Can you please explain what you mean by 'negative' rights.garygary wrote: My opinion is that as individuals dealing with other individuals, we only owe each other what are referred to as "negative" rights.
What should happen? Maybe there ought to be some law (maybe there already is) to obligate bystanders to an accident or crime to at least call for help, notify the police and/or ambulance? If they are found out, humiliation and shunning is usually the automatic response of decent and compassionate citizens.garygary wrote:... there is an ethical obligation to save the child, but not a legally enforceable obligation. So what should happen if someone violates an ethical obligation?
I really enjoyed reading this. An honest admission of perfectly natural double standards that no one could argue with. However, from the ethical point of view, it is worth pursuing this further.garygary wrote:1. The child is a stranger: I would scream and yell to motivate the fisherman to save the child, but wouldn't use a gun to force him to. If the child drowned, I would think that the fisherman was a sorry excuse for a human being. But I would not want any kind of punishment placed on him. 2. The child is my child: Would definitely use the gun in an attempt to get the fisherman to save the child. I would definitely fire some shots into the water if necessary. And if my child drowned, I just might shoot the guy. Yep, that would be out of rage and revenge.
I assume that you noticed the caveat I placed at the beginning of that thread: "The suggestions I am making in this chapter should be read as guidelines that I have found useful in my own life. No one can follow them with absolute perfection, because human beings have conflicting motivations: what Edward O. Wilson called individual-level selection and group-level selection in our evolutionary process (The Meaning of Human Existence)."But, my thinking is opposite to yours concerning "Resolving conflicting loyalties." I am much more obligated to and protective of my family than to life in general. And, concerning your gut reactions in the original post of this thread, perhaps, deep inside, you don't quite believe what you wrote in "Resolving conflicting loyalties" either? Good stuff though! Thank you.
Agreed.marjoram_blues wrote:1. I would have to say that anyone who does not have a natural impulse to save a child from drowning has to be labelled as 'handicapped'; more than likely a psychopath. Such a person would not feel the need to act on your pity or compassion. [So many stories of non or poor swimmers who attempt to save - even drowning dogs. They don't think of it as having a moral/ethical obligation ]
Threatening the man in the boat with a gun might scare him into saving the child. I might be charged later with illegal use of a firearm. You have to weigh the saved life of a child against the personal inconvenience (or worse) of being charged with a crime. I, personally, would consider saving the child's life worth the risk of legal hassles.If you carried a gun, you could threaten this person. I think the scenario would change to you, yourself being attacked. This is not going to effect a child rescue. Therefore, threatening with a gun is not a sensible option.
2. Taking a child who has not learned to swim near a river when you yourself are unable to swim, or have a life saver nearby - is negligence.
I wouldn't be carrying a gun.
I did not assume that the person on the bank was the 'carer' of the child. Plus, you are speculating about how you would feel, as the child, drowning in the river. You can't be sure until and unless you experience the situation. And this is also irrelevant to the scenario. The question in the OP was what would you do, as the adult on the bank of the river.3. If I were that child in the river, and saw my 'carer' or someone brandishing a gun/shooting at an uncaring psychopath, I would despair. I would let myself be carried downstream to a solid rock and hope for some other source of help. Perhaps drowning would be preferable...
OK. In 2. I was responding to your:I did not assume that the person on the bank was the 'carer' of the child. Plus, you are speculating about how you would feel, as the child, drowning in the river. You can't be sure until and unless you experience the situation. And this is also irrelevant to the scenario. The question in the OP was what would you do, as the adult on the bank of the river.
Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful reply -- you obviously thought about it.
Are you saying that if the child was my own, I would not be a 'carer'?One more question for those who wouldn’t: what would you do if the child were your own? You still don’t think you would be tempted to use the gun?
Yes, you are right and I stand corrected. In that scenario you would be the carer.marjoram_blues wrote:Are you saying that if the child was my own, I would not be a 'carer'?
I am answering as per speculation.
You are quite right that a carer (a parent) or even any adult has the responsibility to show good example to the child. In this hypothetical situation, doing everything you can to save the child's life (even to the extent of 'forcing' another adult) IS the responsible action that the child should see, even though he is too busy drowning at the moment to see anything.However, I thought it worthwhile to introduce another aspect to the discussion - as to what kind of example is being shown by 'so-called' compassion. What use compassion, if there is not forethought and responsibility to provide care and security by any 'carer' ?
Right again, except if we went to the length of shooting irresponsible parents, there would be a lot of dead parents in the world.Given that the underlying issue is 'what we owe each other' - any parent who has brought a child into the world owes them a duty of care.
If not they are the ones who should be shot.
From wikipedia: "...positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction."marjoram_blues wrote:Can you please explain what you mean by 'negative' rights.
If the child has a right to be saved, then that would be a positive right. In other words, the child's situation puts an obligation upon the fisherman to save him. The fisherman must take action to save the child. Should there be a law that gives this positive right to the child?marjoram_blues wrote:Also, how this might apply in the given scenario. Thanks.
I meant it more as a given example of 'compassion', rather than as an example to the drowning child.N: You are quite right that a carer (a parent) or even any adult has the responsibility to show good example to the child. In this hypothetical situation, doing everything you can to save the child's life (even to the extent of 'forcing' another adult) IS the responsible action that the child should see, even though he is too busy drowning at the moment to see anything.
Again - a 'joke' a bit like your 'suicide' one.M: Given that the underlying issue is 'what we owe each other' - any parent who has brought a child into the world owes them a duty of care.
If not they are the ones who should be shot.
N: Right again, except if we went to the length of shooting irresponsible parents, there would be a lot of dead parents in the world.
What use compassion, if there is not forethought and responsibility to provide care and security by any 'carer' ?
Given that the underlying issue is 'what we owe each other' - any parent who has brought a child into the world owes them a duty of care.
Brandishing a gun might scare the man enough to save the child, as I said before. It is worth a try because the stake is so high.marjoram_blues wrote:The main objective is to save the child. This cannot be achieved by brandishing a gun at a psychopath.
If you shot and killed that person, you will not have achieved your aim; you will have made matters worse. Hardly a responsible action.
Guilty again, as charged. I can't help being flippant once in a while. It can lighten the mood.a 'joke' a bit like your 'suicide' one.
I can't argue with this -- actually, I agree 100%. However, it is still irrelevant to this particular scenario.Given that the underlying issue is 'what we owe each other' - any parent who has brought a child into the world owes them a duty of care.
Yes, I know about the research facilities of the internet. I had wiki'd the term but found it confusing. Thanks for providing the examples.garygary wrote:From wikipedia: "...positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction."marjoram_blues wrote:Can you please explain what you mean by 'negative' rights.
An example of what would be a negative right: Person B shall not murder Person A. Note that this involves inaction concerning Person B. Person A has a negative right which obligates Person B to not take the action of killing him.
For a contrasting example of what would be a positive right: Person B is forced by law to work 1 day per week to provide for Person A's food and housing. Note that this involves action on the part of Person B. Person A has a positive right to food and shelter which obligates Person B to provide for said food and shelter.
Tons more explanatory material in the literature. A Google search on "negative rights" will reveal many good explanations and examples. Negative rights versus positive rights is an important subject when it comes to governance.
If the child has a right to be saved, then that would be a positive right. In other words, the child's situation puts an obligation upon the fisherman to save him. The fisherman must take action to save the child. Should there be a law that gives this positive right to the child?marjoram_blues wrote:Also, how this might apply in the given scenario. Thanks.
In the original post, Ned asked an in general question of "what do we owe each other?" and then some more specific questions concerning the scenario. The negative rights answer I gave was to "what do we owe each other?"
OK, then.Ned wrote:Brandishing a gun might scare the man enough to save the child, as I said before. It is worth a try because the stake is so high.marjoram_blues wrote:The main objective is to save the child. This cannot be achieved by brandishing a gun at a psychopath.
If you shot and killed that person, you will not have achieved your aim; you will have made matters worse. Hardly a responsible action.
As I said in the OP: "I would not pull the trigger" to kill the man. I said it again in another post.
Guilty again, as charged. I can't help being flippant once in a while. It can lighten the mood.a 'joke' a bit like your 'suicide' one.
I can't argue with this -- actually, I agree 100%. However, it is still irrelevant to this particular scenario.Given that the underlying issue is 'what we owe each other' - any parent who has brought a child into the world owes them a duty of care.
garygary wrote:... there is an ethical obligation to save the child, but not a legally enforceable obligation. So what should happen if someone violates an ethical obligation?
So we are in agreement that there should not be a law to require the fisherman to personally save the child?Ned wrote:Maybe there ought to be some law (maybe there already is) to obligate bystanders to an accident or crime to at least call for help, notify the police and/or ambulance? If they are found out, humiliation and shunning is usually the automatic response of decent and compassionate citizens.
Definitely worth pursuing further. Hypothetical ethical dilemmas, while typically being unrealistic, still can be very telling. They have a way of exposing double standards, illogical thinking, and hypocrisy. The "double gas chamber" dilemmas are good food for thought.Ned wrote:I really enjoyed reading this. An honest admission of perfectly natural double standards that no one could argue with. However, from the ethical point of view, it is worth pursuing this further.
Well, I did notice it, but then ignored it. My apologies. I suppose I was too quick to try to find inconsistencies in your thinking. The thoughts in "Resolving conflicting loyalties" are certainly interesting and deserve deeper reflection. And I believe that the "double gas chamber" dilemmas can shed light on an individual's loyalties which could refine your list of loyalties even further (for a given individual).Ned wrote:I assume that you noticed the caveat I placed at the beginning of that thread: "The suggestions I am making in this chapter should be read as guidelines that I have found useful in my own life.
Absolutely.garygary wrote:So we are in agreement that there should not be a law to require the fisherman to personally save the child?
Agreed. As you may know, I am a (retired) theoretical physicist and I like to follow Einstein's example of dreaming up thought-experiments.Definitely worth pursuing further. Hypothetical ethical dilemmas, while typically being unrealistic, still can be very telling. They have a way of exposing double standards, illogical thinking, and hypocrisy. The "double gas chamber" dilemmas are good food for thought.
Would you care to elaborate on this, maybe even in that 'unpopular' thread? I would like to hear more of your thoughts.The thoughts in "Resolving conflicting loyalties" are certainly interesting and deserve deeper reflection. And I believe that the "double gas chamber" dilemmas can shed light on an individual's loyalties which could refine your list of loyalties even further (for a given individual).
