yes, later when they have changed enough the expectation is that they will start to do it. they do not do it before the begin to do it. indeed they are not doing it, when they are merely potential.
i dont see how waving your hand and saying ‘potential’ helps solve the sorites paradox vis moral agency in humans
it’s teleological. without potential then there isn’t any actualizing going on. It just is. And humans are deliberate and not of the cause-effect billard ball realm.
edit: and I have no idea what ‘sorites paradox’ is and don’t know if it matters, but i could be wrong on it mattering.
what is?
human adults are presently moral agents with potential to do various action.
zygotes are not presently moral agents they lack potential to do any ‘action’ (teleological interpretation) in the present, though there is an expectation that if things flow right for the piece of biological mechanics, it might emerge out a mind, and thus become comprehensible under a teleological framework and be capable of achieving its various potentials.
I can just imagine Stranger and Spidey watching the news.
Anchorman: A local police precinct has been found of secretly operating a child sex trafficking ring.
S&S: Unbelievable! Those statist pigs violated our property rights!
Anchorman: In other news, a loving father has been charged with raping his three year old female daughter.
S&S: RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
Reporter … she is undergoing re-constructive surgery at St. Gloria’s hospital.
Spidey: The nerve! Who are the statists to decide what benefits another man’s child?!? Why… they wouldn’t arrest the father for changing his daughter’s diaper or telling her to go to her room! Hypocrites!
Stranger: I concur. Both of the parent’s and child’s rights have been violated. I demand justice for this kidnapping!
the action of potential intellect realization and actual intellect realization. without the former there is no latter and people are condemned to billard balls, but that’s not true. I’m probably not doing justice to On Human Nature, but I’m trying.
zygotes are not children post-birth. that’s confusing the discussion don’t you think.
I don’t watch the “news”. Other people’s problems are tiresome.
there is no teleological ‘action’ of potential intellect realization. a zygote does not ‘teleologically act’ on its its potential to start to have a mind. it is merely caused to begin to have a mind. it is simply an error to analyse zygotes through a teleological frame; i.e. supposing it to have reason, will etc, and wondering when it will choose to act to start to have a mind…
can you phrase that a different way (about the zygotes)?
It is, again, a human zygote. It will have a mind. We know this. And if it grows to not have one due to some mutation of one form or another, then that’s what happens. The more ‘undeveloped’ the zygote grows, then that’s what happens. I don’t see the need to avoid “potential”. A human has the potential to understand rights. Whether two or 60. That’s the whole idea is a human will realize such, and if I need to wait to dialogue with a human for a span of ten years, because they are not in my life right not now (live geographically in a different location) or whether they are in grade-school trying to understand 1+1=2, it doesn’t matter. Humans have the potential and the intellect has the potential therefore to realize such. Why else argue rights in the first place if there is the potential that a human will come along and NEVER have the potential to understand rights but all else checks out fine on the health meter?(nevermind about the next issue, I clarfied it here)
there is nothing relevant, special, important, significant, about potential.
the issue is over whether he presently understand ANYTHING. whether he presently has a mind.
you are a potential ballerina, but i wont treat you like a ballerina and book you to perform on stage.
a larva has the potential to be a butterfly, but if you throw it out the window it will splat on the ground.
yes there is. again it was important, and i know i’m not doing it justice, for Aristotle and Aquinas to provide very lengthy discussions, more than one chapter on this concept when it came to discussing human nature.
and if you throw a child out on the ground it goes splat, but it, and NOT the larva, had the potential to understand it’s rights were violated. A baby is a long-term investment. Save it for a rainy day. Evict it if the renter is changing it’s plans.
a)at the point when it is thrown, is it at the zygote boundary of childhood and mindless or is it to the adult boundary of childhood and mindful?
b) when might it understand its rights were violated?
Since I don’t have the book and got it on an inter-library loan, I’ll refer to wiki and provide what I know from reading that particular book as being notably worthwhile:
1st: “The theory of Potentiality and Actuality is one of the central themes of Aristotle’s philosophy and metaphysics. With these two notions, Aristotle intends to provide a structure for the comprehension of reality. Potency refers, generally, to the capacity or power of a virtual reality to come to be in actuality. In broad terms, potency is a capacity, and actuality is its fulfillment.”
2nd: "Aristotle argues against those who claim that potency is only a mental concept (that is, not a real sense of being). In Metaphysics IX, 3-4, he argues against Megarics, who claimed that potency could only be had by a subject when the subject was actually performing a specific action. Aristotle claims this is not logical, because then one would only possess a potency when one was excerting its corresponding act. A man who is sitting, for example, would not have the potency to stand. He would only have the potency of standing while actually standing. Aristotle believes this to be paradoxical. He, therefore, believes:
Act is, therefore, the primal sense. Potency is always said in reference to it. Accordingly, the different senses of act, which Aristotle also recognizes, must correspond to different senses of potency."
3rd: “According to Aristotle, there are three great senses of act: movement (kinesis), form, and knowledge.”
–
Potency is always in reference with what is actual, even the potential of knowledge and the actual knowledge are a process of a “real sense of being”. Potential is an aspect of Aristotlean realism that is not something trival. As it states above, it is a part of the central tenet of what Aristotle has to say in all of his philosophy.
It doesn’t matter. It had the potential because it IS a human being. It is of the very essense of human nature to know these things whether that is now or later doesn’t matter.
He wouldn’t need to anyway.
Children and Rights - Rothbard
If anyone hasn’t read that yet… ya’ll need to.
No. Drink driving has nothing to do with it. (Assuming state roads, i.e not a private one that has stipulated road rules) If there is a violation of the NAP and destruction of property, then yes.. but not because of the drinking. Many good LewRockwell.com articles on this.
No. See; pg 23-24 Block’s Uncompromisable (copied from pdf, spelling mistakes etc.)
Individuals only have a right not to be aggressed against. The fetus is not being aggressed against by eviction from a woman’s womb, which is her property; that is, this “facility” is owned by the woman not the fetus. On the contrary, the fetus aggressor, albeit not purposefully, is the initiator of violence.
All fetuses have equal rights. They are all equally innocent. Consider those who are created as the result of rape. Clearly, here, there was no agreement or consent or invitation between the mother and the baby. But such a fetus is stdl a trespasser; it is in effect a parasite to the woman who does not want that fetus in her body. She has a right to evict it. The private property rights position on this issue is thus a moderate one. Pro-abortion radical feminists and others who think they have a right to kdl fetuses, even if it is possible to evict them without harm, represent one extremeii5 in this debate. They hold the view that it is the pregnant woman’s right to determine whether or not that fetus will live this apply only in the case of rape. This position defends a woman’s choice to abort when intercourse for the purpose of procreation occurs voluntarily, but later on she decides not to carry the baby to term. Women have a right to lull their unborn children, even if medical technology exists which would save it, in this view.
On the other side of the spectrum are the anti-abortionists, who would violate the woman’s right to her own body to the extent of insisting that a trespasser, a parasite, be allowed to remain there for nine months against her will. [156]
This position is also unjustified, from a libertarian point of view. The position herein advocated is to allow for eviction, not killing; it does not support trespassers “rights” over those of the legitimate owner of the maternal property in question. Causation is not directly a legal concern. The law is a normative science; causation is at most an element in a positive science. It is a category mistake to connate causation and rights violations. We are not now involved with positive causality, only with normative rights violations. All sorts of harm are caused by people, and these actions would not be proscribed because they are all well within our rights. Certainly, in the case of rape there is no such cause. The woman is a totally innocent victim. She did not cause that baby to come into being. The reason that fetus came into being was “caused” by the rapist. The key is not causation. Our perspective does not deal with cause but rather with rights violations. The key is not who caused the death, it is rather who violated the rights of the individual. Rights are not violated by evicting a parasite or trespasser. The bottom line, here, is the question of legality: under what conditions is it justified to use force? In our own personal view, abortion is an evil; we oppose it. It would be nice if all women carried babies to term, and that as a result there were fewer, or better yet, no people killed in this mariner. We are pro-people. '&k also oppose drugs, alcohol, cigarette smolung, and chocolate eating. We try hard not to do any of these things. However, we would not impose a penalty on ourselves or anyone else for engaging in these actions. It is the same with abortion. The real question is, “What penalties should be imposed for engaging in this practice?” not whether or not it is virtuous or moral to indulge in them.
The anti-abortionist position, to be logically consistent, would have to hold this action as premeditated, first-degree murder. If the death penalty is justified in any case, it is justified in this one. It should apply to the woman who gets an abortion and to the doctor or whoever performs it. If
that kind of penalty is not imposed, there is an inconsistency that is incompatible with just principles of law. The logic of the premises is not being
followed.
The position put forth here, in contrast, is one of eviction not of killing.
I’d hazard a guess, that this is why.
you don’t even do me the courtesy of saying that you will not respond to my questions. dissapointing.
I am confident those questions do matter.
so human zygotes without minds KNOW things , since it is in their NATURE…their ‘human nature’ ?I dont think i have abused your words to derive this…show that i have?
But do you understand since you exclude “potential” in your theorizing, that my paradigm as what pertains to a valid question, not one rigid or bias, will apply here. You think “time” is a valid question. I don’t because this has nothing to do with time. You’re question is rigid and bias.
fallacy of isolation. human zygotes are of the human species. We know their developmental stages of growth. To chop off the whole context is to isolate something that doesn’t happen in isolation. thus why if the mother evicts a zygote, it will most probably die. But we know it’s developmental growth stages that it will be a full grown human if all goes well and it therefore it has the potential to know rights. a human zygote doesn’t change into a dog.
Question - does this forum have an ignore feature?
I do not want to read posts from individuals who believe murdering their children is justifiable.
put another way. the human brain gene is actual and it will potentially realize rights.
I think your error on potential is to confuse a teleological analysis of potential with a causal analysis of potential.
i.e. causal analysis:), the knife might be the device that cuts bread at tfuture time t. the knife might alternatively be the device that cuts a rope at future time t.
the human with a mind, may be hit by a bus, the human without a mind might decompose.
teleological analysis:) the knife has no teleological potential. it does not act, and will not act. the human with a mind might act in this way or that, and so has potential. the human with no mind is like the kife with no mind and has no teleological potential.
Is this an admission that your sentance i quoted and responded to was too general and said too much. that you would agree with me that human zygotes do not KNOW things even though the nature of humans is to know things (I personally dont believe that it is the nature of humans to know things, i believe it is in the nature of humans-that-are-alive-and-possess-minds to know things, all other types of ‘humans’ do not have Knowing in their nature.)