Yes, we are at an impasse in this discussion. I believe that objective morality does not exist in the absence of God. You disagree. If you care to take the time, please read the following which is a decent explanation of my position. I’d be interested in a response if you wish to post one.
It’s a long read and I won’t judge you if you don’t have the time. William Lane Craig is the author and has many debates on this subject that you can view on YouTube if you prefer.
Great. So now answer me this. Has a baby’s “rights” been violated by rubbing its private parts in a sexual manner?
First of all, I think most libertarians disagree with me on this, as far as I know.
Second of all, the libertarian philosophy is based on the idea of not harming someone’s person or property without his or her consent. This is how we know someone has been wronged, if his or her person or property has been harmed without his or her consent. However, if this is the limit of the philosophy, then anytime one harms a child or animal or bug without getting consent first, this would be considered wronging the person or animal. So obviously consent is not the only factor. One must not only be able to withhold consent, but one must be able to grant consent for the same action. In other words, for us to know that we have wronged another, the other must be able to grant consent, but the other does not. For example, death. Humans, at some point, are able to ask someone else to kill them. However, humans do not start life with this ability. Humans start life just like any other animal, and do not have the ability to consent to things, only to withhold consent or just not communicate it at all. Which means there is no wrong that can be done to them.
As to the whole sleeping thing, again, it has to do with whether or not one has the mental capacity. Going to sleep does not take away one’s mental capacity.
As to Stephen Hawking, words are not the only way humans have to communicate with others.
Someone who is asleep still has the mental capacity for granting consent. I do not know enough about the mentally handicapped to say what their rational capacity is.
Anyways, there is one more thing. There are only two purposes of law, either to resolve disputes between individuals or to control behavior. If the purpose is to control behavior, well, then it fails completely. Not only does law fail to control behavior, but it is up for debate as to what behavior should be controlled, as such it becomes completely arbitrary. Given that the only just purpose of law is to resolve disputes, how is an animal or a baby or a young child supposed to bring a case before the law?
And the Austrians wonder why it is so difficult to win converts to liberty. Yes, the baby’s rights have been violated.
The Austrians have a a hard time dealing with the humanity of being human.
To the part about your views being isolated amongst Austrians…hardly the case on this forum…all of the moderators here basically share your views that child molestation and child murder should be permissable.
The more I hear Austrians argue for the their view of freedom without responsibility the more evil it appears.
I do not wonder at all. I understand most people are of average or below-average intelligence.
Why? Is it wrong to touch someone sexually?
BTW, I have a two year old girl, and I could touch her sexually if I wanted all the time, and no one would know. So how is your law going to magically stop someone from doing it?
Is that why Austrians have a hard time attracting people to liberty? Advocating child molestation is something abhorred by most people.
Do humans have inherent rights? Yes. The baby is human. The baby has the rights to it’s own body. Humans understand that sex with children is inappropriate as there bodies are not developed for that human activity. Humans are biologically designed to protect children it si part of our nature. This was my point about Austrians wanting to project theories on the human species that don’t take into account what humans think and are biologically designed to do.
Even if you think you have a 100% logical arguement as to why its acceptable to rape and murder babies…humans wont accept it so by definition your theory doesn’t apply to humans. Same thing with Jon, BAAWA and LS, like you they advocate child murder…sorry humans just don’t think it’s ok to rape babies or intentionally leave them in the desert to die and if your theory concludes it is …then your theory doesn’ t work for humans.
Sure, they are plenty developed to be touched on their private parts.
Really? Then why do some people kill their own children?
It is not a theory. It is a fact.
Regardless, how is your law going to stop me from sexually touching my 2 year old girl, if I were so inclined? Do you think laws are like magic?
And yes, I think you make a valid point, the same point I make. Just because it is legal to do something, does not mean it is smart. Why do you think most people that kill their own children kill themselves as well? You think they are scared of the law? My guess is that it has nothing to do with the law. Otherwise, anyone that killed another would kill his or her self. Do you think that just because it is legal to perform abortions, that certain individuals will allow a doctor to perform them? One was just killed recently for performing legal abortions.
Advocating parent’s rights is not the same as advocating child murder…
How does one rape a baby? And yes, I am sure there are instances of people leaving babies in a desert to die, so you are wrong to claim all humans think the same.
Harming, molesting or murdering a child is evil whether someone finds out about it or not. You make it seem like the absence of punishment validates the morality of the act. By that logic, if you killed another adult and were never found it then you would have commited no wrong.
Torture and violence against children is prevalent. Good growth and health of children depends on the mental health of parents. For this reason there is to that psychologists should use. The parents should be responsible and ensure the url=[http://www.babysitting.pro/]child care[/url]. If people are not able to grow normal children, they should not make children.
You like to use very subjective words, don’t you? Harming and molesting are completely subjective. And no, there is no such thing as “evil and good”.
Nice strawman.
Again, nice strawman.
My argument is that a wrong has only been committed, if someone has the capability of granting or withholding consent, and withholds consent. If someone who has the capability of granting or withholding consent was killed without consent, then a wrong would have been committed.
Using your logic, killing an animal or not compensating an animal for taking its property is wrong.
I think some people are off base in this thread…
Babies/children are potential moral agents, unlike other animals. This is why they are not the same as lamp posts, sex toys, cows for slaughter, or daisies to be slowly ripped limb from limb. Children are unlike adults in that they haven’t reached the point of full moral agency yet. (The case of invalids or the mentally handicapped isn’t too dissimilar from children). The average 2 year old is different than the average 14 year old first that they have no sexual desire, and girls have not yet become capable of giving birth. There is still the potential to gain this aspect of total moral agency in the two year old, so the existence of the ability to grant consent at the time of the rape is not what matters.
Anyhow, I have been reading this section from Mises’ Socialism to round out some work I am doing on these subjects. At least the full section 3 is worth reading but here is a bit:
So, I think some similar ideas will apply to the case of children. I want to review some things on contract theory, but I was curious what other’s think.
in my opinion, saying that something has the potential to become something that it isnt yet, is to acknowledge what it presently is not.
What?
That’s fine. We agree that children are not full moral agents. If we want to be more precise, I think we could call them non-adult humans. Their nature is that they have the potential to acquire moral agency.
Why do parent’s “own” children in your opinion? Parents and children are a special case of ownership. I think terming it ‘acquiring guardianship’ is more accurate. What follows from creation as full, unending ownership violates the NAP.
My thoughts exactly. That is an obvious contradiction. If there is no “evil and good” then there can be no “wrong” to commit. You are trying to ignore objective morality when it doesn’t suit you and employ it when it does.
Going to sleep temporarily takes away one’s mental capacity. If not, imbibing significant amounts of adult beverages certainly does, as would a sharp blow to the head. Does it follow, then, that the cash in the pocket of the unconscious drunk in the alley is fair game? I tend to think not. This reduced mental capacity is only temporary. Would you argue that this temporary lapse in mental capacity leads to a temporary loss of rights?
This, like all philosophical topics is torturous, but here are my musings:
do whatever you like to a dead body, it wont wake up and talk to you. it lacks the capacity to wake up. it has not the capability.
a sleeping person generally has the capacity to wake up. or we operate under this presumption. and not jud to wake up, but to think as well.
to my mind, its not more mysterious than asking whether your car could go under its own propulsion 50miles an hour or not.
and contrasting that question with asking whether your heap of unconstructed metal could similarly go 50 miles an hour or not
a heap of metal has the potential to be made into a car with the capacity to drive places.
I’m sure it is a boundary problem but it seems tolerable and workable to me
I’m actually interested in the timing. Does someone who has drunk himself into unconsciousness temporarily lose his rights, until he sobers, or at least wakes up? If not, is it because he demonstrated mental capacity before he passed out, or because it is assumed he will once again demonstrate his mental capacity once he is awake?
Shouldn’t the body go the heirs?
sure