| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
ok, here's an example:
I decide to take a taxi to work instead of the subway.
On the way to work, my driver hits a pedestrian and they die.
Since the driver wouldn't have travelled that way without my telling him to, am I responsible for the death?
Of course not. I couldn't have possibly forseen that that driver would hit the girl. I AM (arguably) responsible for the increased CO2 emissions that day (because that is a reasonably forseeable consequence) but not the death of the girl. Understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
ok, here's an example:
I decide to take a taxi to work instead of the subway.
On the way to work, my driver hits a pedestrian and they die.
Since the driver wouldn't have travelled that way without my telling him to, am I responsible for the death?
Of course not. I couldn't have possibly forseen that that driver would hit the girl. I AM (arguably) responsible for the increased CO2 emissions that day (because that is a reasonably forseeable consequence) but not the death of the girl. Understand? |
How is any of that relevant to the thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i was talking about the idea that freedom is allowed as long as your freedom doesn't impose on the freedoms of others...
someone said: but all of my actions affect other people
i said: you're only responsible for the reasonably forseeable effects of your actions
you said: give me an example
and i did
if your actions can reasonably be forseen to negatively affect the life of some future person, then your actions are wrong, imo, even though that person is technically not "real" yet... we can be reasonably certain that there will be people living in the future, so we have a responsibility towards them... do they have "rights" then? i guess that depends upon what your definition of "rights" is... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I see your point, but I don't see how anyone else here "failed to understand" it. I'm sure most of us would agree with what you've said ... but you're being pretty vague. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i can't draw pictures for you on this message board... what else do you need? is anyone else having trouble with this concept? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| i can't draw pictures for you on this message board... what else do you need? is anyone else having trouble with this concept? |
I never had trouble with it in the first place. I think you're the one who isn't expressing yourself clearly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
ok, here's an example:
I decide to take a taxi to work instead of the subway.
On the way to work, my driver hits a pedestrian and they die.
Since the driver wouldn't have travelled that way without my telling him to, am I responsible for the death?
Of course not. I couldn't have possibly forseen that that driver would hit the girl. |
But in Korea until just a very few years ago, you would have been held responsible. This was discussed on this thread just a couple of weeks ago. The thinking here seems to go like this: When an accident occurs, both parties play some part in the cause even if nothing more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Therefore, guilt is shared. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That example has nothing to do with future rights.
If you hit the woman would you also be responsible for the murder of her potential children? The idea of infringing on currently existing people's rights and future people's rights are different, and I thought the point of this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
That example has nothing to do with future rights.
If you hit the woman would you also be responsible for the murder of her potential children? The idea of infringing on currently existing people's rights and future people's rights are different, and I thought the point of this thread. |
Right. We were getting way off topic.
No, there's no way you could be held responsible for the "murder" of nonexistent children. But if a would-be killer exposed a woman to a radioactive poison, and the woman survived the poisoning but later went on to have children, and those children died of horrible diseases as a direct result, that would be different. I think the person who administered the poison would be guilty of murder. In that case, the victims are real children and the attacker is violating their rights by cutting their lives short prematurely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yea but he wouldn't be guilty of anything(except attemted murder on the mom) until they were born. As soon as they are born(shortly before..diff argument) they have rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
That example has nothing to do with future rights.
If you hit the woman would you also be responsible for the murder of her potential children? The idea of infringing on currently existing people's rights and future people's rights are different, and I thought the point of this thread. |
Yes, what ernie said does have to do with a future generation's rights. Ernie's trying to make a point about foreseeability. Our generation (gen Y) should not hold the Baby Boomers responsible for consequences that were not foreseeable at the time.
Again, this doesn't establish rights, so much, but it may work towards a future generation's interest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lucas_p
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why can't we hold Baby Boomers responsible? 
We've known smoking has been bad for you for over 50 years.
We've also known about the effects of CO2 and other bad gases/pollution on our environment for almost as long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lucas_p wrote: |
We've also known about the effects of CO2 and other bad gases/pollution on our environment for almost as long. |
We haven't known. Scientists have suspected, and many have believed. Conclusive empirical evidence has only caught up with these suspicions and beliefs recently.
Again, nobody has addressed the difference between a right and an interest. Does anyone have the right to clean air? If so, how clean must it be?
Also, whats the cause of action against the Baby Boomers? Negligence? Even by establishing a duty and a breach, we still have to establish proximate causation, i.e., the Baby Boomers have to have had directly caused global warming. Surely, we can trace causation, but with the problems of foreseeability in addition to those of assigning a judgment, I doubt there's anything but the most flimsy of cases.
Anyway, talking about the 'rights' of future generation wouldn't help towards any of that. We need to talk of something that makes sense, i.e., the interests of future generations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
my point is that we obviously DO have a responsibility towards future generations because they WILL come into existence... putting that argument to rest leads to the key problem:
defining rights, responsibilities, and interests for people who cannot speak for themselves... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Planning to give birth to kids is a selfish act, and has nothing to do with the rights and freedoms of these oocyte/sperm fused beings (ie. us)
(my kidneys hurt  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
