So we both agree that it's not that simple.
Do you think it's "decent" for children to look after their parents even if they were bad parents? What are you claiming, if anything? You never said that all children should help out, but do you think that some should?
It doesn't matter if it's due to religious beliefs, embarrassment or any other reason. It's still a choice the parents make, even if it's a bad one.
The difference between my exceptions and yours is that mine address your claim and prove it false- that not all parents are good. Examples of parents using poor judgment doesn't make your case any stronger. If parents make bad decisions why does that mean children should look after them when they're older? I still don't see why children should look after their parents even if they were the greatest parents in the world.
I was a Student of Objectivism for 2 years. Objectivism has some great stuff to offer. It's the most coherent philosophy I've yet to encounter.
However, I disagree that morality is objective. Reality is objective. A is A. But while I applaud the pursuit of rational self-interest, it's flawed when put forward as a universal rule because the basis for Objectivist morality relies on the acceptance of happiness as the chosen goal for one's life.
People can choose a different goal. And happiness isn't the same for everyone.
Therefore, it cannot be objective.
You assume that parents are always "there for [the child's] whole life". That's not always true and not to the same degree. Your idea of a good parent could be vastly different from mine.
I think you misunderstood why choice is important in the case of responsibility. Parents might not be able to choose what their children are like, but they can choose whether or not to have children at all (or raise children). That is where the claim to responsibility lies.
Other than your feelings that parents shouldn't be abandoned in a time of need, what reason should a child look after their parents if they don't want to? Some elderly people have no children at all, so wouldn't you be more concerned with them? What about children who are abandoned by their parents in a time of need? That would be infinitely worse, wouldn't you agree?
I never said anything like that. Did you miss the many times where I said that if a child has good parents, they might choose to take care of them. Not out of obligation, but because they want to?
I never mentioned my personal feelings about my own parents. That's irrelevant to this debate.
You shouldn't have children. Because they might be like me (whatever that means to you, seeing as how you don't know me at all), and as you said, you would hate that. Children aren't obedient slaves to love and take care of you unconditionally.
You do not simply believe people should pay. If that were the case, you would not advocate taxation. At least be honest about what you're supporting. Taxes aren't voluntary, by definition. It's not a "pressure to act the right way" because "the right way" is subjective.
It's so sad that it's normal for people to respond in this way. With coercion. There's this belief that unless we force people to act better, they won't.
The government is made up of people. People like anyone else. They're not special. And the only way the government can "help" is if the majority of people want them to (assuming we're talking about a democracy). Therefore logically, if most people already want others to eat healthier then they do not need to resort to force! And if most people don't want to eat healthier, it would go against the majority if the government tried to force them to. So do you see why that wouldn't work?
Do you understand where I'm coming from at all? As a society I think we are too quick to use violence as an answer. But it's not. Between obesity rates and freedom from coercion, which is the more important issue?
You're free to disagree with me. I would never advocate forcing you to pay for something you do not agree with. I would never advocate violence against you for disagreeing with me. I would hope you wouldn't advocate using violence against me for disagreeing with you.
If there are exceptions you cannot make it a universal rule. I don't think I'm missing the point, because the fact is that there are some bad parents out there. I thought this debate was about whether or not children should look after their elderly parents. If this debate is about whether or not some children should look after their elderly parents if they were really good parents (which is subjective), I would still disagree.
All parents do have a choice in having a child. Even if they accidentally get pregnant, they can choose to give up their child for adoption to parents who want them. They do make the choice to have and raise children, unless someone is holding a gun to their head.
I don't want to have children. However if I did, I would want to be the best parent possible because children can't choose who their parents are. If I had kids I would want to have a great relationship with them, so I would try my hardest to be a loving and positive influence in their lives. If they chose not to see me when I was old, I would not resent them for it. I would not expect them to take care of me just because I gave birth to them. I would wonder what it was I did wrong, that they didn't want to see me.
You're assuming that all parents do those things. What about parents who adopt? What about when one parent leaves? What about abusive/neglectful parents?
*reality check
Having and raising children is still a choice on the part of the parent(s), not the child. So even if parents are really great there's no reason why their child would be obligated to do anything for them. Of course, I think really good parents would have children that want to take care of them if/when they need to, but not because it's their duty as their child.
Some good points have already been brought up, but I'll just add my thoughts as well.
Whatever you're feeling is okay. You can't force yourself to care about someone even if you think you should. Nobody chooses who their parents are, but when you're an adult you can decide for yourself how you should be treated.
I'm sorry that your parents argued and caused you pain. Some people are lucky and have great parents, but unfortunately not everyone can be so lucky. It's completely up to you what you want to do. Just remember that your own feelings and opinions are what count, not what anyone else thinks. It was your childhood and it's your life, so it's your decision.
I don't live in the U.S., I live in Canada.
Your arguments have some serious flaws in them. Basically, you're saying that taxation is "voluntary" because you could choose not to work or buy anything and just live off of welfare (which is paid for by taxes)? Do you think that's a good argument? Somebody has to pay for welfare, and if you stop working, you're leaving someone else with the bill. Under no circumstances do I have to give up my ambition or move to another country to say that taxes are theft! I didn't choose to be born here and never agreed to the laws. Taxation is theft, no matter what I do personally. Why don't you just be honest? You think stealing people's money is fine as long as it's used for things you want.
Your insults and faulty logic only prove that you don't need to use reason. As long as you have the gun, people have to listen to you. I wouldn't advocate forcing you to pay for something I wanted, so why do you feel you have that right?
No contest. Harry Potter is the better person, would win in a fight to the death, and would be welcome for dinner at my home anytime!
Why? Well, although Jesus was God and his own son sent down to sacrifice himself for humanity even though he created them... it's just all very needlessly complicated. Harry Potter was much more noble. Sure, he wasn't all-knowing and all-powerful (which isn't possible anyways) but he made the world a better place. Which is more than can be said for Jesus.
Oh, I just realized I was assuming you meant Jesus Christ. Did you mean Jesus from True Blood? Because in that case this might be a hard question after all!
It's completely irrelevant what a thief does with the money- donates it to charity, feeds starving children, buys his ailing mother a present- it does not matter. All taxation is theft or else it would be voluntary. That is the issue we are debating: Is (high) taxation theft?
No matter what your opinions are on what people should spend their money on, even if you think it would make society better, when you advocate taxation you lose your right to talk about what people should do. You're advocating violence, and once you do that it's no longer a debate. Taxation is taking someone's money without their consent.
The argument for the "social contract" is absurd. I did not choose to be born, or where, and neither did you. I suppose a debate on taxation wouldn't be complete however, without someone inevitably saying "Well, if you don't like it you can leave!"
No, you're right. A fetus doesn't choose to live. I didn't think of that! :-)
Continuing to live is a choice though. Unless someone is forcing you to live or if you don't have a choice. In the case of suicide, choice is implied. Without choice a person can't commit suicide, right? What came to mind for me is that if you stopped moving, eating, breathing then eventually you would die. So in that sense, life is a continuous choice.
I don't think "right" is the correct term. Humans can commit suicide. Whether they should or shouldn't depends on who you ask, but ultimately it's up to the person who's life is in question. For the same reason it's absurd to tell someone they don't have a right to live, it's equally absurd to say they don't also have a right to end their life. What is life without the freedom of choice? Life is a choice.
Parents decide to have children, not the other way around. Since children don't get to choose their parents I don't see why they should look after them. Perhaps they would want to and they can certainly make that choice, but there's no reason why they "should".
"Young," "old," "conservative," and "liberal" can mean different things to different people. This is clearly just a generalization with nothing meaningful to be gained. Age has no bearing on the worthiness/unworthiness of holding political ideas, and not having a heart or brain is also a completely subjective judgement.
Taxation is central to this debate, because that's the question we are debating: Should we or should we not tax fatty foods? I think it's perfectly reasonable to examine what taxation is first, before trying to determine if it's justifiable in a specific situation. You seem to be under the impression that taxation is the only way to alleviate suffering. I fail to see how it's completely inhumane and incorrect to suggest that people pay their own bills or else seek peaceful solutions if they cannot. My main argument, which I believe to be entirely relevant, is that there are alternatives to taxation.
There are charities in existence for helping the poor. If people would rather keep their money, do you think they should be able to? Once you start advocating the payment of medical bills by force, without the consent of the person's money you are taking, that has to be addressed. Wanting to help the poor is an honourable goal indeed, but you have to think about what you're actually supporting. Do the ends justify the means?
If taxation is not theft, are you are free to not be taxed? What happens if you resist?
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god/gods. If you lack belief in unicorns, you do not need to prove that unicorns don't exist. I think you're misunderstanding the burden of proof: Theists are the ones making a claim that something exists, therefore they should support that claim. Atheists are saying that god does not exist or that there is no reason to believe a god/gods exist. If you are not making a positive claim about reality you do not need to provide evidence.
Why should someone believe a god exists just because there could be a slight possibility that we can't comprehend which allows a god to exist? If so, then you might as well believe in all gods, unicorns and anything else that people can imagine.
It is a narrow perspective on your part to try and justify everything so it suits your position. Either a god exists or not. The universe includes everything that exists, and to exist requires being part of the universe in a physical sense. If you want to invent a realm in which god can exist, by all means go ahead. Just realize that in your paragraph you used the word "maybe" 3 times, but you never said that maybe god doesn't exist.
Taxation is theft. Theft is not justifiable in order to get people to eat healthier. If you think that eating fatty foods is bad, don't eat fatty foods yourself. Educate people and find peaceful ways to encourage better eating.
Why does it personally harm you if others eat fatty foods? In current society taxpayers are funding the high medical bills which is unfair (I live in Canada). It would be better for people to suffer the consequences of eating poorly by having to pay their own medical bills. Adding more taxes would only add to the injustice. There are better, more peaceful ways to solve these kinds of problems in society.
I think it's possible. We have made progress in that direction. Violence is seen as more of a last resort now. Also, the idea that people should be free to make their own choices (as long as they're not hurting anyone else) is more acceptable. There are a lot of people in the world, but it is possible that each individual could "get along" which does NOT mean that they have to agree with everyone else. It just means we could all coexist peacefully.
Banning smoking absolutely requires violence, you cannot get around that. How else would you "ban" something, unless you enforce it against the will of people who would do it otherwise? Please explain the reason why you think that is okay. Just because people "will never get everyone to agree" is not a justification for initiating force. People don't have to agree on anything, we're allowed to live differently (and should be able to). There are non-violent, civil ways to deal with disagreements in society. I think banning smoking would be going to extremes, trying to control the behaviour of other people.
Drinking alcohol negatively effects others when that person gets behind the wheel of a car, is drunk while supposed to be taking care of children, when becoming an angry drunk, when damaging property, etc. I was also referring to physical damage, not mental (although mental is harmful, so I think that should be included as well). Junk food can also negatively effect people by having to pay higher taxes for health care.
That was not my argument, it was just an example of something else that's bad for you. I do agree that smoking negatively effects those around you as well, so it's not the same thing. How about alcohol? That negatively effects others, should that be banned? What about a woman eating raw fish while pregnant, should that be banned?
My argument was that to ban something requires coercion. Please provide your reasoning for why you think banning cigarettes should be violently enforced, and why that would be okay.
I don't think a man paying for a meal is an example of chivalry. I don't think men should pay for a meal or a date, and they certainly don't have to. An example of sexism is expecting that a man should pay, just for being male.
I know your comment was made in jest, but obviously women don't need to feel obligated to have sex with a man who pays for a meal, or for any other reason. I think it makes sense that couples split the bill or take turns paying, unless one person wants to pay for everything for some reason.
I'm not sure what chivalry is. Perhaps if a man is taller/stronger, which is most likely if dating a woman, than helping to carry or reach something could be chivalrous. But a friend would do that for another friend, so I think chivalry is just doing something nice. It's not necessary.
Yes. Democracy is the violent infliction of laws against the minority. By voting, a person is trying to get their opinion inflicted on the rest of people in their society.
In a democracy the laws are supposed to reflect the majority of what people want. If the majority of people want something, they don't need to be forced to do it. And if the majority doesn't want something, it wouldn't become law. So why do we need government again? Governments are just people, and no group of people has the right to violently inflict others to live how they think they should.
Should junk food also be banned?
What these type of debates essentially come down to is violence. Banning something requires coercion. What gives anyone the right to tell others how to live? There are many practical reasons why smoking is bad, but there are better ways to get people to stop doing harmful things than by doing harmful things! Education, rational arguments, ostracism, etc.
False has no "u" in it.
Being born male or female (or both) doesn't make a person more intelligent or capable of more feeling. You don't make it clear what you think girls even have a better understanding of. Making assumptions about a person by something accidental like their gender is an ignorant thing to do.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you wouldn't want somebody to assume negative things about you based on your gender, would you?
War is violence, destruction and murder. Who can benefit from that?
There are a lot of things people don't get to choose for themselves: gender, age, who their parents are or what country they're born in. What possible justification can be made to initiate force against people? There is nothing about any individual or group of individuals that can give them moral authority over anyone else.
Let's move past the idea that violence solves problems, because it hasn't. We can solve problems better if we work together and respect each other as individuals. Live and let live. :-)
Women don't have to get married or have children; some don't want to (myself included). So clearly this wouldn't apply to them. For any person that decides to get married, there is no universal "should" for what they should do after marriage- male or female. People will do what they do.
Nobody should be forced to read outside of school, but I'm a huge fan of reading. It can help build vocabulary, improve spelling/grammar, not to mention the wealth of knowledge that can be attained through reading. Most of what I've learned has been from reading outside of school. I think it's easier to learn something if you want to learn about it; if you seek the knowledge yourself you're already interested and motivated to learn. In school, not so much.
How are you defining "teen rebellion" in your question? It's normal for teenagers to "rebel" in the sense of making decisions on their own, suffering consequences, and following their own desires (instead of just following their parents' wishes). In order to become a healthy adult, teenagers need to become independent.
Also, what do you mean by asking if it should be accepted? By whom? Do you mean socially accepted?
Absolutely not. Who would be paying for it? Some people know what they want to do at a young age and don't require a college or university degree. If someone wants to go to college that should be the only reason they go, otherwise a lot of time and money is wasted. How would forcing people to attend 2 years of college be beneficial? If they don't want to go, what reason would justify forcing them to?
Human sexuality is complex. You are definitely missing some "levels," and why are you categorizing them into levels anyways? The descriptions of each level seem much too specific to apply to most people. What is the significance of the numbers I wonder?
You should add in "levels" for asexuals and polyamorous individuals.
So do you think women should be forced to carry and give birth to children against their will?
I must insist on the point that it does not matter if people are irresponsible, that is not the issue. What we are debating is what happens once a woman is pregnant and decides that she does not want to go through with the pregnancy (for whatever reasons, good or bad), should she have the right to decide to have an abortion, or should she be forced against her will to have the child?
I don't understand your point. You can't force someone to take precautionary measures against unwanted pregnancy... so what? No matter who made what decision, poorly or otherwise it makes no difference. Once pregnant, the woman is the one that has to carry the child and give birth, and forcing a woman to do this against her will is coercion. Do you think that forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a child is okay under any circumstances?
It can't. "Governments" are just individuals. That's like asking, "how can Canadians persuade our minds?" An individual can persuade other individuals, but persuasion isn't a collective act. Persuasion requires something that can be persuaded, someone to be persuaded and someone to do the persuading.
I think that how we see ourselves is more important. Everyone in the world could think you're a wonderful human being, but if you don't, that's what counts. I believe in that cliché that you have to love yourself first, before anyone else can really love you.
I think it only makes sense that the mother would have the final say. It's her body. Even if the father would agree to raise the child afterwards, you can't force someone to carry a child and give birth if they don't wish to. Well, you can, but once you start advocating things like that you've stopped debating.
Why do you assume that age difference means a difference in interests/desires? Do you have the same interests and desires as everyone the same age as you? Of course not.
Interests and desires are subjective to each individual. That is why I argue that age cannot be a determining factor of a good OR bad relationship outcome. People with a huge age difference can share the same interests and desires, or at least more so than people their own age, depending on what their interests/desires are. What evidence do you have that they can't?
Matter in what sense? As long as they're consenting adults, it can be a healthy or unhealthy relationship depending on the individuals involved. A couple that's around the same age won't necessarily work out- it depends on the reasons for getting into the relationship, the expectations, and ultimately whether or not they're compatible.
Being older doesn't mean being wiser. Maturity and wisdom might be the same level for people far apart in age, for many reasons. I think the success of a relationship can't be determined by age. However, I think it's more likely that people find someone with similar interests, desires and maturity level near the same age.
Children don't get to pick their parents. If a child is being overfed and learns bad eating habits, the resulting health problems and other issues are the fault of the parents (barring any medical conditions).
I think that if a parent really cared for their child, they would do what it takes to have them be healthy and happy. If a parent can't take the time to learn about good nutrition, then they don't care what is best for the child. If they recognize that, maybe they would realize they shouldn't have children, or that someone else should raise them- or that they need to become a better parent.
As for other adults, such as grandparents- that is also the responsibility of the parents. It is their responsibility to stop that situation, even if it means not letting the grandparents see the child.
