Nor, therefore, does it change the moral issue, which is the same in both cases. But I would love to see your argument that there is a relevant difference between the two cases.

Nothing you have said has convinced me that watching a child starve to death is correct or virtuous - or that it is not evil. That is evil.

Then perhaps you'd be so kind as to deal directly with my arguments. What is it about them that has failed to convince you? Precisely where is the fallacy or the flaw in my answers?

This obviously is a sore point with everybody because it cuts into the heart of human nature. The fact that it cuts so deeply has led me to question it.

Michael, I don't think that that's the reason it's a sore point. The reason it's a sore point is that you are challenging what most people here perceive to be a cardinal element in the Objectivist ethics -- which is Rand's rejection of the idea that a need is a claim and that we have an unchosen obligation to help those who cannot help themselves.

- Bill

Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 2:53pm

Dean, you wrote:

The way I see it, I was calling "Rights" as in the Rights that we actually do have in practice. You are calling "Rights" as in the Rights that you and I recognize we should have.

Okay, so you're referring to legal rights or what used to be called "civil rights" (before the term became synonymous with ethnic rights) -- in other words, rights that are recognized in law -- whereas I was referring to natural rights -- rights that people have in virtue of their nature as human beings. Thomas Paine makes this distinction in his essay The Rights of Man:

Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have less rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all of his civil rights. . . . Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. . . . Civil rights are those which, appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right preexisting in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. [In Harry Hayden Clark, ed., Thomas Paine (New York: Hill and Wang, 1961), p. 89.]

You continue,

For an example, lets say you said "Mohammad murdered and brain washed thousands of innocent people, which makes him one of the most terrible men in history." to a Jihad Islamist. Then you declare "I have the right to be free from your initiation of force." as he slays you. You may claim what right you should have, but it doesn't mean that you actually have those rights in practice.

Correct, I don't have the legal (or civil) rights that I should have, but I do still have my natural rights, which he violates when he slays me. Quoting from Galt's speech:

The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

Rights are a moral concept--and morality is a matter of choice. Men are free not to choose man's survival as the standard of their morals and their laws, but not free to escape from the fact that the alternative is a cannibal society. . . . (AS, pp. 1061-62)

Mike, you wrote,

I agree with Dean on this point. Your mixing up of morality and rights as if they are the SAME THING is exactly what has caused the misunderstandings that make threads like this one decay into acrimony. Rights are restraints. The defining and defending of RIGHTS is a moral ACTION. Rights themselves are not intrinsic but a result of ACTIONS taken by moral people in their self defense against immoral people.

As Rand puts it in her essay, "Man's Rights": "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." (VOS, p. 93) To be sure, morality encompasses other moral principles besides rights, and in that sense, rights are not synonymous with morality, but rights are nevertheless part of morality, because every right is a moral principle that prescribes conduct relating to other human beings, namely, that one abstain from initiating force and fraud against them. The confusion here arises because to say that one has a right to do something does not mean that one ought to do it. But observe that the moral principle sanctioning one's freedom of action imposes a moral obligation on others (to respect one's rights), whereas the moral principle that prescribes the choice of action that one is free to take when one's rights are respected imposes a moral obligation, not on others, but on oneself. It is the failure to distinguish between these two perspectives that is the source of the confusion. The fact that one has a right to do something does not mean that one ought to do it, but this does not imply that a right is not a moral principle. One's politics are based on one's ethics, which is why politics follows ethics in the philosophical hierarchy. Political principles are moral principles insofar as they prescribe certain choices -- abstention from coercion and fraud -- within a social context.

- Bill

Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 5:56pm

Bill, I'm glad we understand each other. When I say "right" but I do not put "civil" nor "natural" in front of it, you can expect that I mean "civil right". And when I read you say "right" I'll expect you mean "natural right", which I'll translate to the civil rights that a man would have when the political system was the Capitalist ideal.

Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 7:18pm

Which is your error - as rights without a preface is normally assumed to be refering to 'natural' rights.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 7:29pm

In a post to which I've already replied, Michael Kelley wrote,

This might be a simple case for you, but it is not for me. (Your continual question about extending this to other children in other parts of the world, care packages, etc., was answered several times in earlier posts.)

I replied, "Really? I was not aware of that. Would you mind referring me to your answer? Simply indicating the post number(s) will suffice."

I thought I might hear from him by now with an indication of the posts he was referring to. But I haven't, so if anyone else is familiar with them, please let me know which ones they are. If I don't get any responses, either from Michael or from anyone else, I'm going to assume that the posts do not in fact exist and that Michael's obscure referral was simply a diversionary tactic to avoid dealing with my arguments.

So, Michael, the ball is in your court, if you're really serious about this issue, let's hear your answer. As I indicated in my last post to you:

The problem that I have with the distinction between a starving child that you come across in person and one that exists in another country is that there is no difference in principle between the two as far as the child's requirements for survival are concerned. The only real difference is that you actually have to see the child starving if you come across him in person, whereas you don't have to see the children starving in other countries. So your sensibilities are more engaged in the first case than in the second. In the second case, it is simply a matter of "out of sight, out of mind." But that doesn't alter the fact that in both cases, the children are starving and need help. Nor, therefore, does it change the moral issue, which is the same in both cases. But I would love to see your argument that there is a relevant difference between the two cases.

Why is it that I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting for a very long time? ;-)

- Bill

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 7:59pm

Bill,

They exist.

You are simply asking me to do your reading for you, man! Don't you have eyes to read with? Would you like me to do your thinking for you, too? Your presumption of whatever you are insinuating is both incorrect and presumptuous.

If I get the chance to reread through this thread, I will highlight the posts for you. I have other priorities at the moment. (I already did one for free, anyway, and all you did was dance around the issue with the same arguments that some others gave before.)

Do you really want to repeat this entire thread anew?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/28, 8:08pm)

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 8:19pm

Bill,

It's in Post #169

I'm thinking Micheal didn't answer you because you pretty much squashed his argument in your last post.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 2/28, 8:28pm)

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 8:50pm

(sigh)

Teresa,

You're wrong. I have other things to do than argue with people who don't want to discuss - just play one-upmanship.

Bill, I have an idea. Why don't we take this offline? I will be glad to discuss anything with you there.

Michael

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 10:02pm

In regard to Bill Dwyer's challenge to Michael Kelly, see posts 286 (Bill Dwyer) and 291 (Michael Kelly). This is the only exchange that seems to be close to what Michael is referring to. It also appears that Michael does not answer Bill's slippery-slope, creeping socialism concern.

(Later) I see now that Michael does attempt to answer Bill's concern in post 169. I agree, though, that it is not a very convincing reply. We have a government that is spending money altruistically here at home and abroad. As long as we support any kind of government spending on unchosen obligations here at home, we can expect that egalitarian-minded folk will press the issue Bill has raised. And there is really no good way to draw the line. Sure, "charity begins at home," but then why should it stop there? And with the power of the state driving it, it won't!

REB

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 2/28, 10:08pm)

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 2/28, 10:13pm)

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 2:02pm

First of all, Michael, I owe you an apology; I should not have insinuated that you were evading my arguments. It's just that I was frustrated at your declaration that you had answered me without your specifying what the answer was or where it might be located in this very long thread. It is true that I could have read through all of the posts. But even if I had, I could not have been sure which of them you considered to be an effective reply. If I had cited one and replied to it, you could say that that wasn't the one you had in mind, in which case, I would then be forced to speculate that it was another post and reply to that one, and so on. You see the problem? You wrote,

You are simply asking me to do your reading for you, man! Don't you have eyes to read with? Would you like me to do your thinking for you, too?

No, certainly not, but I also don't want to do your thinking for you. I don't want to have to speculate on what precisely you had in mind when you said you had already answered my arguments.

Then you say,

I have other things to do than argue with people who don't want to discuss - just play one-upmanship.

Where have I indicated that I don't want to discuss this issue? If anything, it is just the opposite: I am the one that has pushed to continue the discussion, whereas it is you who have avoided given me a direct answer, opting instead for dismissive, off-handed remarks. You add,

Why don't we take this offline? I will be glad to discuss anything with you there.

There are two problems with taking it offline: First, it deprives others of the opportunity to contribute to the discussion, which you have said that you consider extremely important, and secondly, it deprives me of an opportunity to answer a public criticism of yours that you consider to be an effective reply. There is a reason these discussions take place in a public forum and not simply in private correspondence. The participants are seeking to influence the thinking of the other readers and to get their feedback. Taking it offline defeats that purpose. As for the charge of "one-upmanship," everyone who debates ideas is seeking to refute the ideas of his opponent, so if that is what you mean, then any argument reflects "one-upmanship" on both sides, unless you're implying that I am not concerned with the truth but only with "winning" the argument, which is not true.

Before proceeding with a response to the post I think you had in mind, I want to thank Teresa and Roger for referring me to Posts 169 and 291, respectively. Thank you for doing what Michael didn't do and still hasn't done. I didn't see anything in Post 291 that addresses the distinction between starving children whom one is personally acquainted with and those that exist outside one's immediate surroundings (e.g., in foreign countries). However, Post 169 does address that distinction, as follows:

The right-to-life of human beings (which babies happen to be too) is only recognized in individual rights-based governments. The plight of starving kids living under inhumane regimes is a terrible tragedy. Through the lens of "right-to-life," I certainly recognize such a right for them. The government where they live does not. Thus if I were over there and encountered a man physically starving a kid in the jungle, I would serve his ass up on a palm leaf in a minute. Murder is murder anywhere in the world. I would not try to go through the government to punish him there, though.

As I indicated in a previous post, the failure to help those for whom one is not responsible cannot be construed as murder under even the most generous definition, as it obliterates the difference between the presence of harm and the absence help, a distinction that is central to what constitutes a violation of rights. "A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort.... The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life [and the lives of his children] by his own work...; it does not mean that others must provide him [or his children] with the necessities of life." (Rand, "Man's Rights," VOS, pp. 96, 97)

Now, as I am here and all those tragic suffering children are over there on the other side of the world, the problem is extremely remote for any direct action that I could do. What I can do to not condone that stuff is support the overthrow of those ghastly governments - starting with cutting ties with them. (btw - I have been a real activist in life, helping make a real difference for the better in the real world, but not in Africa. That's another long story.)

So no, I am not blanking out the right-to-life of any of those babies. I just can't do very much about it from where I am at.

Sure, you can. You can send relief aid in the form of money. There are many opportunities to provide emergency aid to people in other countries who are suffering from disasters. During the Thailand Tsunami, I sent money to help the disaster relief there. But I didn't do it, because I viewed it as some sort of moral obligation. I didn't do it under pain of being branded a murderer. Nor did I demand that other people send aid, or accuse them of being murderers if they didn't.

To answer the unstated question, I have no obligation to either, other than something like an obligation to myself for a general call to decency.

But if you have no obligation to either, then why are you calling someone who refuses to help a starving child a "murderer"?

...But to discuss, I do not wish to impose slavery on anybody. It is one thing to talk about servitude and quite another to be obligated to furnish the minimum requirements for survival to a young child in the wilderness in an emergency if you have enough for both to survive.

So now you say there is an obligation to furnish the minimum requirements for survival in an emergency, in which case, would you say that we have an obligation to send relief aid to emergency victims in other countries? If so, am I to assume that you would call people "murderers" who did not do so? I suspect that that would cover a lot of people. Should Objectivists condemn them as "murderers" too? I wonder how that would serve their public relations efforts?

The main points that need to be stressed are:

a. Emergencies are not normal conditions, thus life-based standards for them are different because of the reality they present.
b. One characteristic of an emergency is that it is temporary, thus when the emergency ends, the standards (and rights) for normal living kick back in.
c. The standard that defines all rights is life. When one life can have the "right" to determine the death of another life through purposeful negligence and denial of available basic survival resources, then all life-based rights lose meaning.

So is Point c. your standard? If it is, then any time I can afford to sustain the life of someone else who cannot sustain his own life and who would otherwise perish, I am morally obligated to do so. Why you think this is consistent with egoism, I have no idea. What do you think Rand means when she says, "My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose. Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars." (Anthem, p. 95) I don't see how its possible to get any more explicit than that. What is it about that passage that you don't understand?

d. Starvation, like beating, is abuse (see Rand from before). It is abuse resulting in murder when it gets to an extreme case like I discussed.

Yes, failing to feed a child whom you're responsible for is murder if the child dies of starvation as a result. But failing to feed a child whom you are not responsible for is not. You say "see Rand from before." Where has Rand ever said that you're responsible for feeding other people's children if they've been neglected by their guardians or are victims of an emergency? She never has. As I indicated above, her position is quite explicit: "A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men."

I hope that makes my position clearer. I am not a collectivist, nor statist (I am a minarchist, I guess). I do believe that the proper function of a government is to protect individual rights.

You don't even know what individual rights are! My God!

Since the world is a varied experience, I see nothing wrong for laws governing emergencies. In wartime, for instance, certain rights are suspended. This is necessary for the people in the nation to survive. These rights return with the return of peace.

Oh, I see, so in an emergency (as defined by whom?), CERTAIN RIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED! Gotcha! Then, I take it that you see nothing wrong with military conscription. Since it's okay for the government to suspend certain rights, it's okay for it to sacrifice some people for the sake of others. And what makes you think that, given that kind of power, the government will use it only in wartime? What about those poor, starving children in the 'hood, whose father is in jail and whose mother is on crack cocaine? Got to suspend a few rights there too, don't we?! And why should we restrict ourselves to mere survival? Isn't a child's quality of life just as important? Why should he be allowed to suffer constant hunger pangs amidst squalid living conditions, when you have so much more than he does? If you're murdering him by not helping him survive, why aren't you robbing him by not helping him thrive?

So what is wrong with the same thing for feeding a kid stranded out in the woods? He is a citizen. His rights must be protected, too, not just those of the adult.

Correction. Your position is that his "rights" must be protected by SUSPENDING (i.e., violating) the rights of the adult.

Besides, the issue here is not just one's right not to help others survive in an emergency; it's also the MORALITY of not helping them. The idea that it is somehow against one's interest to neglect those who through no fault of their own require one's assistance is not obvious. It may be against one's interest if one's sympathy for their situation evokes a desire to help them; otherwise, it is difficult to see how their needs would confer a moral claim on any part of one's life or resources.

- Bill

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 3:17pm

Bill,

Thank you for the long post, I think. Let me start by saying that I was not trying to be unpleasant, but I certainly did not want to rehash the entire thread anew. If you are really concerned with doing this in public, I suggest reading the public statements that were posted first, then discussing. That way you won't simply repeat what others have already posted several times already.

There are three points that are extremely tiresome in this debate (excluding all the previous hostility - and btw - I was not referring to you with the one-upmanship remark - if you had read the previous posts, you would have understood): 1. You (and others) will not discuss the issue I raised, but instead weave it all over the place, 2. You attribute me with promoting things like military conscription, feeding all the starving babies the world over, and so forth, and 3. Outright derogatory statements like I do not understand what rights are.

So here is how I stand at this moment:

1. I have become resigned to the fact that you (and others) do not want to discuss the issue of the right-to-life of minors, other than drag out ready-made statements about the adults. You (and others) want to preach. There's nothing I can do about that but carry my discussion to places where people will discuss such things.

2. I am tired of saying, "I did not say that." You have a right to your opinion of what you think I said. My posts obviously do not bear up what you allege as any simple reading of them will prove. Anyway, there is way too much that you got wrong for me to take your attributions seriously.

3. If you think I do not understand what rights are, then why on earth are we even discussing this? You want to preach to me, an ignorant heathen? I thus prefer to leave you with your opinion about my comprehension (regardless of how wrong it is).

So you win. Feel better now?

Michael

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 6:24pm

Old saying - "None so blind as those who would not see"....... the question is - who's blind?

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 9:30pm

Michael Stuart Kelly thinks that individuals should be forced to give others resources to make sure that some people will continue to live in the short term (positive rights). Which people are in this group of "some people"? Are you, and the people you love going to benefit from this? No. Who benefits from it? Looters.

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 1:27pm

MSK states: "If you think I do not understand what rights are, then why on earth are we even discussing this?"

Bill:

Michael is correct. Give it up. I have.
--
Jeff

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 12:16am

Jeff, I had to chuckle when I read that. I think it's finally beginning to sink in. When someone doesn't want to see, he ain't gonna see. But I'm still a little incredulous.

- Bill

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 8:02am

Jeff - Thank you. I also gave it up over here.

Bill - Me too.

Michael

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 11:55pm

Kelly, you know what? I am going to be crass here, but get the hell off of a site which expounds values about which you clearly know nothing. Start your own site where the logical conclusion means I can have a child and because of it's "right to life", others have to be put in prison or take care of it. I am calling it how I see it, and you're an idiot. Please, GO AWAY!

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 12:32am

Druckenmiller,

No way, Jos�. It's not your call.

Please take your grievances to the administration if you feel the need.

Michael