tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post2070640494673405307..comments2023-08-20T12:13:24.740+01:00Comments on Marmalade Sandwich: Bloody Sunday killings and public sector employees.Young Mr. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16106889555211376281noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-19445490953393232042010-06-27T11:14:58.457+01:002010-06-27T11:14:58.457+01:00Yes, thanks Indigomyth and also to YMB. It's ...Yes, thanks Indigomyth and also to YMB. It's been a great discussion, which I've enjoyed and found very stimulating. Indigomyth, you have achieved one thing that no one else ever has: you've made me want to study the Church's teaching on Social Doctrine, in particular, its philosophical roots. It's also been interesting how much we have found in common - we have sometimes had to invent quite extreme cases to bring out the differences.<br /><br />Best wishes for the summer to you too.Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-3908102268667142512010-06-26T23:54:23.560+01:002010-06-26T23:54:23.560+01:00//Anyway, shall we call it quits for now? //
I th...//Anyway, shall we call it quits for now? //<br /><br />I think so. In any case, for the most part we want the same things from the State, it is just we justify them in quite different ways.<br /><br />Anyway, I am sure that we will end up talking again! Until then, enjoy your summer.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-15634781091869153772010-06-26T22:27:21.519+01:002010-06-26T22:27:21.519+01:00I think you are probably right, we have gone round...I think you are probably right, we have gone round this and there are some points which we will not agree about but which seem axiomatic to each of us. Partly, I think we have quite different understandings of what constitutes an act, and this prevents a meeting of minds.<br /><br /><i>Besides which, the sun is shining, and all this talk of death and abortion is hardly cheering!</i><br /><br />Quite! but I am a little sunburnt, so some time in front of the computer hasn't been totally harmful. Anyway, shall we call it quits for now?Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-90595842801996795612010-06-26T22:11:45.784+01:002010-06-26T22:11:45.784+01:00//Would you defend Freda from us, and if not, who ...//Would you defend Freda from us, and if not, who could?//<br /><br />Well, my first question would be why are you not offering food directly to the child? However, putting that aside.<br /><br />//On your worldview who is allowed to inflict just punishment on wicked pro-life Catholics who are such enemies of freedom that they prevent libertartians such as Freda from depriving her child of the opportunity to exercise her freedom by starving her to death?//<br /><br />It would entirely depend on how these pro-life Catholics went about their activities? If it involved sneaking food to the child, or asking the child to runaway from Freda to join a family who will support them, then they are perfectly within their rights to do so.<br /><br />Let us say that you intend to threaten physical violence (not suggesting you would, but taking it to the extreme), I would say that Freda if obviously within her right to defend herself against assault. She is also perfectly at liberty to deligate this action to a freelancer, so she could privately hire body guards to protect her. If not, then the State may step in to defend her liberty (or punish to an appropriate extent those that have abused her).<br /><br /><br />//Do you think there are no circumstances for someone to be guilty (and therefore punishable) by neglect?//<br /><br />Absolutely. If a care worker has been employed to care for someone, and they fail to fulfil their end of the contract, then they may be justly punished. They have effectively stolen from the people that have paid to have the person cared for.<br /><br />//I think I have already given a range of reasons.//<br /><br />Except really in the case of blood donor. All you said was because of the difference between the body and external property.<br /><br />//I find that unintelligble - does a boulder falling down a hillside assault the person it hits? //<br /><br />In a certain sense it does. However, this still fails to address the issue as to why a woman does not have the authority to say how her blood may flow. It belongs to her!<br /><br />//I think what you have done is give me (what you take to be) the epistemic status of that principle, without telling me what that principle is.//<br /><br />I was referring to the fact that I believe that people own their own bodies; that is foundationally true to me. I was perhaps not all that accurate when I spoke last time. <br /><br />I think we are getting to the point where this becomes futile. For me it is impossible to understand how a woman does not have the just authority to dictate how her body may and may not be used, and I do not think that you have provided very good reasons. I cannot see the difference between compelling a woman to carry a child she does not want, and forcing someone to donate their organs. Yes, the latter action is overtly violent, but the former is also violent, because it is the using of the body against the will of the owner. And in both the case of Joe refusing to donate organs, and the woman refusing to bear the child, the result is the same - a dead child. Its a completely alien way of viewing the world - that someone can be forced to carry a child that they do not want. It would also need me to accept that one person has the right to take a possession without consent.<br /><br />Both circumstances involve terrible overiding of body sovereignty. Also, from what I have read of Feser, he would support organ harvesting. Besides which, the sun is shining, and all this talk of death and abortion is hardly cheering!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-70749592979310557662010-06-26T21:12:00.136+01:002010-06-26T21:12:00.136+01:00Indigomyth,
May I just put in a little caveat bef...Indigomyth,<br /><br />May I just put in a little caveat before going any further. As we move into questions of social teaching, jurisprudence etc. I become less and less clear on Catholic teaching. I wouldn't want you to think that the opinions I express are those of the Catholic Church. Of course, I aim for them to be such, but I am not in a position to judge with any authority.<br /><br /><i>Therefore, her stopping the blood flow would be merely the <br />ceasing of action.</i><br /><br />The blood flow is natural, it happens automatically as it were. Therefore, to stop the blood flow, she must perform some kind of act.<br /><br /><i>I would also argue that the child is assaulting the woman</i><br /><br />I find that unintelligble - does a boulder falling down a hillside assault the person it hits? In any case, her body is providing the means by which this happens. Although it is not a moral act, providing nutrition for the child is something <i>she</i> is doing. If this were not the case it would be impossible for you to speak of her stopping the blood etc. going into the child. It is not an assault, it is something that both the child and mother's bodies are naturally cooperating in.<br /><br /><i>Does that mean you think it ought to be illegal?</i><br /><br />You can hardly legislate for motives in such circumstances - the physical act is not evil in itself. <br /><br /><i>I never said Bob was threatening death. Maybe just a shot in the knee? Would that be permissible? Is it better or worse than the state imprisoning Joe for not rescuing Fred?</i><br /><br />I really don't know, though not killing or maming. I would recommend a state to be very slow in inflicting punishment in such cases, but in principle, I can see no moral objection, but I can see reason to defend such a punishment.<br /><br /><i>I find that to be completely contradictory, given the way the State operates (by violence)</i><br /><br />Well let us suppose the Freda is starving her child, Josephine, to death. I turn up with a bunch of nasty, pro-life Catholic heavies from the Catholic Women's League to compel her to take care of her child. Fortunately for Freda, you and a bunch of enlightened libertarians are on hand to defend Freda's right to starve Josephine to death. Would you defend Freda from us, and if not, who could? and how could she be defended? On your worldview <i>who</i> is allowed to inflict just punishment on wicked pro-life Catholics who are such enemies of freedom that they prevent libertartians such as Freda from depriving her child of the opportunity to exercise her freedom by starving her to death?<br /><br /><i>So it may be permissible for the State to use violence against someone who has done no active wrong?</i><br /><br />Do you think there are no circumstances for someone to be guilty (and therefore punishable) by neglect?<br /><br /><i>In which case, why is the racist organ donor different to the reluctant swimmer?</i><br /><br />I think I have already given a range of reasons. Swimmer Joe is only being expected to save Fred if he can reasonably do so and without reasonable risk of harming himself. Chopping Joe up to take a kidney is obviously an act of harm and therefore a person aiming at such an act would need the Joe's consent first.<br /><br /><i>Because to me it is a foundational truth (thanks Plantinga).</i><br /><br />What I was asking for was for you to give me the principle by which you moved from one premise to a conclusion. I think what you have done is give me (what you take to be) the epistemic status of that principle, without telling me what that principle is.Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-23036022216419493232010-06-25T23:17:21.586+01:002010-06-25T23:17:21.586+01:00//Because she is acting, Joe is not. Therefore she...//Because she is acting, Joe is not. Therefore she does the killing, Fred is killed by the disease. Moreover, to obtain the organs one would need to assault Joe, but the woman is not assaulted by the child.//<br /><br />Ahh, but she is not acting. Her body is acting in support of the child. Therefore, her stopping the blood flow would be merely the ceasing of action. I would also argue that the child is assaulting the woman; the child is using the woman's organs and blood without her consent - how is that not assault?<br /><br />//That would be wicked, for a good or indifferent act, done for an evil cause, is itself evil.//<br /><br />Does that mean you think it ought to be illegal?<br /><br />//I do not believe Joe can be forced at the end of a gun because I do not believe in the death penalty or the threat of the death penalty. //<br /><br />I never said Bob was threatening death. Maybe just a shot in the knee? Would that be permissible? Is it better or worse than the state imprisoning Joe for not rescuing Fred?<br /><br />//Why is that an error?//<br /><br />Because it would mean that the State has rights in the same way individuals have rights, and I find that to be completely contradictory, given the way the State operates (by violence). And, since the State is just a group of individuals, I fail to see how they can have a class of rights apart from individuals. Just as a family cannot aggress against another family, so just because a group of people band togther and call themselves a "government" does not mean that they get any more right.<br /><br />//Therefore, if Henry can reasonably save the woman in this way, she has a just claim to be saved. So it would depend on the details of the scenario.//<br /><br />So it may be permissible for the State to use violence against someone who has done no active wrong? <br /><br />You agree with the principle that someone can be punished for not acting if they can reasonably save somone's life? In which case, why is the racist organ donor different to the reluctant swimmer? In both cases Joe is being subject to violence to get him to do something he does not want to do. Swimmer Joe is being forced to use his body to rescue Drowning Fred, Donor Joe is being forced to used his body to rescue kidney failure Fred. Your point about the violence done to Donor Joe ignores the violence done to Swimmer Joe in order to get him to save the Drowning Fred. If, as above, Joe is a racist, and wants Fred to die as a result of not getting a kidney transplant, then your criteria about there being no threat to Joe's life does not come in to effect - it is merely his desire not to give his organs. In which case, may the state use force to take Joe's organs from him? Yes, that will mean doing violence (or threatening violence) to Joe, but you have already the permissibility of that in the case of Swimmer Joe, in order to compel him to swim out and rescue Fred. <br /><br />//I meant what is the principle of justice by which you get from "people feel and think they own their own bodies" to "therefore it is owing to them not to aggress them"?//<br /><br />Because to me it is a foundational truth (thanks Plantinga). Just as I believe that the Earth exists, and I am standing on it, so I believe that violent aggression is wrong.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-39859217827142282922010-06-25T22:50:25.634+01:002010-06-25T22:50:25.634+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-33647986446419805932010-06-25T21:54:55.875+01:002010-06-25T21:54:55.875+01:00Indigomyth,
Ah, no it isn't!
I only said it ...Indigomyth,<br /><br /><i>Ah, no it isn't!</i><br /><br />I only said it was like, I didn't say it was the same.<br /><br /><i>It is more akin to someone not giving food to a starving man (or to my Mars space station example)? DO you think that ought to be against the law?</i><br /><br />I think it is against the law, because it is provided by taxation. I think that is just because I think a man who is starving is not stealing if he takes from another, but simply claiming his own.<br /><br /><i>And how is the woman denying the foetus her blood, any different from the Joe denying Fred his blood or kidney?</i><br /><br />Because she is acting, Joe is not. Therefore she does the killing, Fred is killed by the disease. Moreover, to obtain the organs one would need to assault Joe, but the woman is not assaulted by the child.<br /><br /><i>Let us say that the ONLY reason that Joe is not donating his blood or organs to Fred, is to see Fred die.</i><br /><br />That would be wicked, for a good or indifferent act, done for an evil cause, is itself evil.<br /><br /><i>You also have not answered by point about the violence done to Swimmer Joe in order to make him save Fred.</i><br /><br />I do not believe Joe can be forced at the end of a gun because I do not believe in the death penalty or the threat of the death penalty. <br /><br /><i>Does that mean that you think that the state ought to compel Henry to save the woman?</i><br /><br />I think that goods in creation are ordered for the good of all. Therefore, if Henry can reasonably save the woman in this way, she has a just claim to be saved. So it would depend on the details of the scenario.<br /><br /><i>Both moral AND legal justice. I would consider it personally immoral for me to violently aggress against someone, even if I thought it would be for the best.</i><br /><br />I meant what is the principle of justice by which you get from "people feel and think they own their own bodies" to "therefore it is owing to them not to aggress them"?<br /><br /><i>You seem to be making the error of thinking that the State has a moral entitlement above and beyond the individual</i><br /><br />Why is that an error?Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-67627507217703067452010-06-25T19:36:29.154+01:002010-06-25T19:36:29.154+01:00//Well, which model of justice are you using when ...//Well, which model of justice are you using when you think self-ownership is owing to someone and that undermining that ownership is not.//<br /><br />Both moral AND legal justice. I would consider it personally immoral for me to violently aggress against someone, even if I thought it would be for the best. That is why I support the decriminalisation of drugs - I believe it to be moral to allow someone to kill themselves by drug use, rather than by force, stop them. I would try and persuade them to stop, but would not physically try and stop them.<br /><br />And, since libertarians see the State as bound by the same rules that govern individuals, I think the State ought to be bound to the above convention also.<br /><br />So legal justice is merely that which defends an individuals liberty, or punishes transgressions against that liberty. That is not to say that the State takes from the individual the right to self protection (such as owning guns etc), but rather the State is there to protect the liberty of those that have no mechanism for defending themselves from aggressive violence.<br /><br />So it, for exactly the same reasons why it would be unJust for me to forcibly stop someone taking drugs, so it is unjust for the State to do the same. You seem to be making the error of thinking that the State has a moral entitlement above and beyond the individual - your advocacy of state violence against Swimmer Joe, but not (yet?) if carried out by Disabled Bob.<br /><br />I do things, like donate to charity, because I think that they are good things to do, and they are "Just" in the same way as it is "Just" for me to allow someone to kill themselves. <br /><br />Now, the State acts in a completely different way to me, so while I advocate that the State do some "Just" things (like punish the violent), I do not suggest it does other "Just" things. The reason being the method by which the State must always operate - and that is by aggressive violence. That is, fundamentally, the only form of act the State is ever capable of. So when the State decides to send £100 million to Africa to save starving children, that is an unjust act, because that £100 million is not its own money, it is taken, under threat of violence, from taxpayers. For me, it is exactly the same as a mugger taking £100 from me, and then giving it to charity. The act of charity to which he puts the money, which would be considered "just" if done with his own money, is unjust because he has stolen it from me. In that way, the State is forever bound to do the very least.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-86732386879162205922010-06-25T19:36:15.662+01:002010-06-25T19:36:15.662+01:00Albert,
//That's rather like Joe's machin...Albert,<br /><br />//That's rather like Joe's machine to remove the air from around Fred. A problem is that the act aims at directly killing an innocent. Such actions, whether by commission or omission are inadmissible.//<br /><br />Ah, no it isn't! In your example the air was not owned, however, in this case it most definitely is owned, totally and completely by the woman. It is more akin to someone not giving food to a starving man (or to my Mars space station example)? DO you think that ought to be against the law? And how is the woman denying the foetus her blood, any different from the Joe denying Fred his blood or kidney? If you are going to make that argument, then you have to show why the woman does not have the right to deny the child her blood, whereas Joe does. In both cases, no direct harm is being done to the child, but the results are identical. Let us say that the ONLY reason that Joe is not donating his blood or organs to Fred, is to see Fred die. Perhaps Fred is a Jew, and Joe is a non-aggressive Nazi. In that case, the very aim of Joe not giving Fred his blood, is to see Fred die. In that circumstance, ought the state compel Joe to give blood or organs to Fred?<br /><br />You also have not answered by point about the violence done to Swimmer Joe in order to make him save Fred.<br /><br />Further, in the example above, provided by Rothbard, it was Henry Fonda's cool touch that was saving the woman's life? In that case there is certainly no risk to Henry Fonda. Does that mean that you think that the state ought to compel Henry to save the woman?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-25192787682337456032010-06-25T11:03:29.291+01:002010-06-25T11:03:29.291+01:00Indigomyth,
so what if the woman purposely stops ...Indigomyth,<br /><br /><i>so what if the woman purposely stops her blood flowing to the placenta? In that instance, there is no direct physical assault taken against the baby, as the placenta is empirically the woman's flesh. In what way would that not be permissible using your ideology?</i><br /><br />That's rather like Joe's machine to remove the air from around Fred. A problem is that the act <i>aims</i> at directly killing an innocent. Such actions, whether by commission or omission are inadmissible.<br /><br /><i>Legal justice, moral justice, divine justice?</i><br /><br />Well, which model of justice are you using when you think self-ownership is owing to someone and that undermining that ownership is not.Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-56311577642700194412010-06-24T23:23:45.724+01:002010-06-24T23:23:45.724+01:00Albert,
//You haven't answered my point about...Albert,<br /><br />//You haven't answered my point about justice, I don't think.//<br /><br />Well, in what sense? Legal justice, moral justice, divine justice?<br /><br />//This case is unique, because it requires the direct and deliberate killing of an innocent which is both disproportionate (unless her life is immediately threatened) and wrong in itself.//<br /><br />Okay, so what if the woman purposely stops her blood flowing to the placenta? In that instance, there is no direct physical assault taken against the baby, as the placenta is empirically the woman's flesh. In what way would that not be permissible using your ideology? The foetus is not being assaulted.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-59725821760804173422010-06-24T23:19:08.743+01:002010-06-24T23:19:08.743+01:00Indigomyth,
Briefly, as I'm about to go to be...Indigomyth,<br /><br />Briefly, as I'm about to go to bed:<br /><br /><i>abortion is a unique case, because the ONLY way for the woman to evict the foetus, is to kill it</i><br /><br />It is that very uniqueness that is my point. Because, in order to defend her body she must directly kill the unborn child, it is unlike any other case, and you cannot infer from those other cases to justify the action. This case is unique, because it requires the direct and deliberate killing of an innocent which is both disproportionate (unless her life is immediately threatened) and wrong in itself.<br /><br />You haven't answered my point about justice, I don't think.Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-59923527819661988032010-06-24T22:10:02.638+01:002010-06-24T22:10:02.638+01:00//This is violated because it is not owing to a st...//This is violated because it is not owing to a starving child who takes a raisin from his parents to be killed for it, or an employee who inadvertently deprives his employer of a paper-clip to be killed for that misdemeanor. //<br /><br />Death would only be a justifiable act if it was the ONLY way to prevent a violation of this property. There would be punishments if someone did act disproportionately. So, for example, the employer could not executed the employee on the basis of accidentally taking a paper clip, since there are other ways to resolve the issue - like asking for it back, threatening them with being fired, etc. However, as I argued earlier, abortion is a unique case, because the ONLY way for the woman to evict the foetus, is to kill it. Were there another way to get rid of the foetus in as prompt and timely a manner as the mother desired (perhaps by beaming it directly to an artificial womb), then I would probably consider abortion, as a first resort, completely disproportionate. However, currently, for the end result of the woman not have her organs hijacked, abortion remains the only way of stopping that, and therefore is not disproportionate to what is, after all, the woman's complete sovereignty over her body (which you have argued is unique and distinct from external property).<br /><br />//The hardest case for me to answer then is the blood donor - but I think the difference between my external property and my body deals with that.//<br /><br />But then what about the pregnant woman's blood? Does she not have an exactly equal right to dictate how her blood may or may not be used? You have admitted the right to refuse to give blood to a dying child, and so to let him die, yet you do not grant that same right to a woman who is pregnant?<br /><br />//In addition, there is the fact that the assault on the blood "donor" does him no good whatsoever.//<br /><br />I could get into a long quibbling match about whether pregnancy and child birth do woman any good whatsoever (especially given the fact that prior to the modern medical age, the primary cause of death among women was child birth), but let us not start another huge topic.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-66150310886844986982010-06-24T22:09:47.246+01:002010-06-24T22:09:47.246+01:00Albert,
//Okay, but I was trying to show that in ...Albert,<br /><br />//Okay, but I was trying to show that in the case of the drowning man, there is no (human) agency of violence, whereas with both abortion and the harvesting of organs there is a human agency of violence.//<br /><br />What about Bob threatening Joe, the Olympic swimmer; is he not a human agency of violence in precisely the same way that those harvesting the organs are? Is not Bob assaulting the innocent (Joe) without doing any good to him and in violation of his consent. Is not swimmer Joe equally "guilty" of non-action as Joe the blood or organ donor?<br /><br />//I also stated earlier that there was a difference between external property and one's body. //<br /><br />In which case, why can a woman not deny her unborn child nutrients? If one's body is in a different class of objects to all others, then why can she not defend it. If your body really is extraordinarily yours, in a way unlike external property, then why can it not be defended extraordinarily, through abortion?<br /><br />//in the case of the organ donation, the "donor" is cut up and has part of his body removed. //<br /><br />In the case of the woman, she may suffer from hours of agony being in labour (rather like recovering from surgery), she may have to be cut open (life surgery), she may suffer from depression (rather like someone who has been forcibly cut open).<br /><br />You also ignore the fact that Feser argues that you do not own your own body - indeed, his entire adoption of the self-ownership proviso is based on that very idea. He argues that Thompson's violinist has to remain attached to the unwilling patient - that the organs of the innocent can, and must, be used to save the lives of the dying.<br /><br />//For the organ harvesting, someone must assault the man with a knife.//<br /><br />Only in the cases where the man is unwilling, in which case I may very well say that "to get an unwilling man to swim out to save someone on a calm sea, they must be threatened with physical violence".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-45831424041063627292010-06-24T21:16:40.667+01:002010-06-24T21:16:40.667+01:00Indigomyth,
I think that there is an error here
...Indigomyth,<br /><br /><i>I think that there is an error here</i><br /><br />Okay, but I was trying to show that in the case of the drowning man, there is no (human) agency of violence, whereas with both abortion and the harvesting of organs there is a human agency of violence. <br /><br />Also in both the latter cases, the agency assaults the innocent without doing any good to them and in violation of their consent.<br /><br />In other words, for Fred to drown, no one needs to do anything. For the child in the womb to die, someone must kill it. For the organ harvesting, someone must assault the man with a knife.<br /><br />Conversely, part of the my suggestion that Joe may be obliged to rescue Fred, was the condition that it not unreasonably endanger Joe - I take as tacit that it not unreasonably harm him, I also stated earlier that there was a difference between external property and one's body. <br /><br />In the abortion the child is clearly unreasonably harmed (s/he gets killed and perhaps for no better reason than to spare a woman's figure), in the case of the organ donation, the "donor" is cut up and has part of his body removed. The hardest case for me to answer then is the blood donor - but I think the difference between my external property and my body deals with that. In addition, there is the fact that the assault on the blood "donor" does him no good whatsoever.<br /><br />This reminds me of a problem I have with your position. I have said that I think your position fails to take account of justice and proportionality (the idea of giving to each what is owed to him). This is violated because it is not owing to a starving child who takes a raisin from his parents to be killed for it, or an employee who inadvertently deprives his employer of a paper-clip to be killed for that misdemeanor. These are obviously disproportionate.<br /><br />So having violated the principle of justice and proportion, you then wish to establish everyone's right of self-ownership in proportion to the degree that they feel and think they own their own bodies. It is owing to them because they feel and think they own their own bodies. So the very principle that is being violated in killing the child or employee is in fact the same principle that is being invoked to kill them. IOW, in addition to my worry that your position proceeds from only one premise (from which nothing follows), but also, I worry that it results in a contradiction later on. And since the foundation of your claim is so slender, surely the justice question will have to be resolved in favour of the (unborn) child.<br /><br /><i>Yes, but the nature of philosophy is to generalise, and the purpose of creating unreal situations is to help us to isolate the moral principle and see if it works in all conceivable situations.</i><br /><br />Cheek! You know full well that my point was to say that the kind of conclusion you were drawing was not entailed by the Catholic doctrine when properly understood.Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-29134487294438767632010-06-24T19:44:19.047+01:002010-06-24T19:44:19.047+01:00Albert,
A further example occurs to me (and in th...Albert,<br /><br />A further example occurs to me (and in the vein of unreal situations):<br /><br />Imagine that Joe, the world renowned Olympic swimmer, has as company on his island, Bob, who is in a wheelchair. Suddenly they espy Fred drowning in the millpond smooth sea. Bob is armed with a gun. Bob, acting as Fred's agents threatens Joe to swim out and save Fred. Fred needs Joe's abilities as a swimmer to save him. Is it right (and legal) for Bob to threaten Joe, to save Fred's life? (Bob is standing in for Feser's <br />State).<br /><br />And, just for clarity:<br /><br />Imagine that Joe, the type Q blood type, is a perfect match for the dying Fred, who only needs a little blood to restore his life. Fred gets Bob, the blood transfusion bouncer, to threaten Joe with a gun, so that he donates blood. Is it right (and legal) for Bob to threaten Joe, to save Fred's life? (Bob is again standing in for Feser's State)<br /><br />I fail to see the substantial difference in these two cases.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-20184716440860455302010-06-24T19:28:34.648+01:002010-06-24T19:28:34.648+01:00Albert,
//1. Drowning man – agency of violence: s...Albert,<br /><br />//1. Drowning man – agency of violence: sea<br />2. Abortion – agency of violence: those who procure it<br />3. Organ donation – agency of violence: those who seek to take the organs//<br /><br />I think that there is an error here, surely it ought to be:<br /><br />//1. Drowning man – agency of violence: sea<br /><br />3. Organ harvesting – agency of violence: the disease killing the patient//<br /><br />What Feser is saying is that is acceptable for Fred to have his agents (the state) force Joe to save Fred's life, even if he does not want to (or punish him, if he does not).<br /><br />In the same way, he is also arguing (by citing as his example Thompson's violinist) that someone's organs can be appropriated for another person's use, even if the donor is not willing and consenting. He actually says words to that effect in the article you cited - he argues that the innocent man, hooked up to the violinist, must not be allowed to detach himself, because it will result in the death of the violinist.<br /><br />Let us imagine that Fred's kidneys are being destroyed by a disease. The parallel would be Fred drowning at sea. What you are arguing is that Joe must be forced to help Fred, at sea, if it is safe and within his power to do so. Now, imagine Joe is an exact match for Fred's kidneys. We live in a modern society, with very low risk from surgery, so the threat to Joe is minimal (and, of course, if we imagine it as blood transfusion, the threat is even less). Taking that into account, and considering what you have said about the drowning man, why should Joe not be forced to donate his blood or organs?<br /><br />//The question of organs is a third kind of case, because, here the "recipient" (or his agents) must commit an act in order to get hold of the organs,//<br /><br />But that is also the case if Joe does not want to rescue Fred - it requires force to compel Joe to rescue Fred (or punish him if he does not). How are the agents of Drowning Fred acting any differently to the agents of Kidney-failure Fred? Both agents need to use violence, or threat of violence, to compel Joe to save Fred.<br /><br />//This is why I think our mortal enemies are not libertarians but utilitarians.//<br /><br />Rothbard was similarly critical of utilitarians. <br /><br />//indicates that the right to life (as Catholics understand it) doesn't result in the absurdities you imply and isn’t quite the doctrine you think it is.//<br /><br />Yes, but the nature of philosophy is to generalise, and the purpose of creating unreal situations is to help us to isolate the moral principle and see if it works in all conceivable situations.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-75278880671310962672010-06-24T10:43:39.950+01:002010-06-24T10:43:39.950+01:00I haven't read much of Feser on the question o...I haven't read much of Feser on the question of property rights. I know he doesn't think much of Rothbard. Though what he says is that he doesn't rank him highly as a philosopher, rather than that he disagrees with him. His argument is interesting because what he does is argue that Rothbard's argument for self-ownership requires a false dichotomy. Feser effectively gives various other alternatives. <br /><br />Given St Thomas' view that stealing is not in fact stealing if the "thief" is dying of starvation, my guess is that Feser would want to say that property rights are not without boundaries. This would allow him to defend the unborn child and the drowning man. <br /><br />In effect, I think we need to be careful to distinguish between the three cases you have put forward, as it seems to me that morally there are different issues at stake. In the case of the drowning man (Fred) the guilt of the person who could have saved him (Joe) is less than the guilt of those who procure the abortion. For in the latter case, they actually perform an action to kill, in the former it is the tragic circumstance that does the killing. This difference is important, as it means Joe does not have to save Fred in all circumstances – only when it is reasonably within his power and without reasonable risk to himself. In contrast the abortion will always be wrong (provided it is not double-effect).<br /><br />The question of organs is a third kind of case, because, here the "recipient" (or his agents) must commit an act in order to get hold of the organs, and since an act to injure the bodily integrity of an innocent person without their consent, and without the intention to do good to the person harmed is wrong, it cannot be justified because "it is not licit to do evil that good may come of it" (Pope John Paul II <i>Veritatis Splendor</i>, 79).<br /><br />We can express the differences thus:<br /><br />1. Drowning man – agency of violence: sea<br />2. Abortion – agency of violence: those who procure it<br />3. Organ donation – agency of violence: those who seek to take the organs<br /><br />These differences are crucial in Catholic thought because it is the act <i>considered as a whole</i>, and not the outcome considered in isolation that it morally significant. This is why I think our mortal enemies are not libertarians but utilitarians.<br /><br /><i>I have racked my brains trying to think of a situation where a just property owner</i><br /><br />Yes, but the nature of philosophy is to generalise, and the purpose of creating unreal situations is to help us to isolate the moral principle and see if it works in all conceivable situations.<br /> <br /><i>Well, as you observed earlier, I am quite Christian at the moment.</i><br /><br />That’s good to know. If you want to change the topic of conversation to something more religious, I’m happy to go with it.Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-67268920883166872112010-06-24T10:35:30.189+01:002010-06-24T10:35:30.189+01:00Indigomyth,
If you hold life to be your highest v...Indigomyth,<br /><br /><i>If you hold life to be your highest value, then why do you not support the forcible harvesting of blood and organs from people, in order to keep others alive?</i><br /><br />Rothbard is right to point to out that "right to life" is a rather ambiguous term, and I don't think I have used it. What I said was it was logically <i>prior</i> to freedom, so that to take life is necessarily to oppose freedom in that case. The principle I would defend can be expressed thus:<br /><br />1. It is always and everywhere wrong for anyone, directly and deliberately to take innocent human life.<br /><br /><i>curiously, we have an interesting difference here, because if you view the body different from other property, then (would I be so inclined) it would be logically possible to show that abortion is acceptable, where shooting dead a child that steals from a laden table, is not.</i><br /><br />I think the death penalty in either case is wrong because in both cases it is disproportionate and unjust (unless, in the case of the mother, the child (as opposed to the pregnancy) is a direct and immediate threat to her life - as opposed to a real foreseen risk). Additionally, the child is innocent - certainly in the case of the abortion.<br /><br />Further, on the question of the right to life, it is useful to recall the principle of double effect - Catholic in origin, yet widely used in secular Medical ethics. The fact that sometimes an unborn child's life will be terminated as an indirect result of a morally good and proportional action, indicates that the right to life (as Catholics understand it) doesn't result in the absurdities you imply and isn’t quite the doctrine you think it is.Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-45753232528834495972010-06-24T01:15:17.532+01:002010-06-24T01:15:17.532+01:00Albert,
Once again, in support of my above commen...Albert,<br /><br />Once again, in support of my above comment, another extract from Rothbard:<br /><br />"The anti-abortionists generally couch the preceding argument in<br />terms of the fetus's, as well as the born human's, "right to life." We have<br />not used this concept in this volume because of its ambiguity, and because<br />any proper rights implied by its advocates are included in the concept of<br />the "right to self-ownershipf'-the right to have one's person fiee from<br />aggression. Even Professor Judith Thomson, who, in her discussion of the<br />abortion question, attempts inconsistently to retain the concept of "right<br />to life" along with the right to own one's own body, lucidly demonstrates<br />the pitfalls and errors of the "right to life" doctrine:<br />In some views, having a right to life includes having a right<br />to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued<br />life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum<br />a man needs for continued life is something he has no right<br />at all to be given? If I am sick unto death, and the only thing<br />that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand<br />on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be<br />given the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered<br />brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the<br />West Coast to provide it. . . . But I have no right at all against<br />anybody that he should do this for me.<br />In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term "right to life," to<br />give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that<br />life. In our terminology such a claim would be an impermissible violation<br />of the other person's right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thomson<br />cogently puts it, "having a right to life does not guarantee having<br />either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued<br />use of another person's body-even if one needs it for life itself.'"<br /><br />- Page 99Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-12522050543686504952010-06-24T01:13:59.015+01:002010-06-24T01:13:59.015+01:00Albert,
A further thought occurs to me.
If you h...Albert,<br /><br />A further thought occurs to me.<br /><br />If you hold life to be your highest value, then why do you not support the forcible harvesting of blood and organs from people, in order to keep others alive?<br /><br />Surely, if life is the highest value, then the value of someone else's liberty, and indeed the inviolability of their bodies, is subservient to the life of someone else. So, even if someone does not want to donate a kidney, or give blood, if not doing so would mean the death of someone else, then, using the idea of life being the highest value, why is it not permissible for the state to hunt down those with matching blood / organ types, forcibly sedate them, take them to the operating theatre, and take their organs (provided doing so does not kill them)? Indeed, it would be quite morally permissible, under the ideology of life as the highest value, for the donor's life to be made much much worse, even if it meant that the recipient's life was extended only marginally?<br /><br />Haven't you admitted the morality of the position above by arguing against abortion? By doing so you are saying that the woman's right to her body, her blood, does not exceed the child's right to life. Well, in that case, why ought that principle not apply to every other person? What makes my sovereignty over my blood superior to a mother's sovereignty over her blood? If you are prepared to say how the latter's may be used, why not the former's? <br /><br />I imagine that you would advocate the state punishing someone who allows a child to starve to death at their table (chronic neglect)? Is that not what someone is doing when they are denying blood or organ donation? They are denying the very thing that could save the other person?<br /><br />Indeed, would not your ideology of putting life above all else mean that people ought to be forcibly treated for diseases, even if they have no wish to be?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-36897976638040347842010-06-23T22:51:37.623+01:002010-06-23T22:51:37.623+01:00Albert,
//But the category mistake here is to reg...Albert,<br /><br />//But the category mistake here is to regard one's body as property in no different sense from property that is not one's body. //<br /><br />See, I view it as such, largely because, for a Rothbardian liberal, all rights extend from basic property rights.<br /><br />Hmm curiously, we have an interesting difference here, because if you view the body different from other property, then (would I be so inclined) it would be logically possible to show that abortion is acceptable, where shooting dead a child that steals from a laden table, is not. Because the one involves taking of property that is not in the same class as another. Also, I do not see Feser making any such distinction in his writing. You have read more of him than myself, does he make that distinction else where?<br /><br />//Does that make you want to convert?!//<br /><br />Well, as you observed earlier, I am quite Christian at the moment.<br /><br />//Objectively, life is logically prior to freedom because you cannot have freedom without life.//<br /><br />I absolutely agree. However, just because something is a pre-requisite for something else to occur, does not make the initial thing a right, of itself. <br /><br />//As you define it!//<br /><br />Granted, granted.<br /><br />//Perhaps try, but not able to succeed.//<br /><br />But, I believe that in my world, they would not succeed, because of a huge number of other factors. Other people donating water to the natives, for example.<br /><br />Considering the situation, I have racked my brains trying to think of a situation where a just property owner (rather than an absolute monarch who does not own a land by a just action) has committed genocide or mass murder against a population. Or where an individual has been killed by being suffocated without being physically restrained. Or, in fact, of a situation where a child has been shot because they took some food to feed themselves, rather than being allowed to by the property owner? I cannot think of any. Can you?<br /><br />It seems Feser is rejecting the principles that I am working on, largely on the basis of some immensely unlikely circumstances.<br /><br />Anyway, I have certainly thought in new directions in the course of this discussion. Thank you for raising the point about a starving child at a table, and the only way to get rid of them is to kill them. It brings into sharp focus the reality of abortion.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-28778566937195354222010-06-23T21:14:48.930+01:002010-06-23T21:14:48.930+01:00Yes, but as we all know, their version of freedom ...<i>Yes, but as we all know, their version of freedom is inconsistent, and ill thought out. Whereas mine is consistent.</i><br /><br />LOL! In fact, I was going to say that consistency is the virtue I do recognise in it. However, I don't think people who disagree can be so easily faulted. Firstly, I think it fails before it starts because it proceeds from only one premise. Secondly, I think the anthropology on which it is based is serially flawed. There is an inherent dualism which I find virtually unintelligble, and there is an atomisation that I think conflicts with facts I find at least as basic as your doctrine of self-ownership. Thirdly, it does not attend to other things that seem as valuable: life and justice. With regard to the latter, your scheme results in extreme injustices. A starving child can be killed for taking a raisin from her own parents (as a last resort of course) and an employee who inadvertently takes a paperclip home may similarly be killed by his employer (again, provided it is a last resort). Finally, anyone who does not act according to your doctrine (because they can make no sense of it) can have their freedoms curtailed (of course, you don't think those are legitimate freedoms, but they do, and regard your curtailing of their freedoms as illegitimate because based on a foundation that is so flawed). In short, it doesn't seem to me that freedom is the key to this doctrine: the only virtue is consistency and that makes it nothing more than an exercise in logic. The fact that it does not form your own personal morality does not inspire confidence!<br /><br /><i>Feser believes that someone dying has a greater right to your property than you do</i><br /><br />But the category mistake here is to regard one's body as property in no different sense from property that is not one's body. I think that's just another example of your philosophy being careful to be consistent, at the expense of rich realities it is seeking to describe and govern.<br /><br /><i>Because in my world, everyone is educated according to their parents wishes, and most parents do not educate their children about abortion being just.</i><br /><br />Yes, but it is just on your world-view. Therefore, parents would educate children in this way, if (which God forbid), anyone ever attempted to put in place your political philosophy.<br /><br /><i>It is also a world without genocide, war, theft, murder and assault. So, not that violent really.</i><br /><br />Well yes, <i>if</i> everyone abides by your position <i>and</i> I accept that none of the actions that are permitted are murder (which I don't, abortion is murder). If everyone accepted the teachings of Jesus and lived by them, there would be no genocide, war, theft, murder and assault either. Does that make you want to convert?!<br /><br /><i>Say I am a landowner in a desert. I am a racist, and hate the natives. I decide to buy up all the oases in the area, so I can make the locals die of thirst. Ought I be able to try?</i><br /><br />Perhaps try, but not able to succeed.<br /><br /><i>But that would mean that life is not, of itself, a worthwhile commodity. Rather it is freedom that is most important.</i><br /><br />I wasn't defending their position, just indicating that I didn't think your previous point was pertinent. <br /><br /><i>Yes, but my point was to show that life, of itself, is not valued as highly as freedom, certainly for many people.</i><br /><br />Yes, and my point was to say it is irrelevent what people subjectively value. Objectively, life is logically prior to freedom because you cannot have freedom without life.<br /><br /><i>They are still free, just not permitted to physically aggress.</i><br /><br />As you define it!Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9001121738545655196.post-38529370219879333492010-06-23T19:15:09.828+01:002010-06-23T19:15:09.828+01:00Albert,
//But perhaps only because they believe t...Albert,<br /><br />//But perhaps only because they believe the slaves are owned by others (themselves, and God for example).//<br /><br />But that would mean that life is not, of itself, a worthwhile commodity. Rather it is freedom that is most important.<br /><br />//Someone who killed themselves in order to secure freedom would be gravely wrong IMO.//<br /><br />See, I believe that would be most noble and heroic. <br /><br />//Someone may choose his own death to defend freedom,//<br /><br />Yes, but my point was to show that life, of itself, is not valued as highly as freedom, certainly for many people. The fact that they do not take their own lives, is largely irrelevant. The fact is that they are prepared to die to defend liberty. That clearly demonstrates a hierarchy of priorities, with life being below freedom. <br /><br />//It would follow from that that you ought to be careful about curtailing the freedoms of those who do not act according to you doctrine of freedom.//<br /><br />I am very careful! However, you say that I have curtailed their freedom, but I have not, according to my own doctrine. They are still free, just not permitted to physically aggress.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18251711519070770372noreply@blogger.com