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

OK so before I address your response, do we so far agree that --A-- and --B-- are correct? If so, we have established these 2 things: (1) FOR THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONVERSATION, OWNERSHIP IS DEFINED AS THE MORAL RIGHT TO CONTROL (2) INDIVIDUALS CAN EITHER BE OWNED OR NOT, NOT BOTH AT THE SAME TIME AND NOT NEITHER. Please understand I am not dismissing or ignoring your counter-argument about --C--, it is just that I want to make sure those 2 statements have been established before we move on.

Again, to have the moral right to control. Which is why it was necessary for me to define own, and I did. OK, so to own in this context, it is necessary for you to have the moral right to control. How you gain that right comes later, but that question is as irrelevant to my statement as asking how does a man get to fly once “flying” has been defined when saying all humans either fly or they don’t.IF owning means having the moral right to control a physical entity, then a physical entity can either be owned or it cannot. Again, how we get to gain that right does not alter the statement does it? As of right now –B—I am not concerned with the question of whether or not a physical entity can be owned and you are already talking about that. The statement is:--B—All physical entities either can or can't be owned, there is no other possibility and they are mutually exclusive.As far as that statement goes it is irrelevant whether physical entities can or can’t be owned. If they can be owned, then the statement is correct, if they can’t be owned the statement is still correct.There are only 2 ways to disprove that statement: 1) Physical entities at the same time can and can not be owned. Or 2) There is at least a 3rd possibility other than they can be owned or they can’t be owned.You see, whether they can be owned or not is irrelevant to the statement, what is relevant is that if they can be owned then it is false to say that they can’t and if they can’t be owned it is false to say that they can and that there is no other possibility.Invent any definition for “fly” you want and you will find that if a person is able to fly, then saying that he is unable to fly is false, and if the person is unable to fly then saying he is able to fly is false and there is no 3rd possibility. Except that you could say sometimes they can and sometimes they can’t but that is where the metaphor ends because being able to fly or not may be contingent upon physical variables, but a theory of ethics reguarding ownership is contingent upon principles and to apply different principles to similar entities requires subjective valuation at which point any theory of ownership becomes irrelevant.

How one gains moral right to control is what I intend to prove, however, it is not relevant for the following statement using the definition I proposed for ownership:--B--All physical entities either can or can't be owned, there is no other possibility and they are mutually exclusive.Regardless of how ownership is attained, the statement still stands. Your questioning of how to attain ownership regarding my statement is like me saying:All humans either are alive or they are notand you replying:How do they become alive? There is no relevance to that question. Regardless of how they became alive or even IF they are alive or not, either way the statement still stands: All humans either are alive or they are not.In the argument, self-ownership is not the starting point, so it is not used as an axiom.

That is a good point. I realize I should had pointed this out before and I did not, I apologize for that.I mean own in the sense that one has a moral right to exercise control over the person. It is not the control itself which I am referring to, but the moral right to control.

Wrong, I am assuming you are not reading my replies or choosing not to address them directly.Let's try it step by step--A--Do individuals exist as physical entities? If your answer is no or I don't know then I guess that is the end of the convo with me because there is no point in debating an illogical position. If your answer is yes then:--B--All physical entities either can or can't be owned, there is no other possibility and they are mutually exclusive. Agree? If no, then explain, if yes then:--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/herselfAgree?If No, why not, is there another possibility? are these not mutually exclusive, is it not necessary for one to be true? Is it not necessary for the solution to be objective, universal, consistent and applicable to reality? why?If yes then:--D--1 would revert to self ownership. Agree? if no, why not, if yes then:--E--2 is impossible, you can't get everyone to to agree about what everyone else alive must do all the time. Agree? if no, then how wold that be possible? if yes then:--F--3 is applicable to reality, with some creativity maybe universalized and maybe even consistent. But it is not objective by any stretch of the imagination. Agree? If no, then how could it meet all the criteria including objectivity? If yes then:--G--4 is the only possible solution left, and since one of the 4 has to be true and they are all mutually exclusive, and since 1,2 and 3 are false, then 4 has to be true.Agree? If no, then how is the last statement incorrect? If yes, then there you go, self-ownership is not only a rational and logical consequence of the argument, but it is the ONLY rational and logical consequence.If you want, lets go statement by statement starting with --A-- and not move on until you either agree or prove me wrong. How about that?

OK guys I'm done with this thread, I don't think it is going anywhere. You think I don't get it and I think you don't get it but you are not willing to address my arguments.

I did not bring the concept of human self-ownership out of nowhere, I proved that it is the only possible solution to the moral question of ownership of the human self. I am willing to have my argument debunked, but in order for that you’d have to address it.Maybe you are failing to realize that the question of human self-ownership is a moral question because it is an issue concerning only to morality. Which it is according to the video. If you fail to see how the imminent threat of violence directly forces you into a situation you did not willingly accept, then I am not sure I can help here. I also address the issue of not choosing to be born in the video. The question about perception of others if of no concern to morality as you do not own other people’s thoughts. That would directly contradict self-ownership which I believe I have established as the only moral, universal and applicable solution to the problem of human ownership It is strange to me that you don’t realize the fact that the person is being forced into a situation where limited options are available which all violate the already established ownership of the self.The 2 options are, hand over the wallet or face the violent consequences. The individual has a negative right to be left alone, which is being violated in the interaction. Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, nstitutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.Can animals use logic, do they have beliefs?

For a human being to be born is enough for him to own himself. From that point on, a person can willfully transfer partial or total ownership of himself freely. The argument is dispelled by pointing out that A owns himself therefore B can’t directly force him into a situation he is not willing to be part of. And again you are relying on total control being necessary for self-ownership when it is not. This is from Wikipedia:Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, nstitutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.Again, there is no “amount of reason” necessary, just the capacity to use it. If A has no capacity for reason, then there is no self-ownership of A. This does not mean that there is a specific amount of reason necessary for self-ownership to “kick in”

Very eloquently put. Try bringing down these arguments.

Got it dsay Self-ownership is an abstract idea that is logically concluded from the arguments in the video. If all you are looking for is a definition of self, then you don’t have to go further than the Oxford Dictionary:“A person’s essential being that distinguishes them from others”Once we know what the self is, then we can ask, who owns it? The answer is what is provided by the arguments in the first few minutes of the video. The question of how much control is irrelevant to the statement, what is important is that if you have zero control, then you don’t own it. There is no claim here suggesting that there is a specific amount of control necessary to own something, just that is you have no possibility of affecting anything about the object, then you don’t own it. You are analyzing the situation in a vacuum without taking into account how the situation came about, as if the situation arose from nowhere. The interaction became immoral when the gunman directly forced the other person to make a decision that he was not willing to make freely, thus violating a negative right. Without the initial threat of violence from the gunman, the victim would not had been forced to make a decision between giving his money away or risk getting hurt or killed. Well sure, the same way you own yourself when you are asleep. The more important question is, do others have an obligation to keep him alive, well that depends. If someone acquired the responsibility to keep him alive in the event of a coma, then yes. So if you have not acquired an obligation to take care of me if I go into a coma, then you cannot kill me because you don’t own me, but you can let me die, which is completely different. No, they have no capacity to use reason. I guess your next question would be, is the capacity to use reason necessary for self-ownership? The answer is yes, then what about kids and babies right? Well kids and babies have the capacity to use reason they just lack the knowledge and experience to put it together. How can someone who is dead own something? However, if while the person was alive he or she entered into contract with someone (lets say a representative agent of a DRO) to make sure his or her belongings went to lets say the spouse when he died, then the DRO acquired a positive obligation towards the spouse (who is alive) to make sure the dead person’s former belongings are effectively transferred in the way stated by the contract.It’s all in the video really. It is all a question of negative rights being a necessary result of self-ownership and positive rights being the result of positive obligations freely acquired by others.