Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Adults, children, liberty, and rationality

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 1:28:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Alright, so many people believe that adults should have the liberty to do what is in their self-interest, based on the idea that he/she has the right to do what one wants as long as it is not harming others. No entity can say that you can or cannot do an action, since you are rational.

However, many people, tend to disregard this rule for children. The reasoning is that children are ill-equiped at making decisions of their own, and therefore they are less free. Parents are the ones who have control. This ruling exisits until a person legally emancipates oneself or becomes 18, according to the laws in America and many other countries.

However, how does one really deterimine if or when somebody becomes "rational" and "a good-decision maker" or not? Can age really be a critieria? I'm sure there are many people who are more responsible, and intelligent then myself, yet I have almost complete freedom, yet those younger than me do not. I've even lost debates to teenagers still in high school.

So my question is: When do we determine humans are rational enough, and when is our body considered our own, rather than the property of another entity? (either a parent, legal guardian, or government)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 1:38:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only way to really tell is if you yourself have understanding.. Very few in the world do, and it is even possible for them to be fooled.

Most people just regurgitate sh!t they heard from somewhere else. Very few people actually seem to know what they are talking about.

A child is the owner of it's own body, mind, etc. That isn't going to stop it from clinging to mama until it is ready to leave... Or is forced to.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 1:45:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If a child can state their complaint properly in a courtroom, the courtroom had best treat them as an individual rather than property.

Abolish age of consent. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 1:52:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 1:38:56 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The only way to really tell is if you yourself have understanding.. Very few in the world do, and it is even possible for them to be fooled.

[/quote]

I agree. However, I also believe it is an ongoing process to find your true calling and to figure out how to achieve true happiness. It is through your own personal freedom, and trial and error processing that one can achieve happiness. But to what extent should this trial and error process last? Should I be at liberty to inject heroin into myself, when such an action would likely cause me to become an addict, have serious health problems, lead to a life of crime, and even death.


A child is the owner of it's own body, mind, etc. That isn't going to stop it from clinging to mama until it is ready to leave... Or is forced to.

In the legal system a parent has complete control of a child's mind and body until the age of 18. A parent can do anything to a child, anything short of physical or sexual abuse.

Perhaps through libertarian ethics, one can say that the arrangement between a parent and a child is mutually beneficial. A child gives up some of their property rights in order to recieve food and shelter from their parents. A parent gives food and shelter to a child, in exchange that the child does what he/she wants.

Also, if the above statement is correct, if a 13 year old girl decides to leave home, to snort cocaine and prostitute herself, does she have the right to do so, if she decides to bare the costs of living onto herself?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 2:10:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A lot of countries impose a few years of mandatory civic duty (service in the military or an alternative) as a way of showing the value of society to an 18 year old.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 2:39:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 1:52:38 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/30/2011 1:38:56 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The only way to really tell is if you yourself have understanding.. Very few in the world do, and it is even possible for them to be fooled.

[/quote]

I agree. However, I also believe it is an ongoing process to find your true calling and to figure out how to achieve true happiness. It is through your own personal freedom, and trial and error processing that one can achieve happiness. But to what extent should this trial and error process last? Should I be at liberty to inject heroin into myself, when such an action would likely cause me to become an addict, have serious health problems, lead to a life of crime, and even death.


Yes, if you want to inject heroin into yourself, become an addict, kill yourself, lead a life of crime, that's all right, go for it. If you are willing to deal with the potential consequences.


A child is the owner of it's own body, mind, etc. That isn't going to stop it from clinging to mama until it is ready to leave... Or is forced to.

In the legal system a parent has complete control of a child's mind and body until the age of 18. A parent can do anything to a child, anything short of physical or sexual abuse.

Perhaps through libertarian ethics, one can say that the arrangement between a parent and a child is mutually beneficial. A child gives up some of their property rights in order to recieve food and shelter from their parents. A parent gives food and shelter to a child, in exchange that the child does what he/she wants.

Also, if the above statement is correct, if a 13 year old girl decides to leave home, to snort cocaine and prostitute herself, does she have the right to do so, if she decides to bare the costs of living onto herself?

If the 13 year old is able to do so, by all means.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 4:18:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 1:28:16 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Alright, so many people believe that adults should have the liberty to do what is in their self-interest, based on the idea that he/she has the right to do what one wants as long as it is not harming others. No entity can say that you can or cannot do an action, since you are rational.

However, many people, tend to disregard this rule for children. The reasoning is that children are ill-equiped at making decisions of their own, and therefore they are less free. Parents are the ones who have control. This ruling exisits until a person legally emancipates oneself or becomes 18, according to the laws in America and many other countries.

However, how does one really deterimine if or when somebody becomes "rational" and "a good-decision maker" or not? Can age really be a critieria? I'm sure there are many people who are more responsible, and intelligent then myself, yet I have almost complete freedom, yet those younger than me do not. I've even lost debates to teenagers still in high school.

So my question is: When do we determine humans are rational enough, and when is our body considered our own, rather than the property of another entity? (either a parent, legal guardian, or government)

1. Dependence always means a relinquishing, or lack of freedom to that which you are dependent. Most kids, if not all, are dependent upon a non-kid and as the vested interest is going one way, the dependent has less authority in the decision making. I guess there are a few rare cases where this is not the case, and i am very sure that there are a great many kids who feel they are independent, but i'm fairly confident they are delusional.

2. Kids are usually more vulnerable to those that are more savvy than they are, and tend to be more influenced during some of their more formative years (part of the definition of formative). This generally requires some prudent over sight by those who are less vulnerable.

3. Prudent decision making is heavily dependent on time based experience. After a period of time the risks diminish in the decision making process. Although this varies greatly from individual to individual, public policy cannot cope with variables based on a case by case basis. The ages of consent may seem arbitrary, but they aren't completely. I think much of it is based on trial and error, and risk assessment.

4. There is a natural progression of emotional growth within human beings. An 8 year old is going to base his decisions differently than a 14 year old, and a 14 year old will base his decisions differently than a 35 year old. As previously said, much is experience based, but much is also based on the natural progression of how an identity is formed, and how our brains mature emotionally.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 4:29:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with the conclusion (I think) you're trying to make; there are certainly some children who are far more rational then the adults who are supposedly more worthy of certain rights.

Perhaps we can devise a test of rationality?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 12:27:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 1:28:16 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Alright, so many people believe that adults should have the liberty to do what is in their self-interest, based on the idea that he/she has the right to do what one wants as long as it is not harming others. No entity can say that you can or cannot do an action, since you are rational.

I'd argue that most people are not rational.


However, many people, tend to disregard this rule for children. The reasoning is that children are ill-equiped at making decisions of their own, and therefore they are less free. Parents are the ones who have control. This ruling exisits until a person legally emancipates oneself or becomes 18, according to the laws in America and many other countries.

Typically because most kids are not rational. They tend not to think long term, and only short term.


However, how does one really deterimine if or when somebody becomes "rational" and "a good-decision maker" or not? Can age really be a critieria? I'm sure there are many people who are more responsible, and intelligent then myself, yet I have almost complete freedom, yet those younger than me do not. I've even lost debates to teenagers still in high school.

I'd bet more people are irrational than rational. So if you treat everyone as irrational (until they demonstrat otherwise), you will be more correct than if you treat everyone as rational (until they demonstrat otherwise).


So my question is: When do we determine humans are rational enough, and when is our body considered our own, rather than the property of another entity? (either a parent, legal guardian, or government)

Technically, your body is never the "property" of another entity, it is just place in their care, rather than in your own care.

For example, I own a chair. Since it is my property, I have the right to chop it to pieces with an ax and burn it. I can't do that (legally) to my child.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 12:29:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 4:29:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
I agree with the conclusion (I think) you're trying to make; there are certainly some children who are far more rational then the adults who are supposedly more worthy of certain rights.

Perhaps we can devise a test of rationality?

A very good idea. It runs into trouble with how to test that. I believe that the right to vote should require a test (something that test logical capabilities and the abilities to research facts to figure out if something is true or not, rather than knowledge of political issues).

I think that if someone can demonstrat that they know how to drive safely, then they should be allowed to drive, regardless of age.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 3:24:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For example, I own a chair. Since it is my property, I have the right to chop it to pieces with an ax and burn it. I can't do that (legally) to my child.
You'll doubtless be in violation of some local fire code. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 4:03:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 3:24:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
For example, I own a chair. Since it is my property, I have the right to chop it to pieces with an ax and burn it. I can't do that (legally) to my child.
You'll doubtless be in violation of some local fire code. ^_^

No, my carbon monxide detector will go off at 11:30 pm on a work night, I'll open all the doors and windows and still, 30 minutes later, it is beeping up a storm. So I unplug it, and get a fine in the mail because a code was sent wirelessly to the fire department that I unplugged it, which is a violation in my city.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 4:07:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 4:03:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/30/2011 3:24:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
For example, I own a chair. Since it is my property, I have the right to chop it to pieces with an ax and burn it. I can't do that (legally) to my child.
You'll doubtless be in violation of some local fire code. ^_^

No, my carbon monxide detector will go off at 11:30 pm on a work night, I'll open all the doors and windows and still, 30 minutes later, it is beeping up a storm. So I unplug it, and get a fine in the mail because a code was sent wirelessly to the fire department that I unplugged it, which is a violation in my city.

meet the irish:
signature
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 4:51:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 4:44:44 PM, badger wrote:
At 3/30/2011 4:24:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
I love Tommy.

did you know him before this?

my favourite:

Yes, my wife and I stumbled across some of his youtube stuff awhile ago.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 6:13:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 4:18:49 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/30/2011 1:28:16 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Alright, so many people believe that adults should have the liberty to do what is in their self-interest, based on the idea that he/she has the right to do what one wants as long as it is not harming others. No entity can say that you can or cannot do an action, since you are rational.

However, many people, tend to disregard this rule for children. The reasoning is that children are ill-equiped at making decisions of their own, and therefore they are less free. Parents are the ones who have control. This ruling exisits until a person legally emancipates oneself or becomes 18, according to the laws in America and many other countries.

However, how does one really deterimine if or when somebody becomes "rational" and "a good-decision maker" or not? Can age really be a critieria? I'm sure there are many people who are more responsible, and intelligent then myself, yet I have almost complete freedom, yet those younger than me do not. I've even lost debates to teenagers still in high school.

So my question is: When do we determine humans are rational enough, and when is our body considered our own, rather than the property of another entity? (either a parent, legal guardian, or government)

1. Dependence always means a relinquishing, or lack of freedom to that which you are dependent. Most kids, if not all, are dependent upon a non-kid and as the vested interest is going one way, the dependent has less authority in the decision making. I guess there are a few rare cases where this is not the case, and i am very sure that there are a great many kids who feel they are independent, but i'm fairly confident they are delusional.

Quite. And then they go hurting themselves and need to be pulled out of trouble.

Parent/child authority is natural, and doesn't need to contrived legally or morally: it's biological. It's only troublesome as far as quantifying this from a legal perspective (IOWs who gives a sh*t).

2. Kids are usually more vulnerable to those that are more savvy than they are, and tend to be more influenced during some of their more formative years (part of the definition of formative). This generally requires some prudent over sight by those who are less vulnerable.

They are naive.

3. Prudent decision making is heavily dependent on time based experience. After a period of time the risks diminish in the decision making process. Although this varies greatly from individual to individual, public policy cannot cope with variables based on a case by case basis. The ages of consent may seem arbitrary, but they aren't completely. I think much of it is based on trial and error, and risk assessment.

"Age of consent" is just a legal externality.

4. There is a natural progression of emotional growth within human beings. An 8 year old is going to base his decisions differently than a 14 year old, and a 14 year old will base his decisions differently than a 35 year old. As previously said, much is experience based, but much is also based on the natural progression of how an identity is formed, and how our brains mature emotionally.

Don't try and convince the teenagers on this site that they aren't fully-stocked with wisdom - they won't believe you (-_-)
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 8:56:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/30/2011 4:03:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/30/2011 3:24:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
For example, I own a chair. Since it is my property, I have the right to chop it to pieces with an ax and burn it. I can't do that (legally) to my child.
You'll doubtless be in violation of some local fire code. ^_^

No, my carbon monxide detector will go off at 11:30 pm on a work night, I'll open all the doors and windows and still, 30 minutes later, it is beeping up a storm. So I unplug it, and get a fine in the mail because a code was sent wirelessly to the fire department that I unplugged it, which is a violation in my city.

Why did that paragraph start with no?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.