Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money

[myrkul]

Was the judge's choice morally right?

I'm not sure how to prove that the moral righteousness of your opinion of the judge's moral righteousness cannot be proven, but whatever.

Proving a negative is historically very difficult, yes.

However: Logically, the decisions in this case are not (necessarily) up to the judge. They're up to the parties concerned; namely, the parents/guardians of the little girl, and the executor of the ex-criminal's estate, or whoever he has appointed to make his decisions in his stead, or who has gained that ability by default, such as a spouse or next-of kin. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that those interested parties sought out the judge to make the decision for them. Perhaps their emotional attachment prevented them from reaching an equitable agreement.

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his. As to the actual decision, I can logically predict that it would most likely be to pull the plug on the ex-criminal and save the little girl. Firstly, the ex-criminal, is, as you say, an ex-criminal. That, combined with his recent good deeds, indicates a desire to atone for his past misdeeds. That is evidence to support the supposition that what he would himself choose, if offered the choice, would be to give his life for the girl's. Secondly, he has lived his life, had his chance, as it were. The girl has not. Third and finally, if we were to choose not to save the girl, she would die, and the ex-criminal would still be on life-support. It is, logically, the least bad option to save the girl at the expense of the ex-criminal's life.

[lebing]

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.

[myrkul]

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.

Typically, a quote is followed by a response. This is what the "Preview" button is for. It helps make sure you don't look like an idiot.

[Rudd-O]

On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

[myrkul]

On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

Though the irony of referring to Stef's video in this context is not lost on me... 

[myrkul]

Was the judge's choice morally right?

I'm not sure how to prove that the moral righteousness of your opinion of the judge's moral righteousness cannot be proven, but whatever.

Proving a negative is historically very difficult, yes.

However: Logically, the decisions in this case are not (necessarily) up to the judge. They're up to the parties concerned; namely, the parents/guardians of the little girl, and the executor of the ex-criminal's estate, or whoever he has appointed to make his decisions in his stead, or who has gained that ability by default, such as a spouse or next-of kin. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that those interested parties sought out the judge to make the decision for them. Perhaps their emotional attachment prevented them from reaching an equitable agreement.

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his. As to the actual decision, I can logically predict that it would most likely be to pull the plug on the ex-criminal and save the little girl...

a) Not exactly. You've re-framed the setting to suit your ethical preferences, which is fine. But the point was that one of the 2 options was morally better (according to the judge) than the other one.

And indeed, I logically determined which option was superior. But because the decision is properly the next-of-kin's, when they both agreed to pass the decision on to the judge, they agreed to abide by his decision, regardless of the outcome. That makes whatever decision he makes morally acceptable, because nobody has been coerced into the situation. But back on topic...

who's to say that yours trumps Moonshadow's?

It's simple logic:
MoonShadow's moral code:

Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?		Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
No		No
Is it OK to kill an adult?		Is it OK to kill a child?
No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		Yes (Wait, what?)

Not internally consistent.

Mine:

Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?		Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
No		No
Is it OK to kill an adult?		Is it OK to kill a child?
No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		No

Internally consistent.

[MoonShadow]

No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		No

Internally consistent.

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

[myrkul]

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

[MoonShadow]

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?

[myrkul]

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?

At what point does sleep deprivation become torture? Waterboarding?

It's the technique, not the duration that determines torture or not.

[lebing]

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.

Typically, a quote is followed by a response. This is what the "Preview" button is for. It helps make sure you don't look like an idiot.

"Cant tell if trolling or serious"

is what the image I posted says

[Rudd-O]

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

There you go, "mystery" explained, now you know why MoonChildAbuser is a child abuser -- he told you himself why.  That kind of shit?  Contagious -- from parent to child.

To me, this was no mystery at all.  He was abused, he hasn't processed that abuse, he abuses his children, and he rationalizes that abuse using wololololo dogma.  Thus, he's "happy" (of course, his children will likely grow up to either hate him or abuse their own children, but what does the abuser care, he just cares that he feels great after brutalizing his kid).  There's literally no mystery here -- this shit goes on everywhere, abusers are a dime a dozen, and they're all cut from the same abuse cloth.

The unexamined life isn't just not worth living -- it's also actively destructive to your children.

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture.

Note how ManlyAbuser refers to this conclusion as an "assumption" when it's really not -- it's a simple deduction.  What is torture if not pain inflicted to elicit certain behaviors?  Obviously corporeal punishment is torture -- if anyone does the exact same thing to an adult, the aggressor is guilty of battery.  How battery and torture somehow magically becomes not-battery and not-torture can only be explained through a particularly malevolent form of doublethink.

We get it, MoonBeater needs to feel like he is not a monster.  He'll never accept that he is indeed a monster for brutalizing his children.  Accepting that one has done wrong can be very, very difficult -- especially when it's one's children that one has wronged -- and that would be far too much effort for such a fundamentally cowardly person who beats defenseless creatures up, to "deal" with his own abuse issues.

Far too much effort.  For such a grown-ass coward.

Scum.

[MoonShadow]

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture.

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?

At what point does sleep deprivation become torture? Waterboarding?

It's the technique, not the duration that determines torture or not.

I've been avoiding this thread, because I believe we may have come to an impasse. but I would like to shift the focus a bit, just to see.

Consider this Myrkul...


In a theoretical future ancap society, people would be able to choose to adhere to a religious set of mores, or not, by their own choosing, correct?

Would they also be able to raise their children within that same religious culture, or is that kind of cultural indoctriination coercion?

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

[cunicula]

On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

Though the irony of referring to Stef's video in this context is not lost on me... 

Speaking of irony. What about the irony of labeling libertarian disciples 'philosopher kings?' Plato is about as Statist as one could possibly be. Seems like shit-piece is having a joke at his donors' expense.

[myrkul]

In a theoretical future ancap society, people would be able to choose to adhere to a religious set of mores, or not, by their own choosing, correct?

Would they also be able to raise their children within that same religious culture, or is that kind of cultural indoctriination coercion?

This quote sums up my opinion on religion quite well:

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Well, it would certainly enforce the idea that he's making a commitment, wouldn't it? But no, circumcision is not torture. Torture is pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info. That's just elective surgery.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

Hmm. Well, it's just an elective surgery, it does no harm, and, as you say, the infant doesn't remember it. If they want to consent for an elective surgery for their child, they can. I personally would not, but then, I'm not Jewish.

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

Well, that depends. The typical male circumcision, which while it confers no real benefit (aside from some slight cleanliness advantages), also does no real damage (again, aside from some slight desensitization) is fine, but I'd point out that other, more heinous acts are "traditional," such as removal of the glans, or female circumcision, which likewise usually involves the removal of the clitoris, and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. Those would be worthy of intervention.

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

[cunicula]

Was the judge's choice morally right?

I'm not sure how to prove that the moral righteousness of your opinion of the judge's moral righteousness cannot be proven, but whatever.

Proving a negative is historically very difficult, yes.

However: Logically, the decisions in this case are not (necessarily) up to the judge. They're up to the parties concerned; namely, the parents/guardians of the little girl, and the executor of the ex-criminal's estate, or whoever he has appointed to make his decisions in his stead, or who has gained that ability by default, such as a spouse or next-of kin. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that those interested parties sought out the judge to make the decision for them. Perhaps their emotional attachment prevented them from reaching an equitable agreement.

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his. As to the actual decision, I can logically predict that it would most likely be to pull the plug on the ex-criminal and save the little girl...

a) Not exactly. You've re-framed the setting to suit your ethical preferences, which is fine. But the point was that one of the 2 options was morally better (according to the judge) than the other one.

And indeed, I logically determined which option was superior. But because the decision is properly the next-of-kin's, when they both agreed to pass the decision on to the judge, they agreed to abide by his decision, regardless of the outcome. That makes whatever decision he makes morally acceptable, because nobody has been coerced into the situation. But back on topic...

who's to say that yours trumps Moonshadow's?

It's simple logic:
MoonShadow's moral code:

Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?		Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
No		No
Is it OK to kill an adult?		Is it OK to kill a child?
No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		Yes (Wait, what?)

Not internally consistent.

Mine:

Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?		Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
No		No
Is it OK to kill an adult?		Is it OK to kill a child?
No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		No

Internally consistent.

What is this, the most simplistic morality wins?
I've got one for you.
Is it Okay to do X? Yes.

[MoonShadow]

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Well, it would certainly enforce the idea that he's making a commitment, wouldn't it? But no, circumcision is not torture. Torture is pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info. That's just elective surgery.

So, by your view, it's the intent of the offender that makes torture what it is? Is this generally correct?

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

Hmm. Well, it's just an elective surgery, it does no harm, and, as you say, the infant doesn't remember it. If they want to consent for an elective surgery for their child, they can. I personally would not, but then, I'm not Jewish.

So I could, by your view, consent to my son to have (painful) elective surgery; but I cannot consent for the same child to coercive (perhaps painful, but with no lasting (demonstratable) harm) behavior conditioning?  Why, if my intent is in the interests of my child?  Does  that not qualify as a contradiciton?

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

Well, that depends. The typical male circumcision, which while it confers no real benefit (aside from some slight cleanliness advantages), also does no real damage (again, aside from some slight desensitization) is fine, but I'd point out that other, more heinous acts are "traditional," such as removal of the glans, or female circumcision, which likewise usually involves the removal of the clitoris, and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. Those would be worthy of intervention.

Yes, but I chose my example deliberately; as a real world example of a religious activity that 1) does cause much temporary pain while 2) does not cause in real lasting harm but 3) is irreversable and of 4) questionable benefits.  Female cicumsisions most certainly do some lasting harm, and we can debate them later because that is an interesting contradiction as well.  Traditional male circumsision is an activity that many in our own society would very much hlike to prohibit, for many of the same reasons that you would very much like to prohibit corporeal punishment.  It's this realm of inquery that you display your own statist contradictions.  While you might be willing and able to foresee a society that has competing security agencies that could peacably coexist lacking any real geographic monopoly on force, you trip voer your own principles once confronted with a situation for whihc you consider morally abhorant.  I'm no different in this regard, I'll admit, but it is for this very reason that I can't regard a true ancap society as sustainable; for there are many cultures in our society that are inclined towards conflicts by this very nature.

[justusranvier]

One of the preconditions for a free society to form is a leap forward on generally accepted morality, in the same way that the abolition of slavery was a prerequisite for the invention of mechanized agriculture.

In a free society nobody it's not likely anyone will use force to stop parents from abusing children with circumcision or other forms of involuntary body modifications, but the parents will find it much more difficult to get away with.

Once society evolves beyond actively protecting and apologizing for child abusers it will become much more socially expensive to engage in it. Nobody would want to hire, work for, buy from, or be friends with a child abuser. Parents whose children managed to escape from them would not have a government to call on to force the children to return against their will. This alone would virtually eliminate child abuse. Slavery becomes unprofitable of the slave owners can't offload to the taxpayers the cost of catching and returning escaped slaves.

[myrkul]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Well, it would certainly enforce the idea that he's making a commitment, wouldn't it? But no, circumcision is not torture. Torture is pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info. That's just elective surgery.

So, by your view, it's the intent of the offender that makes torture what it is? Is this generally correct?

Largely, yes. Remember those qualifications: for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

Hmm. Well, it's just an elective surgery, it does no harm, and, as you say, the infant doesn't remember it. If they want to consent for an elective surgery for their child, they can. I personally would not, but then, I'm not Jewish.

So I could, by your view, consent to my son to have (painful) elective surgery; but I cannot consent for the same child to coercive (perhaps painful, but with no lasting (demonstratable) harm) behavior conditioning?  Why, if my intent is in the interests of my child?  Does  that not qualify as a contradiciton?

Remember the qualifications for torture? if you're inflicting pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info?

You're making a point. Teaching a lesson. With pain. That's torture.

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

Well, that depends. The typical male circumcision, which while it confers no real benefit (aside from some slight cleanliness advantages), also does no real damage (again, aside from some slight desensitization) is fine, but I'd point out that other, more heinous acts are "traditional," such as removal of the glans, or female circumcision, which likewise usually involves the removal of the clitoris, and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. Those would be worthy of intervention.

Yes, but I chose my example deliberately; as a real world example of a religious activity that 1) does cause much temporary pain while 2) does not cause in real lasting harm but 3) is irreversable and of 4) questionable benefits.  Female cicumsisions most certainly do some lasting harm, and we can debate them later because that is an interesting contradiction as well.  Traditional male circumsision is an activity that many in our own society would very much hlike to prohibit, for many of the same reasons that you would very much like to prohibit corporeal punishment.  It's this realm of inquery that you display your own statist contradictions.  While you might be willing and able to foresee a society that has competing security agencies that could peacably coexist lacking any real geographic monopoly on force, you trip voer your own principles once confronted with a situation for whihc you consider morally abhorant.  I'm no different in this regard, I'll admit, but it is for this very reason that I can't regard a true ancap society as sustainable; for there are many cultures in our society that are inclined towards conflicts by this very nature.

I see. Third party defense is statism now.  Well, I guess I've heard it all, now.