Rights of Children and Mentally Handicapped?

How can an individual have property without property rights?

I can very easily take something home from my office and be said to "have" this property. It doesn't mean it's mine according to property rights. It's easy to have property without rights to it. Ask the people in Gaza about this.

It happens all the time. With appropriate supervision in an appropriate setting. A guardian allowing their charge to do such things irresponsibly is already a crime. Where would this be happening? On your property? You have control over it.

Mentally handicapped people wielding guns happens all the time? Which supervision and setting of this event are "appropriate" exactly?

Human's have the choice to exercise their ability to reason, but that choice doesn't negate what their mode of survival is. You have it exactly backwards. The fact that reason is a human's primary means of survival is exactly why stewardship of a human is a debasing relationship. As for rationality not being a sufficient base for rights, you may want to start a new thread on that one, as it involves refuting the root of the Objectivist view of rights.

I never once claimed that rationality is not a sufficient base for rights. It's easy to defeat someone's argument when you make believe they're saying something they're not, isn't it? I claimed exactly that it IS a base for rights. I claimed that a human without rationality has no basis for rights.

You are changing your tune now. Your original point was that children, the elderly, and the handicapped do not have rights on the basis of incompetence. If, as you now say, rights cannot be granted or taken away, how does a human being lose his rights in old age? How is a child (who you have said has no rights) granted them? We don't appear to both understand and acknowledge this, because your original point was that through some process human beings either gain or lose their rights. Also, a guardian and a steward are not the same thing.

I haven't changed my tune a bit. One of my points: children have no rights. When one's rationality develops, they can no longer be called a child, can they? If there was no difference between children and adults, we wouldn't differentiate the two with terminology would we? So I maintain that CHILDREN have no rights. Rational adults have rights. When children become rational adults, they cease to be children, thus the rights they possess come along with their adulthood. Similarly, when one's rationality decomposes in old age, they can no longer be said to possess what it means to be a rational adult, and thus, they no longer have the rights associated with that status. The rights aren't "granted" or "taken away" per se. They are embodied in rational adulthood. Some of my wording I suppose is incorrect. Apologies for that.

If you research the definition of stewardship, then continue to research the definition of the concepts that define stewardship, it will become clearer. Stewardship involves property. Saying certain humans need stewardship because they don't have rights is not an adaptation of the concept "stewardship". Its an assertion that certain humans are on par with animals.

Words routinely evolve as usage takes its course. The list of words we use every day that are inconsistent with the origins of said words would be a mile long. Accordingly, I don't need to research the origins of stewardship, as the understanding of it the way I've used it here has been made clear. I'm not the first to talk of stewardship in a manner other than with regards to property.

You do not have the right to fly like a bird by the way. You have the right to use reason to sustain yourself.

I'm glad we got that out of the way. Why don't I have the right to fly like a bird? Because I don't possess the ability to fly like a bird. If I had the ability, surely I'd have the right. Similarly, people with no ability to reason surely have no right to exercise said reason.

Do you understand that the assertion that they have no rights leaves no intellectual defense against their slaughter?

Sure there is. They're property, right? And I have property rights. Isn't that the argument you've been attributing to me? Let's run with it.

Who are we referring to? Orphans? Orphanages and extended family. The immaculately conceived?

How about the elderly with no guardians? That's more specifically who I was referring to.

Your responsibility to care for her isn't a matter of her rights, its a consequence of yours.

And this is still what I've already been saying. It's true, it's not a matter of her rights. So, back to your whole argument... if my responsibility to care for my daughter isn't a matter of her rights, but rather, a consequence of my rights, what is your explanation of why children with no parents, mentally handicapped with no parents, or elderly folks with no parents have the right to be taken care of?

Noone helping them would be sad in some cases (the elderly).

But I thought they had a right to be taken care of? If so, an absence of such care would necessarily be a violation of rights. Who's guilty of the violation?

Objectivism, which I believe, absolutely denies that you or anyone has to perform "duties" of any kind that are self-sacrificing.

So if I'd rather watch tv than feed my child, that would be totally fine according to objectivism? Since feeding my child involves sacrificing my free time?

Your values and agreements are what should be motivating you, not some nebulous "duty".

Nearly all of these "nebulous" duties are performed precisely BECAUSE of one's values and agreements.

Thats correct, because they don't have a right to your efforts. Not under any duty or name.

I'm glad you made this clear. I don't need to continue making my argument. You've made it for me. Not under any duty or name does anyone have the right to anyone's efforts in making sure they survive.

Jacob H Moore

Post 21

Saturday, May 2, 2009 - 2:37pm

I can very easily take something home from my office and be said to "have" this property. It doesn't mean it's mine according to property rights. It's easy to have property without rights to it. Ask the people in Gaza about this.

Theft is not an affirmation of property rights. What you're referring to is "possession". I might be able to ask the people in Gaza about the violation of property rights though.

Mentally handicapped people wielding guns happens all the time? Which supervision and setting of this event are "appropriate" exactly?

Children do as well. Properly supervised to ensure safety as their guardians decide on property with owner consent.

I never once claimed that rationality is not a sufficient base for rights. It's easy to defeat someone's argument when you make believe they're saying something they're not, isn't it? I claimed exactly that it IS a base for rights. I claimed that a human without rationality has no basis for rights.

Yes, you did. You made many statements to the effect that being "irresponsible" was a sufficient base to deny inalieable rights. It is completely possible to be a rational being, but choose to behave in an irresponsible manner. In effect, being rational, but immature, handicapped, or old is grounds for removal of rights by your argument. You are also stealing concepts again. A human is a rational animal, therefore there is no such thing as a human without rationality. There are humans that are bad at it, are negligent, are immature, or crippled, but there is no such thing as a human without rational capacity. Rational capacity and its requirement for human survival is the basis of rights, not skill or DEGREE a person is being rational at any given moment.

I haven't changed my tune a bit. One of my points: children have no rights. When one's rationality develops, they can no longer be called a child, can they? If there was no difference between children and adults, we wouldn't differentiate the two with terminology would we? So I maintain that CHILDREN have no rights. Rational adults have rights. When children become rational adults, they cease to be children, thus the rights they possess come along with their adulthood. Similarly, when one's rationality decomposes in old age, they can no longer be said to possess what it means to be a rational adult, and thus, they no longer have the rights associated with that status. The rights aren't "granted" or "taken away" per se. They are embodied in rational adulthood. Some of my wording I suppose is incorrect. Apologies for that.

Children are rational beings with immature minds and unpracticed skills. To say otherwise is to say that children are animals. And yes, you are calling for the "Granting" or "taking away" of rights. Saying that rights are suddenly evident based on a subjective achievement, and (presumably) recognized by some exterior entity and are suddenly removed in old age via the same process in reverse, but that the thing that appeared or was removed really isn't given or taken is just equivocating.

Words routinely evolve as usage takes its course. The list of words we use every day that are inconsistent with the origins of said words would be a mile long. Accordingly, I don't need to research the origins of stewardship, as the understanding of it the way I've used it here has been made clear. I'm not the first to talk of stewardship in a manner other than with regards to property.

That doesn't mean that words have some subjective meaning that floats free of a base. If you don't feel you need to understand the words you use, thats your perogative, but words don't attain whatever meaning that you're pretty sure you made clear. Now that I think about it, using words while asserting that you don't have to know what they mean seems kind of irrational, so I guess you just had your rights removed in a nonspecific way that isn't really removal according to your theory. At least until the people's collective rights board determines that you're within 1% of the established people's standard of rational thought for the nonspecific granting of rights by no fiat. (I jest).

I'm not the first to talk of stewardship in a manner other than with regards to property.

What does it matter that you're not the first one to make a mistake? Most of your theory of children, handicapped, and elderly rights was actually really popular in Germany from 1933-1945.

I'm glad we got that out of the way. Why don't I have the right to fly like a bird? Because I don't possess the ability to fly like a bird. If I had the ability, surely I'd have the right. Similarly, people with no ability to reason surely have no right to exercise said reason.

You've got to be kidding. An ability and a right are not the same thing. You're pretty much saying "might makes right" when you say if I have an ability, surely you'd have the right. Again, stolen concepts. there's no such thing as a PERSON with no ability to reason. A person is a human being; a human being is a rational animal. A child can reason. A handicapped person can reason. You're denying rights based on degree of ability, not capacity.

Sure there is. They're property, right? And I have property rights. Isn't that the argument you've been attributing to me? Let's run with it.

According to you they are. At least some of the time. You apparently haven't decided yet if you're arguing for them being property or a human being. But lets run with this interpretation of yours for now. If a child is property then a parent can murder or do anything they want to their children, and there's no moral argument against it. We're talking broadly here, not just YOUR children. If you say "My children have no rights (i.e. your property), but I take care of them because I value them." then you can't refute someone who is saying "The money I can get for my children's organs is worth more to me than they are whole."

How about the elderly with no guardians? That's more specifically who I was referring to.

Already answered. Resources, planning, relationships.

And this is still what I've already been saying. It's true, it's not a matter of her rights. So, back to your whole argument... if my responsibility to care for my daughter isn't a matter of her rights, but rather, a consequence of my rights, what is your explanation of why children with no parents, mentally handicapped with no parents, or elderly folks with no parents have the right to be taken care of?

Post where I asserted anyone has the right to be cared for, other than a child's expectation of care from parents. That was never stated or implied by me. People with no options have to rely on benevolence, mercy, and the value judgements of others.

But I thought they had a right to be taken care of? If so, an absence of such care would necessarily be a violation of rights. Who's guilty of the violation?

Again, I never said or even implied such. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else you're debating. Although your earlier comments regarding making up someone elses argument to refute it come to mind. If you can find where I posted that someone has a right to another's care, quote it. The only situation that even remotely seems like this is a parent's responsibility to care for a child, which is unique.

So if I'd rather watch tv than feed my child, that would be totally fine according to objectivism? Since feeding my child involves sacrificing my free time?

See above. You have a responsibility to your child. Feeding your child doesn't "sacrifice" anything. It is meeting your responsibilities and (hopefully) acting on your hierarchy of values.

Nearly all of these "nebulous" duties are performed precisely BECAUSE of one's values and agreements.

A duty is something you do because you have to, not because you want to. A task performed not because of a value, but because of some other obligation. Again, those silly little words with specific meanings.

I'm glad you made this clear. I don't need to continue making my argument. You've made it for me. Not under any duty or name does anyone have the right to anyone's efforts in making sure they survive.

Are you posting in the correct thread? Your argument was that children, the elderly, and the mentally handicapped have no rights. How does the statement that no one has the right to another's efforts prove that people how require other's care have no rights? Are you somehow implying that by removing their rights they're going to get the care they need? How?

As to your statement about the ease of argumentation earlier. Its actually really hard to debate someone who doesn't know what they're saying, hasn't and won't consider the implications of what they do say, denies that words have specific meanings, utilizes stolen concepts, and blanks out the implications their premise.

Post 22

Saturday, May 2, 2009 - 6:33pm

You are also stealing concepts again. A human is a rational animal, therefore there is no such thing as a human without rationality. There are humans that are bad at it, are negligent, are immature, or crippled, but there is no such thing as a human without rational capacity. Rational capacity and its requirement for human survival is the basis of rights, not skill or DEGREE a person is being rational at any given moment.

I disagree that Jake is committing the stolen concept fallacy. I agree with Jake that rationality is a chosen way to think and live, but not an innate way. You're giving rationality an intrinsic meaning here, Ryan, and that's a mistake. A new born infant has no rational capacity. None. Neither do the elderly with dementia. Potentials aren't actual.

Rationality isn't a given in the human condition, but I agree that it's a defining characteristic of that condition. More are rational than not (thus giving us the "should" in the condition,) but it's the borderline cases that Jake is discussing.

Post 23

Saturday, May 2, 2009 - 7:02pm

A new born infant has no rational capacity.
..........

Wrong - it most certainly has the capacity - what it does not have is the experience of using it... the dementia ones, indeed, have lost the capacity [assuming ye meaning when the mind is totally gone]...

Post 24

Saturday, May 2, 2009 - 8:24pm

I completely disagree, Robert. Newborns have a potential capacity for rationality, but no actual capacity for rationality. Further, any potential capacity a newborn may have can be severely reduced, or enhanced, by upbringing. Rationality, the ability to think things through, set a fulfilling course, and attain happiness (for example) is not automatic. It is a learned behaviour.

I'm wondering, though, Robert: do you agree with Ryan that all humans have the same rights, but due to developmental or physical barriers, are simply unable to exercise them? In other words, a three year old has the right to drive a vehicle unaided, but the right is restricted, or withheld, because of developmental barriers? Or, a blind individual has the right to go deer hunting un-aided, but the same restrictions apply? I've always held that rights are linked to individual human ability. Not collective "human rights," but unique "individual rights."

(I've been enjoying this thread.)

Post 25

Saturday, May 2, 2009 - 8:41pm

No one has a right to drive a vehicle, any more than they have a right to medical care or a right to happiness... what they do have is a right to SEEK it if it can be found...

To quote Nicolas Dyke -
I would say that rights are moral principles which acknowledge the conditions of existence necessary for human life and which justify the fulfilment and protection of those conditions by and for each individual human being.

Since they relate to each person as an individual, and are derived from the physical reality of human existence, rights cannot be divorced from individual human beings. As previously noted, concepts cannot be separated from their referents. Just as egoism is per se individual, so a right inheres in an individual and does not exist apart from the individual who gives rise to it. One can no more separate their rights to life, liberty and property from men and women than one can take the organic element of free will out of their brains.

Thus there is no context in which rights �lose their meaning and function.� Our rights are always with us, in society or out of it, and whether or not they are recognised or respected. They are elements of selfhood, from birth to death, essential guardians of our existence, ready and waiting to be brought into play whenever called upon to do so. As Rand put it in 1946, rights are inalienable; inalienable meaning �that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate�not ever, not at any time, not for any reason whatsoever.�

As an aside, for completeness�s sake, it should be pointed out that there is only one fundamental right, the right to life, which stems from the fact that human beings are ends in themselves. Liberty and property, and other rights such as self-defence, are implications or corollaries of the right to life. However, these derivative rights are nonetheless necessities � sine quae non � without which human life is not possible.

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/02, 8:53pm)

Post 26

Sunday, May 3, 2009 - 9:17am

Robert,

No one has a right to drive a vehicle, any more than they have a right to medical care or a right to happiness... what they do have is a right to SEEK it if it can be found...

That's what I mean when I say an "ability" is linked to rights, but this doesn't answer my question about a three year old acting on his own, the issue of rights, and how Ryan is defining them. Even a three year old has the right to his own designs, developed by his mind's ability, no matter how limited that ability may be. If a three year old exists who can drive a vehicle flawlessly, there should be no law restricting their right to exercise that ability...or should there be? Laws restrict the actions of all three year olds now because of the general view it takes on human ability and action, not on any individual ability.

If a blind man develops a device that can distinguish the difference between a buck, doe, or fawn, between a human, cow, or dog (or anything else) within a 200 yard range, has his ability to hunt been enhanced enough to exercise his right to do so? Is he rational for choosing to practice his rights in such a way?

This doesn't speak to the kind of judgements required by a truly free society to recognize the rights of such individuals, though, and I'm far away from being an anarchist. It's just interesting to think about. At what point does, or should, a prosthetic not enable a right to be recognized? Only if it doesn't live up to recognized standards of a practice, I suppose, but who decides?

Since they relate to each person as an individual, and are derived from the physical reality of human existence, rights cannot be divorced from individual human beings. As previously noted, concepts cannot be separated from their referents. Just as egoism is per se individual, so a right inheres in an individual and does not exist apart from the individual who gives rise to it.

Right. That's my whole point, and there's no disagreement from me. An individual born with wings and the ability to fly has the right to do so. Separating ability from the act is separating the referents, in my opinion.

Thus there is no context in which rights �lose their meaning and function.� Our rights are always with us, in society or out of it, and whether or not they are recognised or respected. They are elements of selfhood, from birth to death, essential guardians of our existence, ready and waiting to be brought into play whenever called upon to do so. As Rand put it in 1946, rights are inalienable; inalienable meaning �that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate�not ever, not at any time, not for any reason whatsoever.�

Sounds like Rand agrees with me. <g>

Post 27

Sunday, May 3, 2009 - 10:05am

Regards the 3yo - ye missing the point... if, to give a specific example, a 3yo wishes to drive a vehicle, he/she must first be able to show the owner of the vehicle it is viable... licensing a person is merely an authoritarian dictating - one not need it if driving on one's own land, as many once kids could tell ye who grew up on a farm and handled the ol' tractor as well as any adult... as for cognitive skills, again it has to be shown as viable, the capacity of judgment needed...

As for the blind having prosthetics to enable - actually, there is no law forbidding a blind person per se, if said person can show, via the enhancement, the necessary ability such that the land owner would allow the hunting - after all, with the enhancement, the blind no longer is blind, any more than wearing or not wearing glasses...

Post 28

Sunday, May 3, 2009 - 10:25am

As for the blind having prosthetics to enable - actually, there is no law forbidding a blind person per se, if said person can show, via the enhancement, the necessary ability such that the land owner would allow the hunting - after all, with the enhancement, the blind no longer is blind, any more than wearing or not wearing glasses...

Perfect. Thank you.

As I've suggested, rights are irrefutably tied to ability.

Post 29

Monday, May 4, 2009 - 9:26am

Theft is not an affirmation of property rights. What you're referring to is "possession".

Possession... the condition of having something, as in property. You said "how can you have property..." I digress.

Children do as well. Properly supervised to ensure safety as their guardians decide on property with owner consent.

Fair enough, children do. But what about the events you suggest occur wherein mentally handicapped individuals routinely handle firearms?

You made many statements to the effect that being "irresponsible" was a sufficient base to deny inalieable rights.

You're dead wrong. I never said anything about being irresponsible. "Being irresponsible" implies that one has a choice otherwise. I made a clear and specific point about an incapability of responsibility, which is a profoundly different notion from "being irresponsible." My sister is irresponsible because she makes choices to be. My grandmother before she died was not capable of responsibility because she had advanced dimentia/Alzheimer's Disease. No one would have called her irresponsible because of it. Again, you're defeating arguments that I haven't made.

It is completely possible to be a rational being, but choose to behave in an irresponsible manner.

Golly, I never knew!

In effect, being rational, but immature, handicapped, or old is grounds for removal of rights by your argument.

There's a big difference between immaturity and brain damage. Apples and oranges are not analogous.

there is no such thing as a human without rationality.

Holy cow. Really? Would you appoint someone with an extra chromosome as your power of attorney in a living will advance directive, for instance? Tell me why not, without undermining your argument.

There are humans that are bad at it, are negligent, are immature, or crippled, but there is no such thing as a human without rational capacity.

Again, my grandmother was not "bad at it" or "negligent" or "immature". She was, however crippled. What was crippled? Her brain, and with it, her RATIONAL CAPACITY.

Rational capacity and its requirement for human survival is the basis of rights, not skill or DEGREE a person is being rational at any given moment.

You say this as if I'm talking about fleeting moments of lapsed judgement! I'm talking about people who have NO chance of "being rational" at ANY given moment.

Children are rational beings with immature minds and unpracticed skills. To say otherwise is to say that children are animals.

Children are potentially rational beings. They're not actually rational beings. I'm on my way to death every day, as we all are, but until I die, I won't be dead. Just because I'm headed there doesn't mean I'm there. And we're all animals in ways.

And yes, you are calling for the "Granting" or "taking away" of rights. Saying that rights are suddenly evident based on a subjective achievement, and (presumably) recognized by some exterior entity and are suddenly removed in old age via the same process in reverse, but that the thing that appeared or was removed really isn't given or taken is just equivocating.

This isn't an issue of recognition of rights. They either are or are not. Their presence does not depend on acknowledgement. And I'm not talking about someone declaring that another has reached adulthood and now has rights. I'm talking about the sometimes-so-subtle-we-can't-acknowledge-it reality that there IS a point, whatever that point may be, when a child with an inability to reason becomes an adult with the ability to reason. I'm not qualifying that point by age or height or weight, or any of that. I'm willing to acknowledge that it happens at differing times for different people, but it DOES happen, and that can't be denied. It's just like young and old. A 5-year-old is young. A 120-year-old is old. Somewhere in between, one reaches a point where he or she is no longer young. That cannot be denied. Similarly, at some point, one becomes "old". Where's that point? That's not important here. The important thing, really, is the acknowledgement that the point DOES exist. Likewise, at some very real but possibly indistinguishable point, humans attain rationality and therefore rights. They're not granted as if by someone. Just as spontaneously present the elements of the world came to be, rights spontaneously come to be when rationality is present.

That doesn't mean that words have some subjective meaning that floats free of a base.

Actually, words only have subjective meaning. If I didn't speak English, your words would certainly mean absolutely nothing to me.

If you don't feel you need to understand the words you use, thats your perogative, but words don't attain whatever meaning that you're pretty sure you made clear.

By defining and making my words clear, those words, especially within the context of this discussion, do attain the meaning I've defined and made clear. Whether the meaning is the same as some alternate meaning is irrelevant. That alternate meaning to which you're referring is of no consequence. Oh, wait, I said "alternate" which means "a person authorized to fill the position, exercise the duties, etc., of another who is temporarily absent". How will you ever be able to understand what I'm saying if words are able to have more than one definition?! Oh no!!!

What does it matter that you're not the first one to make a mistake? Most of your theory of children, handicapped, and elderly rights was actually really popular in Germany from 1933-1945.

So was cutting them up, but I'm advocating stewardship so your comparison is null and void.

You've got to be kidding. An ability and a right are not the same thing. You're pretty much saying "might makes right" when you say if I have an ability, surely you'd have the right.

Again, you're attributing arguments to me which I have not made.

there's no such thing as a PERSON with no ability to reason.

I assume you're just stating that a brain-dead vegetable on life support isn't a person.

According to you they are. At least some of the time. You apparently haven't decided yet if you're arguing for them being property or a human being.

Don't you mean that you haven't decided yet which argument you've made up for me to have said, you're going to attack next?

If a child is property then a parent can murder or do anything they want to their children, and there's no moral argument against it. We're talking broadly here, not just YOUR children. If you say "My children have no rights (i.e. your property), but I take care of them because I value them." then you can't refute someone who is saying "The money I can get for my children's organs is worth more to me than they are whole."

Luckily I never claimed they are property. Once again, this was an argument you attributed to me which I never made. So while you're absolutely right here about the problems of calling children property, you're not making any headway with me since it was never my agrument in the first place. I told you to run with it as a sarcastic figure of speech, but you did, in fact, run with it. I'd hate to see what happens if I told you to run with scissors! Now I jest. ;)

Already answered. Resources, planning, relationships.

Problem: There's a fire on the 3rd floor. Your Solution: Don't start a fire. This doesn't really help anyone does it? What you would do to PREVENT a problem is not a sufficient solution to a problem that already exists.

Post where I asserted anyone has the right to be cared for, other than a child's expectation of care from parents. That was never stated or implied by me. People with no options have to rely on benevolence, mercy, and the value judgements of others.

What else would you be asserting with all this? If you don't take care of children, the mentally handicapped, or the incapacitated elderly, they will DIE. Your stance is rights. My stance is stewardship.

See above. You have a responsibility to your child. Feeding your child doesn't "sacrifice" anything. It is meeting your responsibilities and (hopefully) acting on your hierarchy of values.

For the sake of argument, I have to sacrifice time playing Nintendo to feed her. I don't want to. I want to play Nintendo. She has the right to fend for herself. Correct? She'll be okay, she's a pretty smart "3".

A duty is something you do because you have to, not because you want to.

Without force, you don't have to do anything. You don't have to pay your bills, feed your kids or yourself, you don't have to do anything. So there are no duties, apparently. Even if you're legally obligated to perform a task, you don't have to do it. Civil disobedience, anyone? Or suicide... that will get you out of having to do anything.

Are you somehow implying that by removing their rights they're going to get the care they need? How?

My contention is that they don't have rights, not that I'm removing their rights. But they get the care they need. I'd explain, but I already did and I'm just tired of typing the same things over and over again.

As to your statement about the ease of argumentation earlier. Its actually really hard to debate someone who doesn't know what they're saying,

Considering I've made the same points over and over, I think it's abundantly clear I know what I'm saying. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm saying.

hasn't and won't consider the implications of what they do say

I'm willing to acknowledge that not every single implication of every single word I say has been considered. I'm not perfect. But what I am is willing to say what's on my mind, without fear of the implication police. It is what it is.

denies that words have specific meanings

Give me one and ONLY one definition of the word "fair" for instance. Noun? Adjective? Take a chance! If the one you give me is not the one for the instance of the word "fair" I have in mind, I will taunt you a second-a time-a. (This is my poorly typed impersonation of the French in The Holy Grail)

utilizes stolen concepts

I'm still waiting for you to be more specific about this accusation.

blanks out the implications their premise.

I never blanked out anything. I stand by my premise and whatever implications come with it.

Jacob H Moore

Post 30

Monday, May 4, 2009 - 4:55pm

Hi Jacob,

You wrote, �I stand by my premise and whatever implications come with it.�

Yet you are not standing by one of the implications of your premise that �they [children] don't have rights,� for this would mean that children may be used for medical testing or organ harvesting. It will not do to proclaim that you also advocate stewardship, as this fact has no effect on the implication, (unless you mean that children have no rights except the right to be stewarded.)

Post 31

Monday, May 4, 2009 - 6:47pm

It will not do to proclaim that you also advocate stewardship, as this fact has no effect on the implication, (unless you mean that children have no rights except the right to be stewarded.)

Or parented, raised, brought up, reared, etc., Jake. I see no difference between those terms and "stewarded," except that, maybe, "steward" is a little si-fi old fashioned, or something. Parents, caregivers, etc., are the stewards, and captains, of their children.

Lacking a willing or able captain, what's a drifting, rights bearing infant to do?

Jake, I seriously invite you to read this thread, if you haven't already.

Post 32

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 - 7:50am

Yet you are not standing by one of the implications of your premise that �they [children] don't have rights,� for this would mean that children may be used for medical testing or organ harvesting. It will not do to proclaim that you also advocate stewardship, as this fact has no effect on the implication, (unless you mean that children have no rights except the right to be stewarded.)

They have no right to stewardship, but we generally, as a condition of our nature similar to that of all other animals (albeit a very watered-down version), possess an instinctual desire to preserve our species through procreation, and through protection of offspring.

Also, we, as rational adults, can surely appreciate that we were protected as youths, and that our parents were, and that our grandparents were, etc. We also have the capacity to remember times in our childhoods when we may have been treated with aggression, physically or psychologically harmed, or otherwise made to feel unhappy. This empathic compassion from personal experiences coupled with our innate desire to preserve the species are two reasons we don't arbitrarily harvest organs from or perform unnecessarily harmful medical testing on children. We do, at times, harvest organs from mortally wounded children at their parents' or guardians' consent through organ donation networks, and I can speak from experience that experimental procedures have been performed on my daughter's feet from the time of her birth continuing through the present, and I would certainly be willing to file these procedures in the "medical testing" folder. The scars all over her feet and ankles surely depict a history of pain and discomfort, but they were necessary in her epic quest to walk. Thanks to these procedures, she does walk, and run a bit, and jump, despite the fact we were told she may never walk, and at best, we could hope for steps to be taken by age 8 or 9. She's 3. Thanks to medical testing she can walk. With pants that cover the tops of her shoes to hide the braces, you wouldn't even know there was ever a question about her walking.

So not only do I advocate stewardship, I also advocate instances of "medical testing" in some cases, using my own daughter's procedures as an example. Also, generous organ donation by parents or guardians has saved countless lives and given children chances to grow and flourish into responsible, stewarding adults. Like I said several posts ago, the notion of stewardship is really at its core about paying it forward. We were cared for and allowed to become productive adults. It was in our parents' best interests to do so because now we are making the world turn, and they are able to have happy retirements and enjoy time with grandchildren, and we will be taking care of them when they lose their capacities to take care of themselves. And we know that one day we will be similarly incapacitated, and we will want to be cared for, which brings us to another reason we protect children: we want to cultivate a reciprocal protective relationship as an insurance policy for our elderly years.

Jacob Hamilton Moore

P.S. Teresa, thank you for that link. Great thread! A lot of well-structured, carefully worded arguments that remind me that I'm still an amateur thinker and that I often fire from the hip! If I was one to take myself too seriously, I might even be embarrassed by my gradeschool arguments here, but fortunately this is all just fun for me. I'm fat, so the only exercise I enjoy is the brain kind. Thank you all for giving me the exercise; I'm gaining a lot of perspective and insight from this. I forgot how much I love it here! :)

(Edited by Jake Moore on 5/05, 7:55am)

Post 33

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 - 8:50am

Hi Jake,

It�s great what they were able to do for your child. I�ve been home with mine for the past seven years. Two girls, 4 and 7.

On the issue of children having no rights, you seem to be saying that it�s going to be OK because most people want to be nice instead of mean and sometimes experimental procedures are necessary and aimed at doing good for the subject. That�s all fine and YOU seem a good guy to me. But none of it changes the fact that your position implies that children can be used to determine the lethal dose of this or that, or used for organ harvesting while in perfectly good health, etc.

Post 34

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 - 3:02pm

I have to agree with Jon, Jake. The procedures on your daughter were with your consent. He's not talking about those kinds of "experiments."

He's talking about picking up orphans in Thailand, and using them as guinea pigs, because they don't have rights. He's talking about experiments done on twins in Nazi death camps, for example, because Jews had no "rights." We all know the result of that view.

Post 35

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 8:02pm

If the capacity for reason is a precondition of rights, as it is under Objectivism, then a non-rational animal (like a pig or a cow) does not have rights, which is why Objectivists are not defenders of animal rights.

Some animals are, of course, more intelligent than other animals. A chimpanzee is more intelligent than a house cat, and a monkey, more intelligent than a newborn baby or even a typical two-year old. Yet we see nothing wrong with experimenting on monkeys, much to the dismay of animal-rights activists. On the other hand, experimentation on newborns or toddlers is considered a violation of their rights. Why?

It could be argued that a monkey will never acquire the capacity to reason -- to form concepts and to think abstractly-- whereas a newborn baby or a toddler will. But that's an argument from potentiality, which is rejected in the case of abortion where it is argued that the potential for reason cannot be equated with its actuality. How then can we use that same argument in defense of the rights of young children who have not yet developed the capacity for reason but have the potential for doing so?

At some point, a young child will reach the age of reason -- will acquire the capacity to form concepts and to think abstractly. When exactly that is, however, is difficult to pinpoint, which is why in recognizing the status of rights in children, one must draw a somewhat arbitrary line that allows plenty of room for error.

Clearly, a newborn does not yet possess the capacity for reason, but a five-year old does. Where then should the line be drawn? In my opinion, the safest and least controversial place to draw it is at birth -- when the child becomes a separate human being.

But does a child have the same rights as an adult? No, because a child does not have the capacity to exercise a full-fledged freedom of action. Until he reaches a certain level of maturity, he cannot know how to survive on his own. Along the way to developing that capacity, he must be cared for and supported by his parents. He has a right to such care and support, because his parents brought him into the world in a relatively helpless state and are responsible for helping him acquire the skills to become independent and self-supporting.

So a dependent child does have rights, but they are not the same rights as those of an adult.

- Bill

Post 36

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 9:48pm

Hey Bill!

You are happy to extend the benefit of the doubt to a newborn even though his capacity for reason is a mere potential and as much as five years away from actuality, on account of his having become �a separate human being.�

Then why not extend the benefit of the doubt to a fetus, due to be born in five days, on account of his having attained the actual capacity (unaided by fancy hospitals) to be a separate human being?

Post 37

Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 4:27am

But it hasn't - that's the point, else it would had birthed - been born...

Post 38

Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 6:04am

Bill,

A chimpanzee is more intelligent than a house cat, and a monkey, more intelligent than a newborn baby or even a typical two-year old.

First of all, a chimpanzee is more functional or capable than a typical two-year old, not necessarily more intelligent. Only by behaviorist's standards -- which are wrong standards -- are chimps more intelligent than typical two-year olds.

Yet we see nothing wrong with experimenting on monkeys, much to the dismay of animal-rights activists. On the other hand, experimentation on newborns or toddlers is considered a violation of their rights. Why?

It could be argued that a monkey will never acquire the capacity to reason -- to form concepts and to think abstractly-- whereas a newborn baby or a toddler will. But that's an argument from potentiality, which is rejected in the case of abortion where it is argued that the potential for reason cannot be equated with its actuality. How then can we use that same argument in defense of the rights of young children who have not yet developed the capacity for reason but have the potential for doing so?

But Rand's abortion argument was more subtle than that. The reason it's wrong to use the argument from potentiality in the case of abortion is that it pits the potential against the actual -- instead of merely arguing for a potential for the potential's sake. A potential is always better than a zero, but it is never better than an actual.

In the case of animals, human potential is better than the zero -- which means we should treat animals and humans differently, with respect to rights (because animals have zero concepts).

In the case of abortion, actual humans (e.g., pregnant women) are more important than any potential humans -- which means we should treat the fetus and mother differently, with respect to rights (actual mothers hold all the rights).

Ed

Post 39

Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 9:01am