DiscussMormonism.com

Continuing the conversation from the 'Is homosexuality a choice' thread:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=6633

Moniker wrote:How 'bout you just agree with me and then we're good?

Ahh - heh. We both know it's going to happen in the end anyway - so why fight it right?
...oh come on - at least let me pretend for a bit! :D

Okay, morally can you decide for someone else what is in their best interest if they're a rational adult?

No - unless a persons choice will place them in a situation they can't reasonably 'choose' their way out of again. In which case, I think it is a legitimate Libertarian response to 'intervene' long enough to determine that the person is really sure they want to go through with it...

Their decision - no matter how 'nuts' it may seem to the average Joe - should not be fundamentally out of bounds. But I do believe in temporary 'intervention' to make sure that the person is 'serious' about it.

For example, I believe in stopping someone from committing suicide - by force if necessary. However, if over time it becomes clear that the person will do nothing other than keep trying to commit suicide and the only way you can stop them is to restrain them continually, then I believe a 'threshold' is passed - and it would become immoral to continue restraining them.

Exactly where that threshold is - well, that's a judgment call...

Aha! You're checking out their rationality, aren't ya? I KNEW IT! ;)

Yeap I would! Right after checking my own of course...! ;)

Hmmm - well, I guess it's interesting to try and draw the line between irrationality and insanity.
I wouldn't consider it right to 'intervene' just because a person makes decisions I can't 'reason out'. I think it's quite something else for someone to be 'insane'. I won't pretend to be a mental health expert, but I'm pretty sure we've got fairly objective measures for such distinctions...

...it's an interesting point. I'm gonna have a think about it and get back to ya...

Yet, if you choose to intervene would you be infringing on their liberty by interfering with their want to be left alone?

Probably yes. I would keep the 'insanity' possibility in play though, in which case I wouldn't consider it immoral to intervene.

Thinking about this more, I think 'insanity' - at least in practical terms in relation to these kinds of scenarios - means a temporary state where, if the person were given a chance to 'recover', they would 'regret' decisions made during such a state of mind. i.e. they are not thinking as they normally would.

There are issues here - no doubt. I'm not saying I'm happy with our ability to make the distinction in practical terms, but I'm fairly happy with the principle itself at least...

Would you be determining that they lack rationality and imposing your own upon them?

Not so much lacking rationality, but lacking 'sanity'. I think there is a difference...
...with that caveat, I don't think this is an option that should be taken lightly, but I do think it is an option that should be 'on the table'.

Well, that's because you're a caring, concerned fellow.

Why - thank you :)
I'd also argue that Libertarian principles should compel me to make a minimum amount of effort to make sure this guys future rights are gonna be looked out for. Regardless of how 'nice' a guy I am - I should do what I described if I claim to be a 'Libertarian'. I would have thought anyway...

Libertarian ideals usually rely on negative rights

Hmmm - not so sure about this part. To me, positive rights are just as important a component of Libertarianism as negative rights. I'm not sure I would or should be 'relying' more on one than the other...

and when we look to children there is a special case of positive rights that come into play.

This is why it's a special case in libertarianism. Not only can we impose our own will upon children, yet, most would declare that children MUST have positive rights and in light of that the adult must meet them.

I don't believe positive rights are a 'special case'. I think positive rights are a fundamental part of Libertarianism - not just in relation to children, but to adults too.
I don't think the 'special' point about kids is positive rights. I think the 'special' point about kids is that we don't consider them able to make their own decisions.

As far as I understand the concept of 'positive rights', the distinction from negative rights isn't about the ability of the person involved to make choices. It's about whether the person involved has things taken away from them, or things 'provided to them', or at least ensure that 'access' is provided.

There are plenty of special case 'negative' rights for children too. We don't let them do ALL kinds of things we would let adults do. That's affecting a childs 'negative' rights...

Ah, I agree -- what POSITIVE rights do those that are not adults have?

Well, I'd say they have at least the same positive rights as adults do for starters. Food, shelter and health. In addition, I'd say they have a positive right to a minimum education, attention and 'love'. There's probably more I'm not thinking of right now, and would agree about if reminded...

An adult defines the child's interest -- not the child itself.

Yeap - agreed.

Which is the same as what you were doing when checking out the rationality of the person telling you to leave them locked in a cell....

Yeah - same principle. I agree. In both cases, we are questioning the ability of the subject to make their own decisions. (Still making a distinction between 'irrational' and 'insane' though...)

Come up here with me in abstract land! :)

Hmm - I'm trying. Maybe all the gubbins I've written above addresses what you were driving at...

I'm talking about paternalism and how this delves off from negative rights for all to more utilitarianism -- the social welfare comes into play when we decide what to do with children in society and what rights they are afforded.

Well, I think we're gonna go back to old ground on this point. (Never mind, I enjoy that :) )

...what's the difference between saying 'We make sure a child is fed because it makes it happy', and saying 'We should feed a child because it wants to be fed'?

Ren, moments after I hit submit I thought about European libertarian vs. libertarian philsophy in the States. We're always working off of two separate definitions. I think of the libertarian philosophy as fundamentally based on negative rights. That is quite different then where you're coming from.

Perhaps we could take libertarian out of it completely and just discuss the scenario?

I'll be back later and reply to your points. Maybe you'd like me to elaborate how in America children are viewed as a special case because there are positive rights with them? Probably so.

I'll be back later. :)

Moniker wrote:Ren, moments after I hit submit I thought about European libertarian vs. libertarian philsophy in the States. We're always working off of two separate definitions. I think of the libertarian philosophy as fundamentally based on negative rights. That is quite different then where you're coming from.

...yeah - you're right :) Always gotta take that big old pond between us into account...
...I'm interested in whether it's just the emphasis between 'negative' and 'positive' rights that is different, or if the actual definition of the terms is different too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_rights

Perhaps we could take libertarian out of it completely and just discuss the scenario?

Yeah sure. I've changed the title of the thread - let's discuss the scenario (and whatever other scenario) from any angle...

Maybe you'd like me to elaborate how in America children are viewed as a special case because there are positive rights with them? Probably so.

Yeah please. That'd be cool :)

We're working on the same definition of negative and positive rights. Libertarian philsophy and the political ideology is based on negative rights and essentially is based upon the thought that all are free to do as they please without infringing upon another. No one may be coerced into a restriction of freedom or liberty -- and liberty is equated to life and property, as well. So, in America any redistribution of wealth is looked upon as infringing upon liberty, therefore any welfare or any support is seen as a positive right and infringing on another individuals right to property, essentially.

That's the Cliff notes version.

:)

BBL

Moniker wrote:We're working on the same definition of negative and positive rights. Libertarian philsophy and the political ideology is based on negative rights and essentially is based upon the thought that all are free to do as they please without infringing upon another. No one may be coerced into a restriction of freedom or liberty -- and liberty is equated to life and property, as well. So, in America any redistribution of wealth is looked upon as infringing upon liberty, therefore any welfare or any support is seen as a positive right and infringing on individuals right to be left alone, essentially.

That's the Cliff notes version.

:)

BBL

OK - makes sense. Hence why socialism is seen as morally equivalent to mugging old ladies...

You know what's cool about this? I think you can give me a bit of insight into the mentality here that I'll actually understand. (as opposed - say - to the weird rantings of Coggins and co.)

...so - the USA has a 'nationalised' police force - correct? I mean, you don't have insurance that covers, say, the investigation of a crime for example - right?
...why is this considered any different to needing insurance for medical procedures? Why is this not 'socialism'?
...or is it actually considered socialism by some? Would some actually prefer to have to pay for - say - criminal investigations, regular patrols of their neighborhoods, and whole cartons of doughnuts 'directly out of their own pocket' so to speak...?

...how about fire fighters? Same? If fire-fighters have to save your house burning down, you have to write them a check for their services...?

Please help the poor deluded European see the light...! :D

I think if someone was serious about commiting suicide, they wouldn't give anyone a chance to restrain them and they wouldn't tell anyone. Telling people is just looking for attention. So you wouldn't get a chance to stop them.

JonasS wrote:I think if someone was serious about commiting suicide, they wouldn't give anyone a chance to restrain them and they wouldn't tell anyone. Telling people is just looking for attention. So you wouldn't get a chance to stop them.

In many cases, probably true no doubt. Sadly enough.

...I'm only talking about cases where you have some chance of stopping them...
I'm not proposing a solution for suicide. I'm just discussing the 'moral options' we have to interfere with the agency of others.

JonasS wrote:I think if someone was serious about commiting suicide, they wouldn't give anyone a chance to restrain them and they wouldn't tell anyone. Telling people is just looking for attention. So you wouldn't get a chance to stop them.

Plenty of people tell people that they're suicidal or they leave hints. It's not uncommon, actually -- and this does NOT indicate they are NOT suicidal and are seeking attention. Also when people are told that they are looking for attention or pity by sharing their emotional pain with others it can increase their isolation and may make it more difficult for them to seek help.

http://www.sfsuicide.org/html/warning.html

Myth/Fact quiz on suicide:

http://www.sfsuicide.org/html/quiz.html

JonasS wrote:I think if someone was serious about commiting suicide, they wouldn't give anyone a chance to restrain them and they wouldn't tell anyone. Telling people is just looking for attention. So you wouldn't get a chance to stop them.

It doesn't matter if it's looking for attention, you should take suicide threats serious I think. Anyone who is talking about it is thinking about it, and thinking about it. This is an example of depression stigma folks...

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:

Moniker wrote:We're working on the same definition of negative and positive rights. Libertarian philsophy and the political ideology is based on negative rights and essentially is based upon the thought that all are free to do as they please without infringing upon another. No one may be coerced into a restriction of freedom or liberty -- and liberty is equated to life and property, as well. So, in America any redistribution of wealth is looked upon as infringing upon liberty, therefore any welfare or any support is seen as a positive right and infringing on individuals right to be left alone, essentially.

That's the Cliff notes version.

:)

BBL

OK - makes sense. Hence why socialism is seen as morally equivalent to mugging old ladies...

Haha! Precisely!

You know what's cool about this? I think you can give me a bit of insight into the mentality here that I'll actually understand. (as opposed - say - to the weird rantings of Coggins and co.)

Well, if you understand that individual property rights are linked to liberty that should help.

...so - the USA has a 'nationalised' police force - correct? I mean, you don't have insurance that covers, say, the investigation of a crime for example - right?

Yes, yet, libertarians see this as a Constitutional right and one of the reasons for government in the first place -- to protect life and PROPERTY.

...why is this considered any different to needing insurance for medical procedures? Why is this not 'socialism'?

Because it's protecting the fundamental rights of life and property -- individually. That the governed compacted with the government and gave up certain liberties in exchange for protection is seen as acceptable. Yet, taking from one individual to give to another is seen as outside the scope of these core rights to property.

...or is it actually considered socialism by some? Would some actually prefer to have to pay for - say - criminal investigations, regular patrols of their neighborhoods, and whole cartons of doughnuts 'directly out of their own pocket' so to speak...?

Well, there are some that would be pleased to have almost everything privatized, and I've seen mention that police force should be privatized, yet, that's not the norm, really. Since the purpose of government is seen as protecting the interests (property) of the governed.

...how about fire fighters? Same? If fire-fighters have to save your house burning down, you have to write them a check for their services...?

There are some that want these services privatized, as well.

Please help the poor deluded European see the light...! :D

Heh.... well... I think understanding that property rights (life is included in this) is seen as paramount may go along way toward explaining it. :)