Are we looking at the child as property or as a human being?
Is this just a form of pater familias? Do the parents of the child own said child and have the right to do with the child as they wish - which includes killing the child? That would at least be consistent with the abortionist, incest position. At what point then does a person stop being property?
Even the most extreme example of the application of pater familias had implications in the wider society. Incest and killing of one’s own offspring would be one such extreme that would have led to damage to one’s dignitas, something the Romans took very seriously and I would think would be just as important in an anarcho-capitalist society.
In a modern marriage, pater familias would fall upon both parents, not just the patriarch, who would have joint ownership of their offspring until they reached the establish majority - still undefined in this argument.
Of course, an anarcho-capitalist society would lack the mos maiorum from which pater familias is derived. So, without mos maiorum, how does an anarcho-capitalist have claim to an infant as property? What is the justification? Inability of an infant to say no is insufficient - adult humans could be in the same position (is an autistic slave permitted under an anarcho-capitalist society?).
I think he was trying to say that he never claimed that Block was correct BECAUSE he is an authority, but rather because of the point that Block made (which he then did not provide)
With that definition, sleeping people cannot be raped if they are not awakened during the act. Those who have been drugged or knocked unconscious cannot be raped.
No, because consent must be because of critical thought, otherwise having sex with an animal would be rape. Not only that, but who would have the right to bring a case against the father on behalf of the child? Just any random person? If so, then I could just say that my neighbor is not treating his child to my standards, and go over and bring a case against him and take away his child.
Oh there would be much worse things to do than take away his child. You could blackmail him for money (something Block defends in Defending the Undefendable), you could go all out Vanderbilt on him (“Sue him, the law is too slow, I’ll destroy him.”), or any number of legal, justifiable ways to handle immoral people.
I then ask this. Is a person who has been molested by his parent when he was a child justified in killing his parent in retaliation when he has reached the ability to think rationally?
I think it is the best I have come across. I will say that it is correct until I come across better argument. But this is not to say that it is correct because it is Block’s position.
You said you don’t have the answers. Anyway, oh gawd. I could claim that your entrance into the debate between me and Spidey was a red herring.
Whatever Block says the difference is. Lol.
Your opinions are noted.
Oh, gawd (again). I think we all dodged a direct question in this thread.
Then start a new thread on it. You totally threw me of course with Spidey. Besides, if I wanted to be uber evasive, I would have never responded to your question about the responsibilities of parenting.
I am sorry. I misrepresented the pacifist position. I should have said a pacifist would say, “killing someone else is always murder”. So no, the pacifist’s morals are more consistent than yours.
First, babies are humans. Second, I agree with much of Spidey’s premise - that rights are derived from the ability to think critically. This leaves out cows and spider monkeys. Sleeping and unconscious people will presumably regain the ability to think critically when they wake. Children will presumably gain the ability to think critically when they mature. The only difference is the amount of time.
I hold, therefore, that children have rights, and that parents (or anyone else) have no right to initiate violence against them. When the issue of consent arises, as in, A may perform some act upon B without B’s consent, then A may not perform the act upon B until B says yes. It does not matter if B is asleep, unconscious or a child. It is presumed that B will at some time in the future have the ability to give consent. Until that time, A may not perform the act upon B. Doing so is an act of aggression.
That my cat’s decedents may have the ability to think critically in no way implies that my cat has such an ability. You’re conflating evolution with maturing.
I think Jack is a expert or somewhat expert on this topic. He has done a wonderful job in past threads and in this thread clearly explaining this topic out.
Are children and animals the same in the realm of moral agents? As such can we treat children like animals?
Secondly. If children are incapable of rationally consenting than how is social contract unjustified? Seems to me t hat if raiping a child is ok, than so is social contract? The two violations seem synonymous to me.