june

but the argument is that he won't have to face any consequences because he did not act immorally argument from effect. if an act is not immoral then it does not matter what the consequences are.

proposition b) cannot be a moral rule because it is a positive obligation: "you must help a dying person". so now only proposition a) -- "stealing is wrong" -- remains.and in this updated scenario, the non-immoral thing to do is to not steal the cure and have your wife die.

words like "preferable" and "logical" are obfuscating the point, in my opinion. this is about morality, and what is morally permissible.so you say it is "universally preferable for people to, if possible, warn the person before responding to them with the use of force"... well put it this way, if i use force on someone who is breaching my property without issuing a warning (when possible), would i be acting immorally?

well, what one "prefers" is subjective. what is important here is what is deemed morally permissible; if someone steps on my property without my consent, is it immoral for me to shoot them? if it is, why?

hmm.. this is a bit of a muddled area: how is the "appropriate" amount of self-defense determined? like, if you stand on my property, you are breaching my property rights , so is it okay for me to shoot you? to punch you? what is morally allowed in this scenario, where and how is the line drawn (if there is one?)? i hope an answer can be provided for you. its a very good question.

this is a grey area in property rights because in this case the effects of your actions is a self-owning agent, which cannot be owned by anyone else. so there's a contradictionalso i'm not following the previous posters logic that when you create a child you also create responsibilitie. this does not apply to any other scenarios. when one creates a chair they have ownership of that chair but they do not owe any responsibility to take care of their property. they can do what they like with it

deliberateness is not noted as a qualifier in your distinction for what constitutes as "direct". so currently, yes, they do fit.

it is morally permissible for a person to shave their legs. that does not mean they should shave their legs.it is morally permissible for a person to drink coffee. that does not mean they should drink coffee.it is morally permissible for a person who was violated with force to retaliate with equal force. that does not mean they should retaliate with equal force.there is no contradiction. the victim decides first and foremost, absolutely. and if the victim's decision is unable to be enacted (maybe they do not have sufficient means to do so) then it is perfectly valid for the victim to hire or receive voluntary help from a third party to fulfil their decision (the teacher, in this case).as for your "would you let this happen" question, if i had the consent of the to-be victim, then i would be morally permitted to intervene, and with force if necessary. if i did not have the consent, then i would not be morally permitted to intervene a tiger is never a moral agent. it is an animal. people morally kill and eat animals. is the girl not a moral agent in that same sense too?

please explain specifically why accidents and ignorance are different, because currently they fit perfectly within your aforementioned definition (bolded), and thus qualify as "direct". are you saying that if a parent places their child on the ground when it's stormy and the child gets struck by lightening, the parent can then be held morally responsible?

you have failed to provide an answer for how "direct" and "indirect" effects are to be distinguished from one and another. it needs to be explained within the context of "we own (the effects of?) our actions", which is what this thread is about. the direct action is the placing of a baby in a certain area. an indirect (or direct?) effect of that action is lions mauling the baby. AustinJames failed to specify how the mauling is to be defined as an indirect or direct effect of the action of placing the baby. to look at it another way, here is your quote edited into a more grey scenario: is the parent still responsible for the effects of their direct action? if not, why, what distinguishes this example from your lion example, specifically?

you still are not actually making a distinction! you are just making statements that things are different, but not explaining why! when a person makes an action, they invariably have an effect on every action from then until forever. there is no separation between these effects in the material world. it is you who is attempting to make a distinction in the moral world by differentiating between accountability, but you are not describing the process by which you do this. you're just saying it is so.how you distinguish between holding someone accountable for 'the effects of their actions' and 'all the effects of their actions'? what are your qualifiers?

I have said about 3 times that no one "should" use violence on anyone, just that it is morally permissible if they did. as for your question, i have answered it already: the person who was violated should get first say on what the corrective action is. i don't see why your first thought is to hand jurisdiction over to this teacher as if they have some divine right to decide. this is between the two involved parties and no one else, first and foremost.EDIT: wait, WHAT?! if you deem this girl as not a moral agent then she has done nothing wrong and the "victim" is not a victim at all and thus has no moral recourse. your entire line of questioning is fruitless if you do not consider this girl a moral agent

can you please define, specifically, when and how a being gains free will. also, how does a baby possess selfownership when it does not have "self-control"? from my understanding: if a baby is not in control of it's actions, then it does not own it's actions; if a baby does not own it's action, then it does not own itself. what is you argument against this?

i acknowledge that that is not as clear as it could be. what i meant was that due to being the victim of a nap breach (a slap) retaliating with a slap of equal measure is one action that is morally just. no one has to act in that way, but if they did, it would be morally justified. 1) selfownership is binary. "fully formed", "quarterly formed", "half formed", these are meaningless distinctions. you either have selfownership (and thus ownership over your actions, and thus responsibility over your actions), or you don't.2) i never said it would solve anything. you asked me what would be just recourse in that scenario, and i answered -- equal force in return. the child who was violated should say what they feel is appropriate. that child can (among other options) forget about it, shake hands, or knock the violator out of their chair in return. all options are morally justified. and no, nothing changes if the agents are high school students. age is not a moral factor.

please dont put words in my mouth. i never said you should hit the violator, i said you are morally permitted to do so.if the situation can be handled without violence then that is always what i would recommend, but a victim of a nap breach is perfectly within their moral rights to retaliate with equal force. if you have a problem with this logic then rather than just labelling it as absurd, could you please explain what is absurd about it? i am all ears for that kind of progressive discussion

this is my reasoning: human beings have selfownership. you own your body, therefore you own your actions, therefore you are morally responsible for your actions. to argue that children are not moral agents (as you have done) is to argue that children do not have selfownership. to argue that children do not have selfownership is to morally permit the rape and murder of children.please explain any faults you find with this reasoning that is causing our disagreement

um, that doesnt appear particularly sincere? i feel you are approaching these topics from an emotional stand-point -- if it was an adult who initiated the slap, then slapping them back would be a just recourse. it is just easier to digest emotionally when it is not a child, but chidren can break the nap like anybody else, and are therefore open to recourse.i apologise if your gratitude sincere, however. and you are very welcome!

lets take a look at two statements you made earlier: both scenarios, you are in control of the baby. both scenarios, the baby is struck by lightening. you claim the 2nd parent is accountable, whilst the 1st is not. so how can you claim that the 2nd parent is accountable whilst the 1st is not? what is your distinction between the two? are both not exerting control in this scenario, and therefore are accountable? it has been made explicitly clear that this distinction is what your argument is lacking, and yet you continue with these vague disruptive comments where you play the victim, throw ad-homs, and show general behaviours that radiate a reluctance to actually stick to the argument. that's all i ask: stick the argument.

the due recourse is that it is morally permissible to slap the child in return, with the same amount of force that they used on you.

so now because you stood next to a metal pole, you are in some control of the lightening? but what separates this metal pole from walking in the street, from standing beside a car, a tree or a barn?with this line of reasoning it can be argued that you unless you stand in an area that has the lowest possibility of being hit by lightening (some underground bunker made from special material), then you do have some control over the baby being hit by lightening, because you didn't take the absolute 100% best precautions against it. anything less than 100% means you had some control over the consequence.you arguments need to specifically define "control", because as of now this vague usage is muddling your claims.

you pinch me, and thus initiated a nap breach against me; in response, i slowly torture you to death. does it still feel strange to condemn me? if the prisoner initiated the assault against a non-nap breaching agent then they are morally responsible and should be dealt with accordingly. you can feel sympathy for them, sure. but the non-aggression principle is the moral qualifier for which actions are based on, not emotions. if a 3 year old child slaps someone in the face you do not have to feel that the child is evil, but you must acknowledge that the child has broken the nap and thus is morally open to due recourse. it's not about emotion, it's about action and what actions are morally permitted.

and what amount of control separates "direct" from "indirect"?you still haven't made this distinction, and your arguments can't advance until they are properly qualified. but you have control over the choice to put yourself in more vulnerable positions to lightening or not. is it still an "indirect consequence" if you go outside and hold your baby beside a large metal rod? there is no answer to this question because you have yet to make the distinction between "direct" and "indirect".

the use of an animal is a poor choice because animals do not have property rights, and so the dog is your property, and since you are violating against me, i am within my rights to violate your property in self-defense. the dog is not a third party entity, as is the case in your real world example.it is more suited to replace "dog" with "another human prisoner" in your hypothetical. and in that case:you violated the non-aggression principle.the human prisoner did not violate the non-aggression principle.i am not morally permitted to harm the human prisoner.

but my point is: where do you draw the line between the two? at what point specific point does the consequence become "indirect" from the persons action, and thus morally permissable? you saying it is a "direct consequence" is just a statement. you havent qualified the distinctions youre making. one could just as easily make the counter-argument that: the direct effect of placing a baby on a road is that the baby gets placed a road. an indirect consequence of placing a baby on a road may be that the baby gets run over.so what is your specific distinction between "direct" and "indirect"?