| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ernie wrote: |
| people have the right to live foolishly, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others... by your logic, if i planted a bomb and set it to go off in the future, i wouldn't be evil because tomorrow isn't "real"! |
Who said it wouldn't be evil? I'm speaking of ethical choices versus legal rights. A father with children still has a legal right to invest the family fortune in a pyramid scheme or lottery tickets. A mother has the right to feed her kids Twinkies for breakfast or smoke around her kids. A mother still even has the right to smoke while pregnant, even though it is highly foolish. Science makes discoveries all the time that could have grave consequences on the future of humanity. But if you have a lab and private funding, you can create all the man/pig hybrids you wish.
I'm speaking about the right of people to engage in activities that are damaging only to themselves. Yes, if they damage themselves and then have children, those children are disadvantaged as well. But what force of law compels a person to not act foolishly, to make all choices because of the fates of possible unborn children? What law ensures such rights?
| Quote: |
| if you seriously believe that future generations don't have the right to live without debt and crippling pollution, i believe you have serious ethical problems bordering on the psychopathic... |
Strawman. I'm merely making a distinction between our duty as ethical human beings and "rights", which I define as legal artifacts. When people say "future generations have a right to X" do they mean there is a legal basis for this right or we agree as a society that it is right and proper to leave something for future generations? Clearly, we're speaking of the latter. If of the latter, then that's a moral choice. Do we compel that choice with law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
parents do NOT have the right to be negligent!
i think that when people talk about "rights", they mean either:
-someone is legally entitled to something, or
-someone should be legally entitled to something
(people often use hyperbole) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| parents do NOT have the right to be negligent! |
Indeed. But casting yourself and your child into poverty or making your child fat by feeding him/her twinkies is not considered negligent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| ernie wrote: |
| parents do NOT have the right to be negligent! |
Indeed. But casting yourself and your child into poverty or making your child fat by feeding him/her twinkies is not considered negligent. |
if one were to research, I'm sure one could find examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| ernie wrote: |
| parents do NOT have the right to be negligent! |
Indeed. But casting yourself and your child into poverty or making your child fat by feeding him/her twinkies is not considered negligent. |
Maybe we need to raise the bar and require people to pass a test (or several) before they can have kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| ernie wrote: |
| parents do NOT have the right to be negligent! |
Indeed. But casting yourself and your child into poverty or making your child fat by feeding him/her twinkies is not considered negligent. |
Maybe we need to raise the bar and require people to pass a test (or several) before they can have kids. |
Now you're trampling on the rights of all free people to have kids as they see fit. No? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| ernie wrote: |
| parents do NOT have the right to be negligent! |
Indeed. But casting yourself and your child into poverty or making your child fat by feeding him/her twinkies is not considered negligent. |
Maybe we need to raise the bar and require people to pass a test (or several) before they can have kids. |
Now you're trampling on the rights of all free people to have kids as they see fit. No? |
my mother worked in social services. it is very common for children to be taken away from parents that are not raising their kids in environments that are seem fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it's amusing to see how many people fail to understand the most basic tenet of the libertarian position (and of western society in general!):
freedom as long as that freedom doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| ernie wrote: |
| parents do NOT have the right to be negligent! |
Indeed. But casting yourself and your child into poverty or making your child fat by feeding him/her twinkies is not considered negligent. |
Maybe we need to raise the bar and require people to pass a test (or several) before they can have kids. |
Now you're trampling on the rights of all free people to have kids as they see fit. No? |
my mother worked in social services. it is very common for children to be taken away from parents that are not raising their kids in environments that are seem fit. |
Unfortunately, by then the kids are probably already screwed up. Maybe having children shouldn't be viewed as an automatic "right," especially when there are so many people in the world competing for the same resources. I have no idea how any government could ever enforce a licensing system, though. 
And I don't see how children or animals who have yet to be conceived could be seen as rightholders. Still, there are circumstances in which no one could justify bringing new beings into the world ... for example, if you deliberately got pregnant knowing the world was just about to end and that your child would die a premature death. That would be a very irresponsible, immoral decision, wouldn�t it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
it's amusing to see how many people fail to understand the most basic tenet of the libertarian position (and of western society in general!):
freedom as long as that freedom doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom |
Who ever disputed that principle? And how could anyone's actions ever not affect others? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One could use this argument to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would be easier to apply a legal standard there than to the environment. How do you violate the rights of someone who doesn't exist?
Why don't you discuss the interests of future generations, instead? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| if to the best of my knowledge my actions don't negatively affect someone else, then they're ok... 'the butterfly effect' DOESN'T apply here because those consequences are not reasonably forseeable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| if to the best of my knowledge my actions don't negatively affect someone else, then they're ok... 'the butterfly effect' DOESN'T apply here because those consequences are not reasonably forseeable... |
Doesn't apply where? Shouldn't we always consider possible ways our actions might affect others? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| of course, but we can't be held responsible for consequences that we can't reasonably forsee... is this so hard to understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| of course, but we can't be held responsible for consequences that we can't reasonably forsee... is this so hard to understand? |
What sort of consequences are you talking about? Is it so hard for you to be more specific? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
