| | Stewardship can also be understood as the management of one's affairs, whether that may include an individual's property, his or her finances, transportation, education, food, clothing, housing, etc. How can an individual have property without property rights? You claim that a child or handicapped person shouldn't have rights, not that their property or affairs should be subject to a guardian or steward.
A child or a mentally handicapped person wielding a gun, for instance...
It happens all the time. With appropriate supervision in an appropriate setting. A guardian allowing their charge to do such things irresponsibly is already a crime. Where would this be happening? On your property? You have control over it.
Some humans are rational animals. Not all humans are rational. Ideally, all humans SHOULD be rational, but not all are. The fact they SHOULD be rational is enough to deserve stewardship, but is not enough for rights. Human's have the choice to exercise their ability to reason, but that choice doesn't negate what their mode of survival is. You have it exactly backwards. The fact that reason is a human's primary means of survival is exactly why stewardship of a human is a debasing relationship. As for rationality not being a sufficient base for rights, you may want to start a new thread on that one, as it involves refuting the root of the Objectivist view of rights.
These guardians are stewards. No one said anything about removing rights. Rights either exist or they don't exist. No one can grant them or take them away. So since we both understand and acknowledge this, what is your point?
You are changing your tune now. Your original point was that children, the elderly, and the handicapped do not have rights on the basis of incompetence. If, as you now say, rights cannot be granted or taken away, how does a human being lose his rights in old age? How is a child (who you have said has no rights) granted them? We don't appear to both understand and acknowledge this, because your original point was that through some process human beings either gain or lose their rights. Also, a guardian and a steward are not the same thing.
I'm not sure what you mean. I adapted the concept of stewardship for animals as opposed to "animal rights" to this discussion we're having here. I admittedly don't know the origin of the concept, but that doesn't make it stolen.
If you research the definition of stewardship, then continue to research the definition of the concepts that define stewardship, it will become clearer. Stewardship involves property. Saying certain humans need stewardship because they don't have rights is not an adaptation of the concept "stewardship". Its an assertion that certain humans are on par with animals.
I haven't blanked out anything regarding the "rights of the handicapped". I would have to acknowledge their rights before "blanking out" aspects of said rights, wouldn't I? What good is the right to sustain yourself when you're incapable of sustaining yourself? I have the right to fly like a bird as well, but that doesn't mean I can do it. So what good is that? Are the mentally handicapped deserving of life? Sure. I'm not proposing we run around slaughtering them. I'm advocating their care.
Actually, thats exactly what "blanking out" is. Refusal to see or acknowledge something that IS. You do not have the right to fly like a bird by the way. You have the right to use reason to sustain yourself. All other rights follow from that. The entire point is to put a negative burden on others to not interfere with you doing so. Competence isn't a factor in rights. I understand that you're advocating the care of the handicapped. Do you understand that the assertion that they have no rights leaves no intellectual defense against their slaughter?
If a person doesn't live a productive life, plan, and cultivate relationships of value; they are going to a very difficult and possibly shortened lifespan. That is what I'm saying.
Ok? I never argued against this.
Yes, you did.
So unless they can rely on accumulated resources, preexisting business arrangements, or the hope that they lived their life in such a manner that others are going to make some sort of value judgement regarding them and help out, they can be dumped in the river? This is the road you've led us down here. This is you stating that requiring someone to rely on productivity, planning, and valued relationships is the equivalent to murdering them if they screw it up.
Woah! Who said anything about irresponsible guardians? What about people who have NO guardians? Who, according to their "rights", is responsible to take care of them? Who are we referring to? Orphans? Orphanages and extended family. The immaculately conceived?
Ok, so if my rights preclude me from paying for this, then I can stop worrying about taking care of the elderly and the handicapped? What about children, can I stop worrying about whether or not my daughter has food to eat? But she has the right to sustain her OWN life, doesn't she? Maybe she, at age 3, can take care of that. She has the right to do it herself, after all. And because I have rights, I don't have to pay for her lack of ability. Your child is a special case, for you. You are responsible for her care and upkeep on the basis that YOU exercised your right to procreate, which brought a person into being in the state she's in. Your responsibility to care for her isn't a matter of her rights, its a consequence of yours.
But what if no one takes the initiative to care for these people? According to you, this would be a violation of rights.
No, according to me removing their rights is a violation of their rights. Noone helping them would be sad in some cases (the elderly) and criminal in others (parents neglecting children).
I think we all could share the guilt in neglecting our duties of stewardship, and when I haven't been to visit some of my elderly family and friends for a few days, I do feel guilty, but if I don't run over to the nursing home to take care of people, I'm not violating their rights! Objectivism, which I believe, absolutely denies that you or anyone has to perform "duties" of any kind that are self-sacrificing. Your values and agreements are what should be motivating you, not some nebulous "duty". The stewardship error has already been addressed.
if I don't run over to the nursing home to take care of people, I'm not violating their rights! Thats correct, because they don't have a right to your efforts. Not under any duty or name.
Well, one definition of a steward is a flight attendant. And any time I've flown, that steward is taking care of ME, not my luggage, not my clothing, not my finances, not my watch, etc. They're taking care of ME. They're serving my food and drinks, they're helping to teach me how to hopefully survive a plane crash into water by using the floatation device, they're showing me where the exits are in case I need to get out of the plane in an emergency. They're telling me how to put the oxygen masks on if I can't breathe. This is stewardship with regards to helping people through their flight, and this is akin to stewardship of the elderly, mentally handicapped, and children with regards to helping them through life.
Actually, it could be argued from the definition and root of "steward" implies that they are acting as the steward of the airline's property and the "event" of flight. An official appointed to keep order at an event is a definition of steward. Originally, the stewards of airlines were serious looking men whos job it was to keep order on the plane. They changed them to girls with drinks and free peanuts because the serious stewards scared the hell out of people. Note that virtually all the jobs of a stewardess involve keeping order during flight and emergency or managing the supplies on the plane. But, even if I accepted your take full on, are you suggesting a stewardess is the same thing as a parent or guardian? Bring'em drinks, peanuts, and a pillow?
Fair enough, it wasn't a very good example, and I knew that at the time, but was in a bit of a rush to get on to other things and I apologize for the poor example. I still maintain, however, that we imperfect humans aren't the authority on treating others as they "deserve" to be treated. How many times have we convicted innocent people of crimes and given them what they "deserved"? Whoops!
We had better be the authority. No one else happened to show up to the party. No moral system or principle can demand omniscience. Mistakes in judgement are not cause to cease judgement, they're a reason to improve methods.
|
|
