tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post113091054644042497..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Paternal ResponsibilityRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1133310301877884092005-11-29T19:25:00.000-05:002005-11-29T19:25:00.000-05:00Any sensible person believes that women should mak...Any sensible person believes that women should make every effort possible to consult with the father of the foetus and come to an agreement on what's to happen.<BR/><BR/>In the end men are responsible for sperms and they have every "veto power" before contraception. After this point women have the veto because they are responsible for their body. If there's a baby, both are responsible for the child's future. I don't see how it can work any other way.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it's a good idea to be able to sue for a woman to abort against her own will except in the case of where continuing to full term would seriously endanger her health. Neither is it a good idea to be able to sue for a woman to be forced to carry a child to full term (as in the Nazi breeding camps).<BR/><BR/>I suppose it doesn't really support liberal principles "to allow one person to unnecessarily burden another against their will" but because there is no black and white answer to the question, the best case scenario has to be worked out that first takes into account the welfare of the potential kid and secondly the welfare of the parents equally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131703873019102662005-11-11T05:11:00.000-05:002005-11-11T05:11:00.000-05:00"Your own original post dreadfully conflates ought..."<I>Your own original post dreadfully conflates ought talk with rights talk, stuff like "child's basic rights to welfare".</I>"<BR/><BR/>That's no conflation, it's a straightforward conceptual connection. A "right" (as meant in this context, i.e. a <I>moral</I> right) is simply <I>that which moral agents ought not to violate</I>. Perhaps you are confusing this notion with the <I>legal</I>/political 'rights' that our society just happens to enforce. But I never made any such error. (I was never talking about the latter notion at all, so I certainly wasn't "conflating" it with anything.)<BR/><BR/>(For the record, I wouldn't even bring up 'rights talk', but for the fact that I was responding to someone else who had already done so. I was continuing the discussion in Dr. P's own terms.)<BR/><BR/>"<I>How do you deal with the fact that there is no uniformity of agreement on what ought?</I>"<BR/><BR/>In this case, as already noted, what the rest of us <I>were</I> doing was engaging in rational argument about the matter. But perhaps you mean to ask a broader skeptical question. In that case, I refer you to my essay on <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/06/moral-diversity-and-skepticism.html" REL="nofollow">moral diversity and skepticism</A>, which addresses just that topic and might be a more appropriate venue to continue the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131691005598199242005-11-11T01:36:00.000-05:002005-11-11T01:36:00.000-05:001) I note that is is VERY often that I can see a b...1) I note that is is VERY often that I can see a better way for a person to achieve their own aims (quite frankly I can see many ways I could achieve my own aims better). This means that the it is not all that hard to armchair philosophise superior to actual actions or norms in some/many/most situations. <BR/><BR/>I personally like to debate by assuming the person I am debating with's norms.<BR/><BR/>I find in general "non uniformity of agreement on what ought" is mostly related to an inability/unwillingness to uncover the common ground (and each person's internal contradicitons) rather than a lack of such a thing. having said that the mental effort required to find such common ground might honestly be beyond some people.<BR/><BR/>2) I note that horse-trading and other forms of norm forming politics are often many ways quite an effective method of destroying welfare (by the standards of the people engaging in those politics). I found those environments where the LEAST amount of that was going on were the best environments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131658387076717422005-11-10T16:33:00.000-05:002005-11-10T16:33:00.000-05:00Before you pompously chide me, Richard, you ought ...Before you pompously chide me, Richard, you ought to reread what you wrote yourself. Your own original post dreadfully conflates ought talk with rights talk, stuff like "child's basic rights to welfare". I'll be happy to observe the distinction when you observe it.<BR/><BR/>And that may be quite difficult when you are talking about liberalism, because liberalism not only has oughts, but also has political programs for creating rights.<BR/><BR/>I wrote: "reason based on the norms", "education, horse trading, compromise, and a host of other strategies". You call this: "mindless conformity with social norms". I suggest that you too may be abdicating reasonable argument.<BR/><BR/>Now, the reason I called the discussion silly is the same reason a punch in the nose is considered an appropriate response to certain philosophical arguments denying reality. If you wish to ignore that there are norms, and instead base your arguments on principles that you pull out of who knows what oriface, well then you're being silly.<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, chances are that your premises are merely norms in your circle of friends, subculture, class, or whatever. I'd love to see you show how they were not norms.<BR/><BR/>As I was saying, "What makes you privileged? What makes your "values" righter?" Are you forgetting that each individual who contributes to social norms considers his opinion to be what society ought to be? How do you deal with the fact that there is no uniformity of agreement on what ought? <BR/><BR/>And what purpose does your supposed analysis serve? Or should I ask who it is supposed to serve? A god? The populace? Your ego? Which are you trying to satisfy? By what standard of satisfaction? Rightness by whose standard?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131585131247198342005-11-09T20:12:00.000-05:002005-11-09T20:12:00.000-05:00No, the alternative to mindless conformity with so...No, the alternative to mindless conformity with social norms is to think critically about what is right on independent grounds. That's just what "reasonable argument" <I>is</I>, and what everyone here takes themselves to be engaging in. You ask "Why can't you persuade people to a norm you prefer?", apparently oblivious to the fact that this is precisely what we're all doing. We're discussing what is right and fair, not drafting up legal dictates.<BR/><BR/>Your comments seem to neglect the distinction between the social norms which currently prevail in our society, and those that we <I>ought</I> to adhere to. Obviously these are two quite distinct concepts (we cannot know a priori that our society is already morally perfect). And we are interested in discussing the latter. As I see it, it was <I>you</I> who "abdicate[d] reasonable argument" by suggesting that such inquiry was "silly", and we should just look to whatever social norms actually happened to be (therein confusing what 'is' with what 'ought' to be).<BR/><BR/>As Tim points out, this conflation is obviously in error. If torture were more socially accepted, that wouldn't make it right. For more, see my posts on <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/08/red-pill-arbitrary-ethics.html" REL="nofollow">arbitrary ethics</A>, and - especially - <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/07/society-and-morality.html" REL="nofollow">society and morality</A>. (This meta-issue fits better with the themes of those posts rather than this one. So I'd be happy to continue the discussion <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/07/society-and-morality.html" REL="nofollow">there</A>.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131580315721062672005-11-09T18:51:00.000-05:002005-11-09T18:51:00.000-05:00The alternative to observing social norms is to in...The alternative to observing social norms is to inflict a procrustean solution on the masses.<BR/><BR/>Don't like the social norms? What makes you privileged? What makes your "values" righter? Why can't you persuade people to a norm you prefer, rather than want to force it on them with legal rights?<BR/><BR/>In addition, use of the political process allows education, horse trading, compromise, and a host of other strategies that can better satisfy multiple groups with conflicting norms than a single decisionmaker could.<BR/><BR/>Now let's see who's next to abdicate reasonable argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131564272564356862005-11-09T14:24:00.000-05:002005-11-09T14:24:00.000-05:00Frankly, the idea that complex ethical issues can ...<I>Frankly, the idea that complex ethical issues can be resolved by ignoring what people think in favor of ivory-tower abstractions leaves me more than a little disgusted.</I><BR/><BR/>Is this only because the existing social norms do not give such power to ivory-tower elites?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131516530411926552005-11-09T01:08:00.000-05:002005-11-09T01:08:00.000-05:00Eeek! As far as I'm concerned, the approach of der...Eeek! As far as I'm concerned, the approach of deriving morality solely from social norms is a non-starter. Need I point out the blatantly obvious counter-example here?: on the social norm view, in a society in which the torture of innocent babies is socially acceptable, it follows that such baby-torturing behaviour would be morally permissable. My intuitions say otherwise on this one. This shows that there must be some other moral standard independent of social norms.<BR/><BR/>Do we really want to leave complex ethical issues up to the masses? <BR/><BR/>(Awaits being charged of elitism :P)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131511590906596752005-11-08T23:46:00.000-05:002005-11-08T23:46:00.000-05:00You might want to go to the doctor and have that c...You might want to go to the doctor and have that checked out, then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131492444254144082005-11-08T18:27:00.000-05:002005-11-08T18:27:00.000-05:00Frankly, the idea that complex ethical issues can ...Frankly, the idea that complex ethical issues can be resolved by ignoring what people think in favor of ivory-tower abstractions leaves me more than a little disgusted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131491506817345722005-11-08T18:11:00.000-05:002005-11-08T18:11:00.000-05:00How about this:In many cases a father who original...How about this:<BR/><BR/>In many cases a father who originally wants the mother to abort gains from her decision to have the child later in his life. This is because children often seek out and want a relationship with their natural fathers when they become teenagers, and many absent fathers, once they get a bit older, will get a lot of happiness from this relationship. If these fathers don't have to pay child support, their gain is paid for solely by the mother. Not only is this unfair, but it creates an incentive for a father to claim he wants the mother to abort even when he'd quite like her to bring up his children for free while he hangs out down at the TAB with his mates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131488763172186062005-11-08T17:26:00.000-05:002005-11-08T17:26:00.000-05:00"the idea that complex ethical issues can be resol..."<I>the idea that complex ethical issues can be resolved by means of a gallup poll</I>"<BR/><BR/>You mean preference utilitarianism, right? :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131481425938212402005-11-08T15:23:00.000-05:002005-11-08T15:23:00.000-05:00Also, frankly, the idea that complex ethical issue...Also, frankly, the idea that complex ethical issues can be resolved by means of a gallup poll leaves me more than a little queasy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131475169968447172005-11-08T13:39:00.000-05:002005-11-08T13:39:00.000-05:00But reasoning on the basis of existing norms is pr...But reasoning on the basis of existing norms is pretty easy. <BR/><BR/>Problem: Should fathers have to pay child support even if mothers have the final say in whether or not to abort?<BR/><BR/>Relevant Social Norms:<BR/>- The mother has ultimate say on whether to have an abortion.<BR/>- The father is required to pay child support if the baby is born. <BR/><BR/>Now that we've identified the relevant social norms, it's pretty trivial to apply them to the problem and get an answer: Yes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131425859775971652005-11-07T23:57:00.000-05:002005-11-07T23:57:00.000-05:00So if any of our positions were the norms you woul...So if any of our positions were the norms you would support them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131400005686527092005-11-07T16:46:00.000-05:002005-11-07T16:46:00.000-05:00Derek: the silliness lies in thinking that rights ...Derek: the silliness lies in thinking that rights and duties are assigned fundamentally based on philosophy, rather than social norms.<BR/><BR/>Once you have established social norms as the basis, then you can reason based on the norms, and suggest patterns of rights and duties which closely match the norms. Which is why I pointed out the norm of control of your own body, which happens to be liberal.<BR/><BR/>I don't suggest the norms are good or bad: I'd simply point out that if you tried to assign rights in violation of the norms, they probably wouldn't work. The enforcement problems would be too large.<BR/><BR/>A single instance of a right/duty pair will not conflict. But as soon as you have two, they can conflict. Which is why we have to make a choice in the "what happens when you swing your fist towards my nose" example. Your right to swing your fist can conflict with my right to swing my nose and your duty to allow me to swing it unhindered and unbroken.<BR/><BR/>geniusNZ: As we compose sets of rights to satisfy our norms, it's not unlikely we'll find exceptional cases where a general right doesn't work. Thus we have all sorts of carve-outs in rights. For example, while here in the US we have freedom of speech, we also have libel, slander, and fraud laws. Likewise, when the economics and effectiveness of medical science changes, so do the advantages/disadvantages of liberal bodily inviolability, and so the norms might well change. Not to mention there is always the possibility of voluntary, non-command exchange. But our norms already allow a number of exceptions for such cases: the military draft, prison labor, guardianship of incompetents, medical treatments for minors, and (appropriately to this discussion) third trimester bans on abortion except when the woman's health is at risk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131343788673484952005-11-07T01:09:00.000-05:002005-11-07T01:09:00.000-05:00I've written my own post hereI've written <A HREF="http://nonranting.blogspot.com/2005/11/wading-into-male-abortion-debate.html" REL="nofollow">my own post here</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131332046285314502005-11-06T21:54:00.000-05:002005-11-06T21:54:00.000-05:00> be able to demand a lifesaving organ from you by...> be able to demand a lifesaving organ from you by court order?<BR/><BR/>I dont think that blunt an approach would be required BUT if it WAS required (the only case in which this is an issue) it bothers me less than the alternative.<BR/><BR/>Let us take the most likely example - would you like to die of blood loss because a person of matching blood type didn't want you to have any of his?<BR/><BR/>In most cases you obviously won't get that situation because there are enough donors etc etc. But if it was a 100% likely scenario the "body is a temple" alternative would be extinction.<BR/><BR/>Or to enforce the golden rule - would you donate blood to a future you (in exchange, if you like, for monetary compensation and a cookie) if you knew that the future you would die without it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131301886636751422005-11-06T13:31:00.000-05:002005-11-06T13:31:00.000-05:00Mike, I find your position very confusing.What ...Mike, <BR/><BR/> I find your position very confusing.<BR/>What is the relationship betweeen your claims:<BR/><BR/><I>"The major sillyness in this discussion is that legal rights and duties are allocated according to social norms."</I><BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/><I>"So the remaining questions are what rights and duties should be allocated."</I><BR/><BR/>I thought the first claim implied that the second claim would be silly. Once you acknowledge the importance of the 'remaining questions,' you acknowledge that the social norms can be evaluated as good or bad (and possibly as right or wrong). But then what does the appeal to social norms amount to? <BR/><BR/>Another puzzle: you recognize the important relationship between rights and duties, but then you go on to confuse them by asking<BR/><I>"Which should triumph, right or duty?"</I> <BR/><BR/>If rights and duties come together in pairs, there is no conflict between rights and duties as such; the conflicts, if any, will be between specific right/duty pairs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131288077132667422005-11-06T09:41:00.000-05:002005-11-06T09:41:00.000-05:00Pretorious, we can always find cases of a right sm...Pretorious, we can always find cases of a right smacking up against another right of the same sort. And indeed abortion is possibly one such type of case, if you are talking about mother versus fetus. However, here we are talking about mother versus father.<BR/><BR/>Every right creates a coresponding duty, and in the case of the liberal right to bodily autonomy the duty is for others not to attempt to control or otherwise interfere with the body. Your fist example runs afoul of your duty to the other's right.<BR/><BR/>Which should triumph, right or duty? That's what norms are about, making decisions based on specific conflicts of rights and duties. Our society (unlike many others) has decided that the duty to not interfere with others is less restrictive than the loss of full bodily integrity.<BR/><BR/>Our society is hot and heavy now discussing abortion as such a tradeoff, between the mother and fetus. Law has (for now) settled the question one way in the US. Efforts to give the father rights would subvert female bodily autonomy by giving the father rights to dictate how the female body was to be used. It used to be that way routinely, but now that liberal ideas have been extended to non-landowners, slaves, women, and (partly) children, it's not likely to go back.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't think the tradeoff between mother and fetus should be decided presumptively in favor of the fetus because it would destroy the bright line of not allowing government to rule that you must surrender your bodily integrity in favor of another. Would you like someone with a matching immunotype to be able to demand a lifesaving organ from you by court order?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131157267122374182005-11-04T21:21:00.000-05:002005-11-04T21:21:00.000-05:00Here is an interesting one.A mother is a habitual ...Here is an interesting one.<BR/>A mother is a habitual extreme alcoholic/glue sniffer/thalidomide user (fill in the gap with anything almost guaranted to deform the child).<BR/><BR/>She falls pregnant - is she responsible to stop her activity or is the state/community allowed to prevent her from engaging in that activity or is that just an unfair breach of her absolute rights over her own body?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131150932983506962005-11-04T19:35:00.000-05:002005-11-04T19:35:00.000-05:00Mike - I'm not sure you mean that, or at least not...Mike - I'm not sure you mean that, or at least not as you've put it. Do I have the right to control my body even if it means the death of another in the case where what I'm controling is the motion, say, of my fists in relation to the body of another? That would seem wrong. Even the general right to control one's body (or more accurately, I think, self determination) comes with restrictions on the traditional account.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131149128787914632005-11-04T19:05:00.000-05:002005-11-04T19:05:00.000-05:00The major sillyness in this discussion is that leg...The major sillyness in this discussion is that legal rights and duties are allocated according to social norms. You might just as well criticize the price of gold because of "inherent value" or some such nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Upon conception, society allocates rights and duties (responsabilities) to both parents. One of those rights is (now usually) the right for the woman to abort. The rights and duties allocated depend upon the situation: if a donation occurs from a sperm bank or one of many other contractual methods, there are no rights or duties assigned to the male. If the egg is donated by a female by contract, (generally) no rights or duties are assigned to that female.<BR/><BR/>Upon miscarriage or abortion, the rights and duties become moot.<BR/><BR/>This straightforward view obviates much of the sillyness.<BR/><BR/>So the remaining questions are what rights and duties should be allocated. Under a general liberal conception of the right to control one's own body, even if it results in the death of another, abortion should be a rightful option requiring zero consent from any other party. Otherwise, once you cross that bright line, you run the danger of somebody needing an organ to live, and having that organ harvested from your body without your consent. For example, blood, marrow, one kidney, part of your liver, skin, and a host of other organs could be effectively utilized to save other people's lives without major immediate hazard to your own. I suggest that a father who wants to interfere in an abortion decision should consider bargaining with the mother about how much of his body would be donated to save how many people to balance the contribution she is making from her body, her risk, her bodily changes, her emotional changes, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131095161649787482005-11-04T04:06:00.000-05:002005-11-04T04:06:00.000-05:00With regard to the basis of your argument, that "f...With regard to the basis of your argument, that "feminists typically hold that a pregnant woman has absolute discretion over whether to get an abortion or see the child to term, with no obligation to consult the father or consider his wishes," I've typically found that most women, including feminists, hold that the women should simply have the final say. This would suggest that your argument is a straw man. If I was going to grow a baby in my stomach I'd want the final say too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1131093831019980332005-11-04T03:43:00.000-05:002005-11-04T03:43:00.000-05:00The mother is selfish because she has a baby when ...The mother is selfish because she has a baby when she's too poor? Things aren't quite that black and white in the real world Richard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com