Altruism

[Ellen Stuttle]

Scenrios like these [J's in his post #127] tell you nothing.

They tell you how incredibly complex a scene J can come up with. (LOL) And how even farther-fetched a scene than the original babe-in-the-wilderness conjecture.

Seriously, J, what do you think the example you've spun offers by way of illumination on the central question on the table, which is that of whether a child is entitled to care by anyone other than the child's parents?

Ellen

___

I wanted to alter the scenario so that it represented the loss of a person whom Objectivists would likely value very highly, as opposed to an abandoned infant, which they might see as nothing more than an annoying thing which is not fully human or rights-deserving, and I wanted to make the life-saving action or "unchosen obligation" to be as brief and effortless as possible, thus the mere pressing of a button (no taxation or other imposed financial commitment, no possibility of long-term care, etc.). I also wanted the person who avoided saving someone to have a sort of Hickman-like defiance -- fully conscious of his decision and proud of the fact that he intentionally allowed the Objectivist hero to die.

Judging by the responses, apparently those here who oppose the idea of positive rights are consistent in their views.

I can appreciate the attempt, though I think that you haven't actually succeeded at coming up with a good test case. The circumstance you proposed is elaborately far-fetched, I would say, and furthermore, though I'm no legal expert, I expect it would be easily coverable with a "wilful negligence" sort of umbrella. I'll give a real-world example below which I think is a better test case. First a couple other comments.

Also, I asked about the consequences of someone who beats the hell out of a Wesley, because I've heard opponents of positive rights in the past say that in such situations they would probably kick the creep's ass themselves and face the legal consequences, which, to me, is not consistent. I think it's pretty silly for someone to say, in effect, "I don't want to sully the legal system with laws which require people to take actions in emergency situations, but I'm totally in favor of me or other private citizens beating the piss out of someone who refused to take the type of action that would be required by the laws that I oppose."

The same is true of Objectivists or libertarians who allegedly oppose animal rights yet would be willing to physically intervene if they saw someone torturing an animal (which was owned by the torturer). I think that if you're not willing to physically prevent people from slicing up an inanimate object because you claim to respect private property rights, but you are willing to stop them from slicing up living puppies that they own, then you support animal rights to some degree regardless of your not wanting the official legal system to be able to take the actions that you're willing to take yourself. As I see it, there's no difference in principle between wanting a government to prevent, or to retaliate against, certain actions (or lack of actions) and taking matters into your own hands and using force in response to the same actions (or lack of actions).

I don't see the inconsistency you're seeing in the first paragraph. Instead, what I see about both the child-in-the-wilderness scene and the motorcyclist-by-the-roadside scene is the practical impossibility of phrasing a law to cover the specified circumstance which stays in the narrow bounds intended by those who want a law "just to cover emergencies." It's been pointed out numerous times, for one thing, that defining an "emergency" would be tricky. Next there's the problem of laws NOT staying neatly circumscribed. If there's one thing I think should have been learned from the history of law-making it's that laws grow. Render onto those who like to oversee other people's business one little law and you'll soon have a whole book-full of laws. So where do you suggest drawing the line, and how do you propose keeping the line where you want it?

Regarding the animal cruelty issue, I think that is a sticky wicket, and I don't have what I'd consider a good solution. But I don't think it's the same case as whether an adult is responsible for another person's child or not. In the case of observed actual physical abuse (or willful neglect) of someone else's child, this is no different in principle from seeing someone trying to assault another adult. It's coverable without laws making one person liable for taking care of another person's child. In the case of animals, there's the issue of whether an animal is a "possession" which can be disposed of and treated as the "owner" pleases or not. How to answer that one without getting entangled in potentially disastrous "animal rights" extensions, I don't know (though I'd like to have an answer).

Returning to an emergency situation involving a child, I'll pose you a circumstance which is a real-world circumstance, one which occurred one day when I went to a grocery store.

The place was Peoria, Illinois. The neighborhood was mostly residential, except along one street bordering the residential area. That street was a very busy one, heavily traficked at most times day and night, doubly so during peak hours. The event occurred during a peak hour. The street was lined with businesses, one of them a grocery store where I happened to be buying some groceries when...

I was at the check-out counter and I saw a woman rushing around looking frenziedly alarmed. I asked, had she lost something? "My 3-year-old," she replied. Gasp of horror, lost 3-year-old could so easily step on the electrified patch which would open the outer door, with then only a sidewalk between the door and the busy street. Several people came to the woman's assistance, some combing the aisles, some of us going outside (in case the child had gone out) hoping to prevent the child from getting into the street. One of the check-out personnel alerted the store manager, but then she and the other two check-out clerks proceeded with their job. Several customers meanwhile proceeded with their progression through the line, not bothering to basically "drop everything" and help with trying to find the child.

This ended well. The child had gotten out of the store but had not gotten into the street.

So here's my question to you: If you think there should be a law for covering the original babe-in-the-wilderness scene, what of the real-life scene I've described? Suppose the child had gotten into the street and been hit by a car: Would you want to see negligence charges against the check-out clerks and customers who proceeded about their business instead of helping?

Ellen

PS: I have a houseguest arriving and likely won't have time for posting again until Friday.

___

Edited March 24, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[cjsmall]

After reading Ellen's excellent example of the behavior of the people in the grocery store, it reminded me of an article by Christine Silk which appeared in the old Navigator magazine. I just reread it and I think it has some important insights that pertain to this discussion. Here is a link to the article which I located on the TAS website.

Why Did Kitty Genovese Die?

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Jonathan]

I wanted to alter the scenario so that it represented the loss of a person whom Objectivists would likely value very highly, as opposed to an abandoned infant, which they might see as nothing more than an annoying thing which is not fully human or rights-deserving, and I wanted to make the life-saving action or "unchosen obligation" to be as brief and effortless as possible, thus the mere pressing of a button (no taxation or other imposed financial commitment, no possibility of long-term care, etc.). I also wanted the person who avoided saving someone to have a sort of Hickman-like defiance -- fully conscious of his decision and proud of the fact that he intentionally allowed the Objectivist hero to die.

Judging by the responses, apparently those here who oppose the idea of positive rights are consistent in their views.

I can appreciate the attempt, though I think that you haven't actually succeeded at coming up with a good test case. The circumstance you proposed is elaborately far-fetched, I would say, and furthermore, though I'm no legal expert, I expect it would be easily coverable with a "wilful negligence" sort of umbrella.

Am I misunderstanding your position? In the paragraph above you seem to find "willful negligence" laws acceptable, but I thought that they were precisely the type of laws that were being argued against. If you don't have a problem with willful negligence laws, what's the difference between them and "good samaritan" or "emergency" laws that you would oppose? Why would willful negligence laws not apply to a hiker who does not rescue an abandoned babe from imminent death by exposure in a forest?

And how does one justify willful negligence laws if one restricts oneself to basing laws on negative rights? If Wesley from my story cannot be compelled by law to take any action to save Hank when he knows that he's the only person who can save him, why would there be any circumstances under which Wesley should be held legally accountable for not acting? I'd think that if he has the right to take no action and to allow Hank to die, then he also has the right to do so quite knowingly and intentionally, and even to brag about it if he wishes.

I don't see the inconsistency you're seeing in the first paragraph. Instead, what I see about both the child-in-the-wilderness scene and the motorcyclist-by-the-roadside scene is the practical impossibility of phrasing a law to cover the specified circumstance which stays in the narrow bounds intended by those who want a law "just to cover emergencies." It's been pointed out numerous times, for one thing, that defining an "emergency" would be tricky. Next there's the problem of laws NOT staying neatly circumscribed. If there's one thing I think should have been learned from the history of law-making it's that laws grow. Render onto those who like to oversee other people's business one little law and you'll soon have a whole book-full of laws. So where do you suggest drawing the line, and how do you propose keeping the line where you want it?

Do "willful negligence" laws cover specified circumstances without necessarily straying from their intended boundaries?

I don't know how to write any law which would be immune to lawyers and politicians selectively reinterpreting it, stretching and expanding it to serve their interests.

Returning to an emergency situation involving a child, I'll pose you a circumstance which is a real-world circumstance, one which occurred one day when I went to a grocery store.

The place was Peoria, Illinois. The neighborhood was mostly residential, except along one street bordering the residential area. That street was a very busy one, heavily traficked at most times day and night, doubly so during peak hours. The event occurred during a peak hour. The street was lined with businesses, one of them a grocery store where I happened to be buying some groceries when...

I was at the check-out counter and I saw a woman rushing around looking frenziedly alarmed. I asked, had she lost something? "My 3-year-old," she replied. Gasp of horror, lost 3-year-old could so easily step on the electrified patch which would open the outer door, with then only a sidewalk between the door and the busy street. Several people came to the woman's assistance, some combing the aisles, some of us going outside (in case the child had gone out) hoping to prevent the child from getting into the street. One of the check-out personnel alerted the store manager, but then she and the other two check-out clerks proceeded with their job. Several customers meanwhile proceeded with their progression through the line, not bothering to basically "drop everything" and help with trying to find the child.

This ended well. The child had gotten out of the store but had not gotten into the street.

So here's my question to you: If you think there should be a law for covering the original babe-in-the-wilderness scene, what of the real-life scene I've described? Suppose the child had gotten into the street and been hit by a car: Would you want to see negligence charges against the check-out clerks and customers who proceeded about their business instead of helping?

No, I wouldn't want to see charges filed against those who went about their business. In your scenario, you have several other people already looking for the lost child, and the child is not yet known to be in actual peril -- he might be outside sitting on the mechanical pony ride and waiting for mommy to come out and put a quater in it for him -- which is quite different from the scenario of a lone hiker who is probably the only person who will discover and have the opportunity to save a babe in the woods who is in imminent danger of death by exposure. As I understand good samaritan laws as they're currently written, people are required to render reasonable assistance, which could include notifying others who are capable of helping. If those "others" (mommy, store manager, clerks, customers, etc.) have already been notified and are seen to be taking action, then those not helping would not be held accountable in the event that the child had been found to be injured or killed.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that everyone must drop what they're doing and dedicate their lives and fortunes to caring for others who are in possible danger. I think the idea is that if you are in a situation in which you, and most likely only you, can rescue someone (or alert others who are more qualified to perform the rescue) without endangering yourself, and with minimal effort, no long-term involvement, etc., then you should be charged with something like "willful negligence" if you don't do anything to help the person in danger.

J

Edited March 25, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know how to write any law which would be immune to lawyers and politicians selectively reinterpreting it, stretching and expanding it to serve their interests.

Jonathan,

Dayaamm!

LOL...

That made my day.

I think the idea is that if you are in a situation in which you, and most likely only you, can rescue someone (or alert others who are more qualified to perform the rescue) without endangering yourself, and with minimal effort, no long-term involvement, etc., then you should be charged with something like "willful negligence" if you don't do anything to help the person in danger.

That about sums up the essentials of the situation without talking around it or changing it. Thank you.

Now why that should be (and if it should be) is another question.

The closest I have come to an answer for why not is a kind of Catch 22. I constantly hear Objectivists (and other decent people) say they and others like them would never let such an absurd situation happen, etc. etc. etc., so there is no need for such legal protection of the infant. But, if turned around and looked at from the other end, one could reasonably ask, if no one would ever do that, then why object to a penalty for doing it? Good guys would never be at risk according to this argument. Penalties are supposed to be for bad guys anyway. We all agree that if a person did that, he would be a bad guy.

I am not proposing. Just musing...

Michael

[tjohnson]

But, if turned around and looked at from the other end, one could reasonably ask, if no one would ever do that, then why object to a penalty for doing it? Good guys would never be at risk according to this argument. Penalties are supposed to be for bad guys anyway. We all agree that if a person did that, he would be a bad guy.

I am not proposing. Just musing...

Michael

OK, I'll play the devil's advocate. When law-makers get carried away with making laws we end up with so many that we actually lose respect for laws and so it becomes counter productive. We already have many "shades" of murder, everything from 1st degree down to criminal negligence. What's next, murder by disinterest?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

The normal fear by Objectivists of making a law is the governemt's growth of power after establising a precedent. This is what mostly happens, but not always.

I am not so sure there are shades of murder as a concept. In my view, there are shades of penalties for differing contexts under which one human being has been killed by another.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

GS,

The normal fear by Objectivists of making a law is the governemt's growth of power after establising a precedent. This is what mostly happens, but not always.

I am not so sure there are shades of murder as a concept. In my view, there are shades of penalties for differing contexts under which one human being has been killed by another.

Michael

There are two shades of murder, generally referred to as First and Second Degree. In NY State (and maybe some other states) First Degree is reserved for murder of law enforcement officers and Second Degree is first degree for civilians. I presume that NY has a third degree for what is commonly thought of as second degree elsewhere. This is all nomeclature, however actuate I'm being--I'm no real authority. There are many types of homocide, including murder, justified, manslaughter, types of manslaughter, etc. Look, this just isn't important. Here the law does a pretty good job. It has nothing to do with disrespecting the law. There is nothing under the law for soldiers killing enemy combatants I'm aware of--if they actually are and not in controlled custody.

--Brant.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Am I misunderstanding your position? In the paragraph above you seem to find "willful negligence" laws acceptable, but I thought that they were precisely the type of laws that were being argued against. If you don't have a problem with willful negligence laws, what's the difference between them and "good samaritan" or "emergency" laws that you would oppose? Why would willful negligence laws not apply to a hiker who does not rescue an abandoned babe from imminent death by exposure in a forest?

And how does one justify willful negligence laws if one restricts oneself to basing laws on negative rights?

I took a break from the houseparty in progress to see if there had been further posts on this thread. Just a brief comment on the above questions, J:

As I said, I'm not at all knowledgeable about the correct legal terminology. My thought in regard to your scene, which I do consider a most unlikely one, is that maybe "willful negligence" could be stretched to cover it. Maybe it could be stretched to cover the babe in the wilderness, too. My understanding of "willful negligence" is if you don't remedy some situation you cause which could potentially harm someone else and then someone is harmed. The difficulty of applying that to your scene or to the babe-in-the-wilderness scene is that Wesley or the hiker isn't the person who caused the danger.

My understanding of "willful negligence" is that it's covered under negative rights as an instance of implicit contract.

On the other hand, my understanding of "good samaritan" laws is what Wolf indicated somewhere up the thread: not laws saying that people have to help in emergencies but instead laws to protect medical personnel from being sued if they do help and the help backfires.

Some expert advice on correct legal definitions would be useful.

Later for the rest of your post.....back to the party.

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

Point of information. Equitable 'implied contract' is when you go into a restaurant and order dinner; the implied duty is to pay for it before you leave, regardless of whether it was awful and despite the fact that you didn't negotiate and sign an explicit agreement promising to pay in cash. If your credit card is declined or the restaurant's card reader is kaput, you still have to pay in cash in full before you leave. That's all 'implied contract' means, nothing about requiring average joe citizen to save somebody in peril, to care for children or grandchildren or elderly parents, or to apprehend criminals or do anything else in aid of society.

Wikipedia Business Dictionary

W.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[tjohnson]

GS,

The normal fear by Objectivists of making a law is the governemt's growth of power after establising a precedent. This is what mostly happens, but not always.

I am not so sure there are shades of murder as a concept. In my view, there are shades of penalties for differing contexts under which one human being has been killed by another.

Michael

As Brant mentioned, maybe 'homicide' would have been a better term - shades of homicide. I think the statement "killed by another" may be too strong, I'm thinking like when one human has died as a result of another's activity/inactivity. As I said (or meant) before, writing laws to try and make people more caring for the plight of other humans is much like what religion does. What other purpose would a "good samaritan" law exist for?

[Brant Gaede]

GS,

The normal fear by Objectivists of making a law is the governemt's growth of power after establising a precedent. This is what mostly happens, but not always.

I am not so sure there are shades of murder as a concept. In my view, there are shades of penalties for differing contexts under which one human being has been killed by another.

Michael

As Brant mentioned, maybe 'homicide' would have been a better term - shades of homicide. I think the statement "killed by another" may be too strong, I'm thinking like when one human has died as a result of another's activity/inactivity. As I said (or meant) before, writing laws to try and make people more caring for the plight of other humans is much like what religion does. What other purpose would a "good samaritan" law exist for?

Well, so much for "homocide." It was fun while it lasted.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What other purpose would a "good samaritan" law exist for?

GS,

Actually, a very good case could be made for payment, within confines like what Jonathan stated above for emergencies, and within what I did for child obligation (parents and legal guardians, then in the absence of those, the government, and in the absence of that and under certain circumstances, any healthy capable adult who is near enough to do something).

I remember once reading Lysander Spooner on the Constitution. He claimed that it was a contract he didn't sign. Other people did. So it was absurd for him to be obligated by such a document.

If you accept the premise that you are bound under such a document signed by others, and you receive benefit from the social structure that results, then you are obligated to pay something for those benefits under the trader principle. Knowing that you will be protected to a reasonable extent in an emergency or as an infant binds you to provide the same for other citizens.

Contracts where only one side receives value do exist, but they are rare and usually not enforcable since the consideration would either be flawed for lack of equitable value, or the benefits would fall under "gift."

Michael

[tjohnson]

Actually, a very good case could be made for payment

Michael

So you mean if I ignored some kid drowning in the river then I might be sued by the parents?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So you mean if I ignored some kid drowning in the river then I might be sued by the parents?

No.

[Jonathan]

As I said, I'm not at all knowledgeable about the correct legal terminology. My thought in regard to your scene, which I do consider a most unlikely one...

I agree that it's an unlikely scenario. I don't think it's the type of thing that happens every day, or even every decade, or that it needs it's own law. I just thought it was an interesting hypothetical to test the extremes. I do, however, sometimes read about cases involving things like what Dragonfly mentioned -- motorcycle or automobile accidents, or a heart attack victim in a parking lot, etc. -- where people were caught on surveillance video gawking and then driving or walking past.

...is that maybe "willful negligence" could be stretched to cover it. Maybe it could be stretched to cover the babe in the wilderness, too. My understanding of "willful negligence" is if you don't remedy some situation you cause which could potentially harm someone else and then someone is harmed. The difficulty of applying that to your scene or to the babe-in-the-wilderness scene is that Wesley or the hiker isn't the person who caused the danger.

My understanding of "willful negligence" is that it's covered under negative rights as an instance of implicit contract.

I'm not that knowledgeable about laws and legal terminology either, but perhaps there are laws other than "willful negligence" which would cover the examples being discussed. With the babe in the woods scenario, maybe a person who doesn't help the child or call others to help him might be considered complicit in a crime after the fact. If I see that my neighbor suddenly has a new 3-year-old who looks exactly like the kid that television stations and newspapers are reporting to have been kidnapped, I suspect that I could be charged with complicity if I don't report it and if someone discovers later on that I had no doubt that the neighbors had the missing child. Likewise, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to expect that a hiker should assume that an infant that he has found in the woods has been intentionally abandoned, and that he has therefore stumbled upon a crime scene which he is bound by law to report.

So, I guess the question is, would Objectivists and other anti-positive-rights people think of complicity laws as not possibly being based on negative rights? Would they oppose the idea that not reporting a crime would make them de facto accessories to the crime?

Btw, someone tell me if I'm covering old ground. I didn't follow too closely any previous discussions on this subject, either here or on RoR, so forgive me if I'm repeating stuff that's already been covered a zillion times.

On the other hand, my understanding of "good samaritan" laws is what Wolf indicated somewhere up the thread: not laws saying that people have to help in emergencies but instead laws to protect medical personnel from being sued if they do help and the help backfires.

Minnesota's good samaritan law addresses both duty to assist and immunity from liability for emergency caregivers.

Later for the rest of your post.....back to the party.

Have fun. Drink a few for me.

J

Edited March 26, 2008 by Jonathan

[Ellen Stuttle]

J, our houseguest left some hours ago. I signed on to try to answer your posts on this thread. I see that meanwhile Michael has started a thread pertaining to a particular recent news story:

SEE.

Judging from your saying that you hadn't been much following earlier discussions of the child-in-the-wilderness issue, I'm thinking that probably the way your and my communicating went off here is because of your seeing as upermost the person-in-an-emergency part of the scene whereas what Michael's opponents on all the threads so far have been most concerned about is his viewing the scene in terms of what he sees as the child's "right to life" -- by which he means, though he might not like this bald a statement, the child's "right" to be kept alive by someone, if not by the child's parents then by someone else. I request, before you and I debate further, that you read MSK's posts on this particular thread and the posts so far (through my post, #5) on the linked thread to see if you can understand from those why some of us find Michael's views on the subject confused.

Ellen

___

Edited March 28, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... by which he means, though he might not like this bald a statement, the child's "right" to be kept alive by someone, if not by the child's parents then by someone else.

Ellen,

If that isn't murking up the issue, I don't know what is.

There is a huge difference between extracting an infant from the jaws of danger and supporting him for years. No matter how many times I say that, or others say it, and there has been many times and many people, you ignore it.

The original example for the stranger encountering the child in the wilderness was merely to extract the infant from the jaws of danger. For general care, I gave my daisy chain of responsibility, but let me elaborate once more: the parents, in the absense of those, the the legal guardians (and that would include teachers during school time), in the absense of those, the government, in the absense of that, any capable adult who is near enough to do something. Obviously, for long-term care, all a stranger would have to do is get the child to the authorities. That is, out in the real world. In Ellen-land, this possibility apparently is absurd.

If you wish to misrepresent what I say and try to oversimplify it to spin the meaning out of it and make it more to your liking, I will correct you.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

... by which he means, though he might not like this bald a statement, the child's "right" to be kept alive by someone, if not by the child's parents then by someone else.

Ellen,

If that isn't murking up the issue, I don't know what is.

There is a huge difference between extracting an infant from the jaws of danger and supporting him for years. No matter how many times I say that, or others say it, and there has been many times and many people, you ignore it.

The original example for the stranger encountering the child in the wilderness was merely to extract the infant from the jaws of danger. For general care, I gave my daisy chain of responsibility, but let me elaborate once more: the parents, in the absense of those, the the legal guardians (and that would include teachers during school time), in the absense of those, the government, in the absense of that, any capable adult who is near enough to do something. Obviously, for long-term care, all a stranger would have to do is get the child to the authorities. That is, out in the real world. In Ellen-land, this possibility apparently is absurd.

If you wish to misrepresent what I say and try to oversimplify it to spin the meaning out of it and make it more to your liking, I will correct you.

Michael

I wonder if Barbara Branden had any idea what sort of discussion would be started when she posted (and I reproduce her original post in its entirety):

"We are here on earth to do good for others. What the others are here for, I don't know."

W.H. Auden

Alfonso (smiling)

[BaalChatzaf]

I wonder if Barbara Branden had any idea what sort of discussion would be started when she posted (and I reproduce her original post in its entirety):

"We are here on earth to do good for others. What the others are here for, I don't know."

W.H. Auden

Alfonso (smiling)

The literal truth is that we are here on earth by accident and for no particular reason.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Ellen,

(snip)

If you wish to misrepresent what I say and try to oversimplify it to spin the meaning out of it and make it more to your liking, I will correct you.

Michael

There's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

Instead of a snarky opinion, I would appreciate an example—like I provided with Ellen. I think we can discuss and disagree and examine without needing to rely on rhetoric to replace facts.

If I misrepresented someone's words, I will be glad to correct it. Example, please.

Michael

[merjet]

If I misrepresented someone's words, I will be glad to correct it. Example, please.

In post 169 Ellen said nothing about length of time, but your response was as if she had said "for years."

Edited March 28, 2008 by Merlin Jetton

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

Ellen has said the "for years" thing in other posts. And how do you interpret the phrase "kept alive"? Snatching from the jaws of disaster? To me, that's quite a stretch.

But let's see if Ellen weighs in on this. I understand her argument to be that one should not give ears to the argument about a momentary emergency because it is a slippery slope that leads to proposing more complete care for children by strangers, like caring for the neighbor's child, which I think she mentioned before. I understand her position to be what I just stated from the body of her posts over time.

Did I misunderstand her position? If not, why am I obligated to presume it was not her position just because she did not use the word "years" in a particular post, but used a general term instead—and, I might add, in a manner that weds perfectly to her previous posts?

Like I said, if I misrepresented her words, I will be more than happy to correct it. But I don't think I did in this case. Let's see what she says.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

In my post #166, I described you as seeing a child's "right to life" as meaning a "child's 'right' to be kept alive by someone, if not by the child's parents then by someone else. "

As I anticipated you would, you objected to this description. However, you then proceeded to demonstrate its accuracy. You wrote:

[....] For general care, I gave my daisy chain of responsibility, but let me elaborate once more: the parents, in the absense of those, the the legal guardians (and that would include teachers during school time), in the absense of those, the government, in the absense of that, any capable adult who is near enough to do something. Obviously, for long-term care, all a stranger would have to do is get the child to the authorities. [....]

I.e., if the parents aren't available then some legally appointed authority has to take care of that child, and if such authority isn't immediately to hand, "any capable adult who is near enough to do something" has to pinch-hit until the child can be gotten to "the authorities."

You wrote of the same sequence of responsibility on March 26:

[my emphasis]

[...] for child obligation (parents and legal guardians, then in the absence of those, the government, and in the absence of that and under certain circumstances, any healthy capable adult who is near enough to do something).

And, more tentatively, but providing the same line-up, on March 22:

So let's be clear about what I claim. On a personal level, I hold that reasonable care in our country has to be assured for a child to survive and this care comes from somewhere, basically the parents or legal guardians, and lacking them, the government, and lacking that in an emergency (and depending on the emergency and extenuating circumstances at that), whichever adult is near. That's on a personal level. I haven't reasoned all that out, just merely speculated on some things that were thrown at me.

Now, maybe you didn't mean what you wrote. But you did write it -- three times in the last week.

And, no, I didn't say that you said that the wayfarer in the wilderness would have to support the child for years. You are however on record, quoted above, as being of the opinion that if parents can't provide "reasonable care [for a child] in our country," this care has to come "from somewhere" -- from the government means from taxpayer-supported institutions. I.e., the fact that a child exists "in our country" means, according to your personal view, that the child is entitled to be fed. That is what I'm talking about when I say that you see a child's "right to life" as meaning a "right" to be kept alive.

Here's a question for you about the original emergency scenario that was proposed: Suppose instead of an abandonded child, the person in trouble had been an adult hiker without a cel phone and with a broken leg. Suppose another hiker with a cel phone had come along and contined on his/her way not bothering to place an emergency call. Would you be nearly as worked up over that scene? Would you have brought it up again and again?

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

I've said this before; I'll say it again: Babies abandoned in the wilderness by human parents will be raised by wolves. So don't worry about it.

(Maybe that's because of certain wolf laws promugated by the great wolf philosophers. You see, some wolves wanted to eat the babies--or leave them to their fate. The greatest wolf of them all insisted that after rescue the babies would be returned to human-land after 24 months so they could learn standard English instead of only Lupanism. However, first they must learn wolf-language so some of them could eventually become interpreters or, at least, dog protectors. Thus far 36 human babies have been rescued by wolves. 24 have been returned in good health. 6 are still in wolf hospitals, but are doing well. 6 have so far refused to go back to human-land. They seem to feel that humans aren't wolfish enough.)

--Brant

Edited March 29, 2008 by Brant Gaede