This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Do you Christians here think children should read the bible?

#201Far421Posted 1/31/2013 1:51:48 PM
kozlo100 posted...
You're jumping ahead several steps to a specific instance of implementation of parental rights. Remember, we're just talking where the rights come from for right now.

You have an entity that wants to care for the child, who needs caring for. You need to give a reason to prevent that entity from caring for the child.


What do you mean by caring for? There's nothing special about the entity that says it gets to "care for" the child in any way it thinks is reasonable. We've established a right to life for the child. Any reasonable definition of "caring for" the child necessarily entails protecting his rights. To violate the child's right to life *you* need evidence either that some "better" right will be violated if you don't or that your right to care for the child supercedes the child's rights.

In short, unless there's something special about the entity, I need no more evidence to prevent the entity from stripping away one of the child's rights than I do to prevent some stranger from murdering him.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#202kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 1:58:32 PM
Here's what I'm getting at. By what right are you judging how I protect this child's rights? Where does your ability to do that come from, and why is your authority greater than mine?
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#203Far421Posted 1/31/2013 2:14:09 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Here's what I'm getting at. By what right are you judging how I protect this child's rights? Where does your ability to do that come from, and why is your authority greater than mine?


I'm assuming that our goal is maximum human well being under the constraint of equal rights for all. From this, combined with the near-universal desire to live, it follows that we maximize well being in this respect by minimizing the number of (unwilling) deaths. So, we get together and agree that we all don't want to die, and if anyone kills someone else without providing very good reason we're all going to team up against them, so that it's clear to everyone that they shouldn't kill. Does the cosmos favor human murder over its absence or vice versa? Nope, but it doesn't matter. Logic is a tool we use for our own benefit.

Once we establish this groundwork, it follows that if you murder your child without providing very good reason we're all going to team up against you, and if we hear of your plans in advance we'll put a stop to them. I admit there's a degree of tyranny of the masses here, in the sense that there's no objective reason why you "shouldn't" be able to murder someone, but it is by giving everyone equal rights that we maximize well being; the word "should" makes no sense except with respect to some goal, so without making an assumption about goals you can't coherently use it. We assume the fairest goal possible.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#204kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 2:28:08 PM
You realize that's back to a government that agrees with you forcing me to act without convincing me of the correctness of their actions, right?

It works if I agree to be a part of your consensus, but not if I don't. My agreement would largely constitute recognition that yours is a government that agrees with me.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#205Far421Posted 1/31/2013 2:33:46 PM
kozlo100 posted...
You realize that's back to a government that agrees with you forcing me to act without convincing me of the correctness of their actions, right?

It works if I agree to be a part of your consensus, but not if I don't. My agreement would largely constitute recognition that yours is a government that agrees with me.


So the moral idea you have been consistently assuming is fairness. Still, it could be that society is just about maximizing your well being personally. Do you think that would end well for you given human desires and logic?

The alternative is that the assumed goal of well being is inappropriate, in which case it should be fine for me to just violate your rights.

Do you see how this is the best practical approach to this problem?
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#206kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 2:59:50 PM
No, I don't think I understand what you're trying to say there. Could you try to explain it again a little differently? I don't want to misunderstand you.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#207Far421Posted 1/31/2013 3:12:55 PM
The two assumptions I made about our goal is that we want to strive for human well being and we want to strive for fairness. My above post was briefly looking at what might happen if I drop those assumptions.

Let me present things a bit differently. It seems to me that you want a world where all goals are treated equally to promote fairness. Let's say we have two distinct goals. They're either compatible or not. If they are compatible, we can adjoin them and treat their union as a larger goal. (Say, my goal to be an author and yours to be a doctor could be adjoined to get a goal for me to be an author and you a doctor.) Let's call a goal maximial if no other goals can be adjoined to it. Now by definition, any two distinct maximial goals are incompatible, for otherwise they would be compatible and we would be able to adjoin them, contrary to them being maximal.

That said, it's impossible for you to get a world where all goals are treated equally, so the closest thing you're going to get is a world where we make our goal to be able to all choose goals for ourselves and create a system of preventing people from limiting those of others in such a way that we all have equal freedom. This is done as I described two of my posts ago.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#208kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 3:58:57 PM
Ok, I think I see what you're getting at, but that's not really an accurate description of what I've been saying.

The only assumption I've made is that if you want to do something to me, you have to convince me that you're right to do it. This is different from treating all goals equally, and it is in the interest of liberty, not fairness.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#209Far421Posted 1/31/2013 4:02:36 PM
Whose liberty? Everyone having the same rights is the same as everyone having the same liberty.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#210kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 4:12:05 PM
Everyone's liberty. That is different than fairness, as attempting to ensure fairness can be quite constraining.

To expand a little bit along the lines you were thinking, I'm not evaluating two goals against each other. What I'm doing is saying that if your goal affects me, you have to convince me.

My goal of wanting to be left alone doesn't need to be weighed against your goal to bother me. Your goal of bothering me needs to be convincing to me because it affects me. My goal of being left alone does not need to be convincing to you because it does not affect you.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick