dsayers Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Consider the scenario of a deathly ill child of religious parents who intentionally decline treatment for their child as to not interfere with God's will and/or to not compromise their faith by seeking natural solutions. Is this the initiation of force? A little while back, I argued that it was. I was presented with an argument that after much consideration, the best I could come up with was that it was too complex an issue to be able to make the absolute statement that it is the initiation of force. I considered the perceived outcome of action was preferable to the perceived outcome of inaction. Though I had a hard time being consistent with this since a person who knows the Heimlich in the presence of somebody choking isn't bound to saving the person. However, this binding does exist in the parent-child relationship. Again, I have a problem with consistency because it's logistically hard for me to ascribe the initiation of force to inaction. Even though I understand that tying somebody up and not feeding them is in fact killing them. Can somebody help me work through this please?
LifeIsBrief Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 I had a bit of trouble with this argument myself, and discussed it a bit in my post "Is "The initiation of a cause of harm is immoral" more comprehensive?". For myself however, I resolved the problem relatively simply. The initiation of force, in this case, is forcing a parents adult religious beliefs, on a child. You're not born a Jehovah's witness who thinks blood transfusions are immoral. So, the initiation of force, is not the refusal to treat the child, but forcing it to believe in your religion. The refusing of a blood transfusion, is simply a symptom of that initiation. I don't know if that helps, because it still puts the incident in a weird sort of gray area... but it was good enough for me. I think it's logically consistent.
dsayers Posted January 5, 2014 Author Posted January 5, 2014 Good point. I had thought of that also. I have a problem with consistency there too... Suppose instead the child's illness is not fatal, but could lead to some permanent damage if not treated. The solution comes with side effects that they believe to be worse than the illness's toll itself. In this case, they believe inaction is preferable to action, and not based on mythology. Or suppose the same situation, but the disparity between effect of action and inaction is slight, so they default to inaction out of religious belief? I'm really sorry if it seems like I'm moving the goalposts. I hate when others do that. I think it's important to reach a conclusion that is universal.
LifeIsBrief Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 I don't think you're moving the goal posts... well, you kinda are, but in a way I completely understand, and think is entirely fair. Not to pimp out my own writing, but you may enjoy the related post and responses it got http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38135-is-it-is-immoral-to-initiate-a-cause-of-harm-more-comprehensive In it, I mentioned a similar situation in which blatant ignorance, without religious belief might cause a similar situation, and suggested that "It is immoral to initiate a cause of harm", might be more comprehensive... that being said, I just want to point out "It is immoral to initiate force", is not a philosophy. It's one line of a philosophy. It's an incredibly important one liner, but it's not the whole thing. The line is not "Anything other than the initiation of force, is not immoral". In my opinion, you're talking about a gray area where "the initiation of force is immoral", isn't quite enough, but that doesn't in any way invalidate it. If the sick child cries, and you hit them, that's still immoral. The initiation of force is still immoral, it just isn't quite comprehensive enough to resolve this particular issue. Does that make any sense? "The initiation of a cause of harm is immoral", would cover this situation, but still it would exist in what I would call a probability sphere. If the child will heal itself, without a doctors action, it may create immunities to the illness. Inaction might cause harm, or it might not... Still, if it does cause harm, you are acting immorally, but that doesn't mean you're acting illegally. Can people do something that is slightly immoral, and still not deserve to have force initiated on them, ie prison/fines? Yes, of course.
Recommended Posts