Can you enforce property rights when it tramples someone else's rights?

[WaltM]

So if she had not made it to the boat, he could have watched her drown and it should have been legal?

that's what I've been saying, BOGUS DISTINCTION.

As long as you INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY allowed it to happen, it doesn't matter how much & how little action you take.

this is different than accidents, where you did your best and it still turned out differently than how you expected.

 

[WaltM]

Right, and that's all painfully obvious. Let's flip it the other way, though, which is why this thread has me perplexed.

Should you be *forced* to take the girl aboard?

if a person as a right to life, yes.

Should the slim chance that you'd be an asshole enough to kick her off of the boat and let her drown be reason enough to make it illegal to pass her by?

yes, what else are laws for, if not for the extreme scenarios which people can't predict?

If that's true, then how "close" is close enough to render you responsible for attempting to aid her?

Humanly possible and without the same detriment or risk to yourself, at least.

Getting your shirt wet, and breaking a boat, is not the same as risking her life.

Breaking your leg, losing jewelry you might have on the boat, could be arguable.

How far does this aid go? Who decides, and who enforces it?

the same people who decide how much theft is punishable.

the same people who decide what's manslaughter vs murder.

the same people who decide what's starving and starving to death.

the same people who decide what's vegetative state vs actually dead.

Does the baby being on your doorstep now mean you are responsible for its well-being *LEGALLY*, which means if you do not do a certain amount to ensure its continued survival and health, you might be held liable?

Good question, see what happens when you believe in "right to life"?

What if you're on vacation and the baby dies there because no one ever got to it? Your fault?

To those who voted that it should be illegal, I am wondering how you would phrase the law?

Here's an old ruling, "duty to rescue"
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/duty2res.htm

 

[pcosmar]

Spliting Hairs

Legal, yes. Moral, no.

I tend to focus on right and wrong rather than legal or illegal. Morality and common decency would dictate actions rather than law.

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

It is no wonder that Christ rebuked the lawyers.

Good Samaritan Laws do not require you to assist anyone, but are meant to reduce any liability for offering assistance.

The law is not always just, and justice is not always legal.

Everyone will stand before the final judge.

 

[WaltM]

I tend to focus on right and wrong rather than legal or illegal. Morality and common decency would dictate actions rather than law.

I'm totally with you on that.

I'll go a step further to say that morality should exceed the law, and the law should conform with morality at best it can.

It is no wonder that Christ rebuked the lawyers.

Good Samaritan Laws do not require you to assist anyone, but are meant to reduce any liability for offering assistance.

The law is not always just, and justice is not always legal.

Everyone will stand before the final judge.

and before that, everybody will hopefully stand before A judge, and a jury, with some common sense.

 

[Old Ducker]

Was she hawt?

 

[WaltM]

Was she hawt?

good twist,

what if you saved her life, would you be justified and forgiven for subsequently raping and robbing her?

after all, wouldn't she rather be alive, than dead?

 

[andrewh817]

(3) You did nothing wrong legally or morally (your action was moral and legal)

An action that isn't wrong legally or morally isn't necessarily moral and legal. There is the idea of moral permissibility, which is that it's not moral or immoral, but left up to personal ideas and preferences. An example of this would be choosing not to sell to someone who wants to buy something from you.

If the principle is to use the minimal amount of force required to preserve your property rights, (which I'm in favor of) then pushing the girl off the barge goes against my principle. I really can't imagine someone feeling that pushing her off is a just response.

 

[teacherone]

good twist,

what if you saved her life, would you be justified and forgiven for subsequently raping and robbing her?

after all, wouldn't she rather be alive, than dead?

nevermind... you're still an idiot.

 

[WaltM]

nevermind... you're still an idiot.

excuses, you refuse to think and resort to name calling when you can't give an answer.

 

[teacherone]

excuses, you refuse to think and resort to name calling when you can't give an answer.

nope... that's an objective and verifiable statement.

see evidence below...

Quote: Originally Posted by WaltM
good twist,

what if you saved her life, would you be justified and forgiven for subsequently raping and robbing her?

after all, wouldn't she rather be alive, than dead?

 

[WaltM]

nope... that's an objective and verifiable statement.

see evidence below...

nope, just your opinion.

that wouldn't change the fact that I said something you were forced to think about.

Good Samaritan laws are the logical extension of "right to life"

You cannot say a person has an absolute, overriding, unalienable "right to life" but then say you have a "right to choose" "not to help" them. If you believe your self ownership is above another person's "right to life", just admit they don't have a "right to life" against any other rights you have (don't try to have it both ways)

got a response?

 

[robert68]

Common sense is so much better than some abstract philosophical theory of absolutes.

Isn't that kind of an "absolute" belief?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

correct, and good credit isn't a good enough incentive for some.

so some people literally live on the once a few times they cheated debt.

again, yes, but that's not enough incentive and punishment for some.

that might work for employment purposes, but I don't see how that helps in forcing people to pay their debt.

that's not enough for some, I'm afraid.

Are you saying that currently the government is forcing too many people to live up to contracts, while they shouldn't?

Why does it matter if people pay their debts? Why do they need to be forced to pay their debts? If people do not pay their debts it is on the business who profits from taking risk.

 

[WaltM]

Why does it matter if people pay their debts? Why do they need to be forced to pay their debts? If people do not pay their debts it is on the business who profits from taking risk.

you're right, I can't tell you why anybody should be forced to pay debts, or anything.

 

[osan]

It's not nonsense, it's actually quite a deep question and I intend to pursue this topic further. I've recently read "For A New Liberty" for the second time and yes, my mind has been whirring nonstop.

That being said, I can't blame you for not seeing the point. But please don't blame me for seeing one.

Then I would suggest you learn to formulate better questions because this hypothetical is not very good, as is the case most of the time. Better you pose the question in a more general fashion, IMO. But that's just me.

 

[osan]

Suppose you are not the the owner of the barge but a hunter on the shore, with a rifle. You see some guy on a barge drowning a youg girl.

Do you sit there a watch or do you use enough force to save the drowning girl?

Moral of this story: MYOFB

 

[SteveR]

Some people have neighbors who do not trim their trees. Their trees grow beyond their property boundaries. But property laws state that there are no vertical property boundary lines. So the homeowner affected has to pay hundreds of dollars every year to have his neighbor's trees trimmed to prevent damage to the affected homeowner's house, to prevent his leaves from clogging up in the gutters, to prevent his trees from blocking the sunshine and killing the grass and causing erosion to the soil and causing foundation failure.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

Some people have neighbors who do not trim their trees. Their trees grow beyond their property boundaries. But property laws state that there are no vertical property boundary lines. So the homeowner affected has to pay hundreds of dollars every year to have his neighbor's trees trimmed to prevent damage to the affected homeowner's house, to prevent his leaves from clogging up in the gutters, to prevent his trees from blocking the sunshine and killing the grass and causing erosion to the soil and causing foundation failure.

Can I guess you are not a tree hugger?

 

[SteveR]

I love trees. I have trees in my yard. But it does not change the fact that the law is unfair.

 

[Elwar]

What if the girl was in the hospital dying but didn't have the money to pay for the life saving treatment.

Now suppose you have money...

Would it be morally wrong for you to oppose ObamaCare which would allow the government to take your money and give it to her and save her life?