It depends on how much empathy the tortured animal invoked in me. If it were a sea anenome, then no. If it were a baboon, and the apparent suffering was great enough, then yes. Of course I have much more empathy for a child than I do for a baboon.
Definitely, yes, I would intervene.
“This has to be stopped!” in response to an atrocity is hyper-emotional? And you take offense at being said to have gone off the rationalist deep end?
Even if the daughters were “pre-rational”?
Nice fiddling, guys. If you hadn’t been such expert logicians, I might have been compelled by theory, in spite of every fiber of my being screaming against it, to regard child-torture as legitimate!
“Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be a man.”
-David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
guest fits still. you can ask a guest to leave at any time.
has nothing to do with “logician versus Hume”. has to do with where the rights line is being drawn. I see universal rights (principled intellect) and therefore even a fetus has rights (and I already gave my explanation on mother’s rights, fetus rights, etc…)
it’s about being human and understanding the world, not need be more complicated than that, everybody has a heart and mind that arbritrary divide is getting silly[;)].
No, acting on it is.
Yes.
I have never made the argument that just because something is legal, that it is smart to do. As I have stated in another thread, there was a doctor recently that was murdered for performing abortions. Yes, it is perfectly legal to perform them, no it is not smart necessarily to do so.
Then, using your logic, one could argue that parents are obligated to provide for their children for their entire lives. No, I am sorry, but there are no positive rights.
As I have come to realize in this discussion, there is a third criteria, and that is whether or not one can take care of his or her self. An infant, small child or comatose person is welcome to all the rights of any other human, as long as he or she can take care of his or her self. If not, then the caretaker has all rights to do with the person that they want to do.
Of course it is.
If they are unable to take care of themselves, then you get to make all decisions for them and about them, since there is no obligation to take care of them, and if you did not, they would die.
That does not make any sense.
It does not matter why someone takes care of something, whether it be an animal, a human, or some other piece of property. In all cases, it becomes their property.
Rescuing the crucified girls from their torturing fathers would be hyper-emotional?
So you might go ahead and break your moral law?
I never said it did. It’s a matter of “logician versus man-with-a-conscience”.
I took the quote of Hume as you saying you did, but I obviously can be wrong - and I’m being serious. I am perplexed by what you’re trying to say, so, that is a hindrance to understanding your post.
I have no idea what your re-statement above means either that you said in quotes. I think it’s easier to state this is about individuals with a particular inclination on how they relate with the world, but that’s how I see this. I think you’re trying to say something, yet, I don’t know what.[:^)] so forgive me for not getting the gist of your assertion yet.[:)]
I’m saying that a man with a conscience doesn’t need all this convoluted theorizing to tell him that there is nothing wrong with interfering with a man torturing his daughter.
Of course not. Forcing a guest to leave knowing he will die, is murder. Also, guests aren’t forced to come over in the first place.
Then, using your logic, one could argue that parents have absolutely no obligation to provide for their children at all. Ludicrous.
What convoluted theorizing?
Yes.
I am talking about law, not morality. And yes, I would probably be willing to break the law.
No. Having a guest leave is not murder, unless a person kills the guest. The mother isn’t killing the guest. Nature is.
And guests can’t force themselves to stay either - it’s not their property.
Do you know what intuitive morality is?
A man torturing his daughter is being immoral because he fails the universailty test right? There are two cases I see, first case is this man believes it is an objective truth that he should be torturing his daughter, in which case he could get say 80% of mankind to agree that what he is doing is virtuous because the objective nature of the truth would lead other men to be able to discover it, or he believes it is just his opinion in which case he can’t be acting from any objectively moral position. So distinguishing question is, does the man torture his daughter in the presence of other men? Or does he hide the fact and do it at home behind closed doors? Do people tortue animals in public or behind closed doors? Do you steal a guy in a comas wallet when the doctor and family are around or when no one is around?
I’m not an optimist I know that mankind has suffered from mass psychosis in its history (wars and torture being accepted), but its not constant, because if it was we would be extinct. If we tortued and mutilated our children as a mankind objectively chosen goal, I would not envision a bright or any future at all for us. If you wanna see mankinds moral compass, watch how he performs his deeds.
That’s just completely absurd logic.
According your thinking, you can also say that If I strangle you, I’m not murdering you, Nature is. How did I know you needed to breath to stay alive? Knowingly putting someone in a position that will kill them, is murder. Worse, it’s premeditated murder because you know what’s going to happen.
The guest (in this analogy) has no say in the matter. By choosing to have a child, you assume responsibility (yes, positive rights) to its well being until it reaches such an age it can mentally and financially acquire and maintain its own property.