well, if a tiny baby cant be poked/prodded/manipulated directly (in a non-violent way!); (i.e. they cant flip state) to achieve a moment of 'rationality'; they simply cant reason.
whereas if i am sleeping, and you could wake me and then i would be reasoning (assuming that i dont reason in my sleep, which i might)
then i am capable of reasoning.
heres more mises on reason http://mises.org/story/2506, i do plan to reas this one ! :-)
heres an argument i googled up of someone claiming rationality in non-human animals.
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/velasco/341%20Summer%202006/Joel%20341%20Animal%20Rationality.ppt
i think i could be persuaded that chimps, particularly those that can press buttons to string sentances together on keyboards, or use sign language are rational and need to be assumed moral agents. then you get into thorny question of communicating with them about mutual propoerty boundaries and agent conduct. but thats another kettle of fish.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
GilesStratton:I've never said it has no rights. That's a strawman. Try again.
You're right on one count; in the hubbub, I confused you with another. Sorry about that
suggestion to Giles, feel free to ignore, but in your arguments with Brain and JCFolsum, would it help to indicate what Child Type, you envisage given a particular use of the word child. i.e. we could start (in this thread at least) to just painstakingly indicate if we are talking of 'rational/actualized' child (pick the best description) or 'irrational/parentowned Child', or some other helpful labels. ?
John Ess: GilesStratton: JCFolsom:So they have no rights whatsoever? If I find an abandoned infant, I can stomp its head? Smacking a child for running into the road Or you could just hold their hand, idiot. Jesus, it's like talking to the retarded version of the Marquis de Sade.
GilesStratton: JCFolsom:So they have no rights whatsoever? If I find an abandoned infant, I can stomp its head? Smacking a child for running into the road
JCFolsom:So they have no rights whatsoever? If I find an abandoned infant, I can stomp its head?
Smacking a child for running into the road
Or you could just hold their hand, idiot.
Jesus, it's like talking to the retarded version of the Marquis de Sade.
And if the child doesn't want that it's the same thing as hitting them.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
nirgrahamUK:whereas if i am sleeping, and you could wake me and then i would be reasoning (assuming that i dont reason in my sleep, which i might) then i am capable of reasoning.
Right, but if, in your sleep, without waking you first, I stabbed you, I would not have acted against a being that had reason at the time of my action. The question is not what happens if you wake up, but rather during sleep, when you are incapable of reason.
but i do have the capiacity to reason, at stab time, althoguh if i was too young to reason i would not have the capacity to reason.
we have to agree on how we are usign the word capacity, so we can find out if we agree or disagree on what follows from different meanings of 'capability'
John Ess: When people start advocating beating defenseless children "to a pulp", they're going to have a major problem from me. I would say the same for child molestors and all other sadistic pieces of trash.
When people start advocating beating defenseless children "to a pulp", they're going to have a major problem from me. I would say the same for child molestors and all other sadistic pieces of trash.
Here's the thing. I've never claimed anything of the sort. I agree with you that those who would beat their child to a pulp are disgusting and I'd be amongst the first to be outraged by it and do something. Moreover your position entails that parents may leave their children in the forest anytime they like. It doesn't mean you advocate such actions.
So when you wish to stop the silly, irrelevant, ad homs and grow up and debate properly, it would be much appreciated.
nirgrahamUK:but i do have the capiacity to reason, at stab time, althoguh if i was too young to reason i would not have the capacity to reason.
I don't accept this definition of capacity. While you sleep, you are incapable of reason. It requires a change in your physical state for you to gain the capacity. Barring an incident, such as being stabbed, you will gain this capacity, but you don't have it just then. You can act unreasonably while you have the capacity to reason, so there are circumstances where capacity has meaning, but not during sleep. I fail to see the categorical difference between the changes an infant needs to go through and those a sleeper needs to go through to gain the capacity to reason. This debate should not rest on semantic trifles. Either you can reason, or you can't. If you can't, your thesis states that you have no rights. The anticipation that you will be able to clearly has no weight.
is there a differnece between the manufacture some metal has to go through before its capable of displaying tv footage,
and the flip of a switch necessary to turn a constructed tv from display footage to not display footage and vice versa.
and for a constructed tv, does it always have the capability to show footage, or only when it is turned on.
this is like asking whether a car has the ability to drive forward, whilst your drving it in reverse, and other such questions.
in the latter, i think there is a sense to saying the tv and the car have those 'capabilities'. although it seems that you cant use that you must say that they can only do those things, when they are doing those things.
nirgrahamUK:is there a differnece between the manufacture some metal has to go through before its capable of displaying tv footage, and the flip of a switch necessary to turn a constructed tv from display footage to not display footage and vice versa.
Quantitatively yes, qualitatively no. The physical configuration of the materials of the TV must be altered in both cases. The quantity of change needed is far less in the constructed TV, but this is a matter of degree. Since the question of rights is categorical, mustn't the boundary condition be categorical as well?
well, its analgous...
if we grant that mind is generated by physical brain, then the brain machine in its mature construction, can reason, as the tv can display images, whereas the immature brain, which cant reason (yet), is like the base metals that would eventually be put together to be a Tv.
often qualititive changes are brought about by quantative ones. i.e. if you accept that water has different properties than steam and ice, yet there are only quantative difference in the presence of heat energy for the given H20 molecules being considered.
so where are we now?
.. i.e. the tv itself crosses a qualative boundary where its considered, first as just various metals in a random heap, and then , whoops a tv, its just a question of the degree of arrangment of the metals, which is a quantitive thing...
I think that an appeal to teleology will help here. A child will inevitably (baring death, of course) become an adult, who has the full capacity for reason. TVs and other artifacts do not spontaneously construct themselves from surrounding base metals.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
a 'mindless' machine/robot can be set the task of turning metals to tv's.
similarly
perhaps parents can create 'mindless' biological machines that have the task of eventually generating a rational intelligence.
(i use mindless qualifiedly of course, it has the advantage of being short)
nirgrahamUK:well, its analgous... if we grant that mind is generated by physical brain, then the brain machine in its mature construction, can reason, as the tv can display images, whereas the immature brain, which cant reason (yet), is like the base metals that would eventually be put together to be a Tv. often qualititive changes are brought about by quantative ones. i.e. if you accept that water has different properties than steam and ice, yet there are only quantative difference in the presence of heat energy for the given H20 molecules being considered. so where are we now?
Well, sure, the quantitative difference brings about the qualitative difference in water and ice, but the qualitative difference is not identical to it. Indeed, with water phase transitions, the state varies by both temperature and pressure, and at very low pressures liquid water cannot exist at all regardless of temperature.
The point is that while quantitative differences can lead to qualitative ones, these are not identical and the question at hand is about a quality. The temporal relationship to consiousness as irrelevant in itself has not been disputed.
Let us say that, instead of sleep, you are in a coma because of a head injury. Your brain is building pathways to reestablish consciousness, but for the time being, and in your current configuration, you are incapable of reason. Nonetheless, doctors are certain that, barring another incident, you will regain your ability to reason. Do you lose your rights during that coma?
i dont feel confident to stridently say one way or another about that coma patient. do you?
(based on aforementioned arguments, it seems for logical consitancy i would argue that the rights go away, and will or could only come back once those pathways are rebuilt)
nirgrahamUK:i dont feel confident to stridently say one way or another about that coma patient. do you? (based on aforementioned arguments, it seems for logical consitancy i would argue that the rights go away, and will or could only come back once those pathways are rebuilt)
I would argue that rights are retained through a coma, but I would argue for the rights of humans from conception, so we're coming from fairly different places. The question is, are you comfortable with the conclusion that does indeed follow from your line of reasoning? Such an emotional appeal might seem, well, unappealing in this forum. If you think your logic is inescapable, though, you should man up and state that being rendered comatose voids your rights.
Of course, you've already admitted a certain level of ignorance regarding the nature of consciousness, so your statements are bound to be tentative. On the other hand, I'm not sure any paper, no matter who wrote it, ought to be taken as authoritative in this matter. Unusually for ephemeral phenomena, via introspection we have a direct way of observing consciousness. All of these classifications and definitions are, to some degree, attempting to shove a subjective phenomenon into an objective hole.
i want to be on record here, as i have on other threads, to say that the practical consequences of this philosophizing boundary cases in a world where the moral agents only obligation are to natural law ( i.e. they have not pledged to follow a code of conduct, or subscribe to market law, and other such things.) are close to nill.
e.g. if i as rational person can obligate my doctors to treat me 'as if' i was a moral agent in the event i sustain brain damage; then even through the hours they doctor me , where i am not a moral agent and do not enjoy the protection of my negative rights under natural law; i can be protected bodily.
Said again; having entered into a contract with hospital staff in advance of my calamity, will save me from the predation of those who might exploit the temporary removal of my moral-agency-protection-force-field. (if you will).
GilesStratton: John Ess: When people start advocating beating defenseless children "to a pulp", they're going to have a major problem from me. I would say the same for child molestors and all other sadistic pieces of trash. Here's the thing. I've never claimed anything of the sort. I agree with you that those who would beat their child to a pulp are disgusting and I'd be amongst the first to be outraged by it and do something. Moreover your position entails that parents may leave their children in the forest anytime they like. It doesn't mean you advocate such actions. So when you wish to stop the silly, irrelevant, ad homs and grow up and debate properly, it would be much appreciated.
It's not irrelevant as I directly quoted you saying terrible things.
Beating and neglecting are equally bad. Putting them in the forest is just attempted murder. I said that they were both illegal for good reason -- people find them both reprehensible. It is not part of my position to have a choice to leave them anywhere. Though, adoption is certainly an option. Abortion is also against the NAP -- and Ron Paul, I believe, is correct in his thinking on this matter (though I don't know how he would deal with it). Pain and psychological trauma have been proven to exist earlier than the second trimester of pregnancy... the same way drugs and alcohol affect this individual fetus. There's also major proof of their high levels of cognition and receptivity to sound at this same early period. Also, with my background in linguistics, I can tell you that babies are rational and are involved in all kinds of (parent-approved) totally safe experimentation re: choice to test their innate cognitive functions which include things ranging from object constancy, math, remarkably similar responses to speech and body language, etc. (read: Steven Pinker, Jerry Fodor, Annette Karmiloff-Smith). I would consider that major proof of aggression to hurt this individual (which has adult semantic processing ability as early as 5!). I mean children are so known to be bright and rational, that they can be controls in tests that test for ability in certain developmentally-disabled children.
Can you see why it is frustrating to have this knowledge and read people say children need to be aggressed against? In fact, the very idea that it would be a necessity... borders on telling Steven Hawking that he needs to do math with a belt or a fist! It boggles the mind! In my opinion, empathy for children and fetuses would be a major mark of civilization and a step toward NAP-based society. I do not know if people would ever make it "illegal" in an anarchist society. That may be up to individuals. And as with all economic-type speculation about decision making and behavior, it would have to be up to individuals and not theorists. I can't make any predictions other than that science is definitely on the side of NAP. And anarchism is, in my opinion, a result of NAP thinking rather than just an enforcement of it.
Spideynw: I defend the right of a parent to kill their child, beat their child, and molest their child, the same as I defend the right of people to treat and do to animals anything they want to, as long as it is their animal or an unclaimed animal.
I defend the right of a parent to kill their child, beat their child, and molest their child, the same as I defend the right of people to treat and do to animals anything they want to, as long as it is their animal or an unclaimed animal.
You are one nihilistic dude.
Send me a picture of yourself. I want to print this sentence out attached to it and post it all over your town. :)
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap