alexqr1

Hi SondreB, I uploaded a video about morality here. In it, I describe when a person obtains a moral duty or obligation to do something. I use abortion as an example at one point in the video and I think that will help you with your question. Basically, if we are to discuss morality, we have to assign everyone negative rights, which do not oblige action from others. But negative rights are not what you are truly asking about, you are more concerned with positive rights because you ask if a parent has an obligation to act in order to take care of the child. Well, according to my theory, which I loosely describe in the video, there are 3 ways in which one acquires positive rights in relation with someone else. Or looked at from another perspective, three ways in which one acquires a positive obligation to act in someone else's benefit: 1.- When A willfully agrees to do action X for B, then B gains a positive right in relation to A, or A obtains a positive obligation to do X for B. This is common in trading or contracts. 2.- When A's actions directly result in the loss of value for B without previous consent of B. Like if I break your window then I must fix it. 3.- THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE HERE. When the actions of A directly result in B being put in a position where he/she would not otherwise had been. So, if the parents would not had willfully had sex, which directly resulted in the child being conceived, then the child would had never been there in the first place, thus, the parents obtain a moral obligation towards the child and the child has a positive right in relation to his/her parents. Now, if the mother is raped for example, then there is no such obligation unless the mother willfully accepts it. In this case the only moral obligation to take care of the child belongs to the rapist. (Again, unless the mother willfully accepts such obligation also)One more thing, if we accept that life begins at conception, then it is immoral to have an abortion following the mother willfully having sex which resulted in pregnancy. If the mother became pregnant after being raped, then the abortion is not immoral, since the fetus is occupying her body without it being the result of her willful actions. If the child is born directly as a result of the parent's actions, then saying a parent does not owe the child anything is like saying that an abductor does not owe the abductee anything. I am not saying that parenthood is the same as abduction of course, but the moral implications are similar: The actions of A directly put B in a position in which he/she would not otherwise had been.

OK so if B is never to be found again then any discussion about his debts to A has no practical consequence. If I take $100 from you and then fall off the face of the earth, then you may make the point all you want that I owe you $100 but that does not change anything. In an abstract moral analysis, I will forever owe you $100, but in all practical reality, that debt has no consequence, that still does not make you responsible for "losing" $100.

Do you mean if Man A refuses or prevents Man B from making reparations? Like if Man B has payed for A's therapy and yet A refuses?

Exactly! Time and the market (individual decisions) would decide which is best if any, or if multiple systems would co-exist. All in a peaceful environment. So when someone says they are an anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-whatever, you need to find out if they are willing to use centralized coercive force to set up their system, if they are, then they are no anachists, but if they are not, then they are not the enemy. They simply have different ideals and preferences regarding an anarchistic society... nothing wrong with that.

Sure, and that psychological trauma is part of what B is responsible for and should compensate to the extent that it is possible. I don't see how Man A is responsible for that trauma, please help me understand.

Sure, but if either a left or right "anarchist" is willing to use centralized authority to enforce what they are for or against, then they are not anarchists whether they believe so or not. So if I am against property rights that is one thing, but if I am willing to use the centralized use of force to keep you from owning property then I can not accurately call myself an anarchist. I am aware of the different schools, but ultimately, if you are an anarchist, then there is nothing you can do to push your agenda other than through non-violent means.

I often hear and read about different types of anarchism: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, left and right anarchisms, green... you name it. All of which are fine by me because in reality, the real difference between all of them is how each anarchist believes a free society would eventually be shaped. Would the workers eventually own all the means of production as the anarcho-syndicalists claim? I don't think so, but who knows? The difference between true anarchist schools of thought is just how they believe things would pan out. Now, if someone claiming to be an anacho-syndicalist claims that there is a need to have workers own the means of production and that a centralized effort must be carried out to ensure that happens using violent means, then they can call themselves whatever they want, but they sure as hell are no anarchists... by definition.

Man B's responsibility ends when he has made all reparations necessary to have Man A back in the situation he was before the abduction plus all damages incurred by Man A as a result. In this case, Man B would have to make sure Man A is back safely at the original location plus paid for all damages that came as a result of the abduction. Until then, Man B is responsible for man A. Man A is not responsible for the consequences of which direction he chooses because he would not be in that position were it not for the undesired violent actions of B.

This is my go-to piece and Kempff's interpretation is the best I've ever heard.

I want to correct myself here. A right CAN in fact require positive action IF and ONLY IF the individual(s) required to perform the action(s) willingly accepted the obligation to perform those actions in advanced or renounced to a specific negative right by violating someone else's negative rights. There are mainly two disciplines to which rights are of importance, one is law (I don't think anyone here is really referring to that area of study here), the other one is ethics. I'd say that rights are moral entitlements that individuals have that require other individual's either positive or negative actions. Negative rights are entitlements that every person has if we are to have an objective and universal theory of ethics. They can only be willfully renounced through contract or by violating someone else's rights. Positive rights are entitlements that individuals acquire from other individuals through contract or by someone else violating the individual's rights. I hope that is clear enough, this is when being a native speaker would come in really handy but I think you'll be able to understand what I mean.

Man I leave the boards for about a day and the conversation exploded. Anyway: Exactly! A right can never require positive action, otherwise, rights would be arbitrary and irrelevant.

I know of many people who have their facebook and other social sites full of selfies and I've always thought there is something wrong with it, although I've never spent too much time thinking about it. I recently came across an article and while I don't think it has a direct source to the evidence behind the claims, I think it is an interesting article and I tend to agree with it. What do you guys think? http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/07/scientists-link-selfies-to-narcissism-addiction-mental-illness/

These is the difference between positive and negative rights. Positive rights can not be universal, consistent and be applied to reality all at the same time, thus positive rights can not exist objectively. On the other hand, negative rights not only are universal, consistent and applicable to reality so that they can be a part of a theory of ethics, they must be a part of a theory of ethics in order for it to be truly universal.

I could not make it past the 1st response. As a parent I just could not stomach it. "If you show a young child they have the power to hurt you then you are setting the stage for them to continue to test your authority as a parent. Once you demonstrate that you do not care, reprimand them lovingly and explain that it is better for them to tell you how they are feeling instead. In other words you want to teach them to voice the second half of the statement beginning with "I hate you because..." This is powerful because it helps them to understand that discussing their own feelings is always welcome and OK, but making mean statements is not. My wife and I always thought our kids were cute and funny when they were mad at us because we were very comfortable that we were loving and nurturing parents. If it is any consolation, one of my kids got stuck in a mode where we she would just blurt out "DIE!" when she was upset at us. It was impossible to get upset at her because she did not know what death was. Make them laugh, then talk to them. Very few prepubescent kids have the ability to go into a sustained state of rage or unhappiness. After puberty, all bets are off." So basically I don't give a fuck if you say you hate me, because I don't grant you the power to hate me. I laugh at your pathetic feelings towards me, once you understand how much of a fuck I give, I will punish you for even thinking your feelings have any value in this relationship... oh, and I love you.

While I think Stefan's eloquence would do wonders for this conversation, I don't think he will be pitching in and I am not here to defend his position but mine. What I mean with universalizable is that the principles are applied to all elements of the same criteria in the same way without arbitrary exceptions.--C--All the universe of possibilities that exist regarding the ownership of individuals are mutually exclusive and one has to be true if we are to find an objective, universal and consistent theory of morality that can be applied to reality. That universe is composed by the following possibilities:1) No one owns anyone2) Everyone owns everyone3) Some own others4) Every person owns his/herself I already went through the example of people who are dead, children and mentally insane are still subject to this argument to the extent that they are able to use reason. I don’t understand.As we already established:(2) INDIVIDUALS CAN EITHER BE OWNED OR NOT, NOT BOTH AT THE SAME TIME AND NOT NEITHER.In the case that they can not be owned, then that possibility is already covered with:1) No one owns anyoneIf on the contrary, individuals can be owned then one of the following must be true:2) Everyone owns everyone3) Some own others4) Every person owns his/herself