You HAVE to do things... (spin-off) - Page 13 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#361 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 08:45 AM
Dal
 
Dal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's 5 steps now. Gotta go. Sorry.

I'm back. The boundary conditions I'm defending (not the 5 steps, but the types of situations the 5 steps aim to show that it is o.k. or even a good thing to intervene in relation to) are what would (or should) be mutually agreeable to any reasonable person. Everyone counts. There must be some laws, right, so how are we to determine what they should be -- in order to prevent things such as Nazi Germany from recurring? Don't we need to look for a common morality? This is far less an imposition than one that is arbitrary. The imposition is justified when a person is causing harm to another being. It is not at all arbitrary. It can be fully justified with appeal to reason and empathy.

What is disagreeable about my position? Surely you will agree that there are some cases that require intervention. Which cases do and don't is a difficult issue in its own right. What I'm arguing is that this intervention does not need to be arbitrary. That it can be well-founded and based on premises that are (or should be) acceptable to everyone. I need not accept that my position has no merits over Hitler's. Some positions are superior to others. Mine is better than Hitler's. Way better. Mine is jusified. His cannot be justified in a sound way. If it was taken apart (as I'm sure it has been), we could find faults with it and show them to others. We are hard-wired with the ability to identify inconsistencies and follow arguments.

I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone that I don't think they already accept, or that they will accept when they are older. The impositions only come into play when it comes down to stopping needless harm. What qualifies as such is a huge issue, but many issues are relatively easy and those offer a good starting point. E.g., that I have the moral authority to stop Simon from kicking a baby in the head. That is NOT NOT NOT an arbitrary, groundless moral code that I just happen to accept. It is NOT only acceptable within the confines of my home or my society. Anyone who is in that situation should stop the toddler from bashing the infant in the head. Failure to do so is not only immoral in my head. It is immoral outside of it too.

In an Ancient Chinese text (can't remember which one at the moment) this is discussed in terms of our inclination to save a toddler from climbing into a well. We all would stop the toddler from doing so. Failure to do so would be wrong -- whether it happens now or if it happened in Ancient China or anywhere else. What I'm advocating is not a purely Western invention. Far from it.

What more needs to be done to arrive at agreement that we are sometimes fully justified in intervening? Who thinks that I'm doing nothing wrong if I sit back and watch as a toddler in my care repeatedly kicks a teensy infant in the head? And I don't mean "Well... I think it's wrong, but that's only within the confines of my belief system. It may be legit within another system. I might be wrong. Who am I to claim authority over others?" If no one is willing to claim authority and insist that others do the same, who is supposed to help the people who are genuinely being victimized by the *arbitrary* use of power? They don't need help? The victimizer can proceed unimpeeded because it is just too dangerous to claim moral authority, whatever atrocities are being committed?

I don't think that claiming moral authority is any more a problem than claiming to be a relativist. I don't think it's a problem at all. I take appeals to relativism to be a huge threat though. Relativists are willing to let go of any moral authority (or so they claim) and give it instead to neo-nazis and whoever else happens to claim it. There are some clear-cut cases in which we can tell right from wrong. Someone needs to tell the neo-nazis in no uncertain terms that what they are advocating IS wrong. If they or other cretins want to act on their sick beliefs, we want to have a justified reason for stopping them when they try to kill anyone who violates their ideal of white purity. If we don't have this, what are we hoping to act on? Might makes right? Just stay out of politics altogether and hope for the best?

Is there really no such thing as an arbitrary and unjustified use of power? Strangely, that's what seems to be advocated here, since I have no justified right by which to claim that any such use of power is wrong. That all uses of power are arbitrary and unjustified aside from the confines of our fallible belief systems. I've got no justified right to insist that it would be WRONG for someone to come into my home and rape me and kill my toddler? That is outrageous.
Dal is offline  
#362 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 11:40 AM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am not done reading yet; but I just want to submit a question based upon the assertion that there is an inherent and obvious, undeniable "good", why does one need to "teach" it then?

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#363 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 11:52 AM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
When we wise woman from Mothering.com rule the world, we can have it so that the deviants are forced to live up to these boundary conditions (since they lack the internal motivation to do so on their own).
This is the same "moral" premise of Hitler, I might add. Only "deviants" were racially determined and the degree of "internal motivation" was not the criteria/justification, it was internal genetics.

Who is to dictate what defines the criteria of "deviant"? A one proscribed "morality" to which all others are forced to live up to these boundary conditions (since some may lack the internal motivation to do so on their own)?

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#364 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 11:57 AM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just a curiosity. OT for sure. But wouldn't you all eat dead humans if you were starving? Seriously, I have little doubt that I would/could. (That didn't come off sounding very "non-deviant", I am afraid. : )

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#365 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 12:46 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by natensarah
Wait, I thought you were just arguing against this!
Actually no. I have been in the odd position of simulatneously arguing for moral relativity AND a degree of objective morality.
I'm a complex gal
johub is offline  
#366 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 12:57 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
About the suicide bombers again: Should I grant that it's possible that they are right: that if they die in the process of killing us "infidels" they win the prize of 75 virgins or whatever it is? No. If someone arrived with that view on their own, they'd most likely be considered mentally ill, and rightly so. I can't say with an infinite degree of certainty that they do not earn "their" virgins. I've been wrong in the past and may be wrong even about the most basic aspects of life. Even so, I would bet every life on this planet that there are no afterlife orgies with virgins going on at the moment. I'd do so without flinching. The chances of them being right is beyond negligible. I don't really think that there is any chance of them being right at all. It's really only a possibility within the confines of philosophical thinking.
The moral egocentrism of this paragraph was too far beyond my comprehension to go without note. This is exactly the same arguement that OUR President George Bush is using 'The good of God directs us (the U.S. with masses of (non-suicide) bombers) to go and invade another country (at their unintended peril) with the intent of providing some good.' To dismiss the "bomber's" religious devotion and beliefs is no different than to dismiss Bushes' religious devotion and beliefs. Not that I am advocating either moral "imperitive" be imposed upon another group. But no moral imperitive (by right of force) of theirs or yours/ours/mine is what I advocate. As such either is equally valid as mine but I am not imposing mine.

The moral perogative of self-defense is the subsequent paradox.

Pat-isms

Btw, I don't recall that the afterlife glory was xx number of virgins. The glory was no more or less than a purple heart/going to heaven by our increasingly proscribed and constitutionally imposed/sanctioned "moral code" of Christianity in America. The premise is the same that 'there is One moral code "mine". And all others are 'mentally deviant' or 'morally corrupt'.'

The basic premise of both is My moral code= good; other moral code= bad. But let's hide behind some 'common boundary' definition of a compromised moral code and impose/force it on others who are not 'motivated' to comply. The Religious Right is actively sanctioning this practice outright. Dal are you also?????? Hitler succeeded for a while. Bush is too. So are the bombers. All are equally relying on the premise of imposing ONE moral code by force. Might makes right. The end justifies the means..........

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#367 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 01:00 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Dal,

I believe that you are at the disadvantage of sleep deprivation. I slept last night. Evidently you did not. Go sleep and come back to argue with a rested brain. You have gone too far to the Right of Might.

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#368 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 01:00 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:
johub is offline  
#369 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 01:05 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok, I agree with you more all the time Joline. But don't you see that I am more right (or is it Left, big L)? Or is it that you are starting to agree with me?

Pat-isms

Going out. Back soon.

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#370 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 01:17 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree with you about cultural morality being relative.
However I disagree about not being responsible for teaching our children our chosen morality.
This thread has changed topics so many times. . .
johub is offline  
#371 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 05:43 PM
 
SunRayeMomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 1,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can't keep up with all the reading and typing. I just can't get on the computer for long enough at one time.... so I piece my replies together and that's why this is coming now

So I guess everyone is in agreement that this is also an issue that can be approached with non-coercive tactics.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by anna
I just don't understand why the need to stop her from something that she enjoys, would you take away a book or a blanket or stuffed animal?
You know why, that's what this is about It's about her health. Helping her to choose health over habit. I think it's an important issue, more often than not. Convincing an alcoholic to throw away his bottles isn't going to take away his desire for the enjoyment or escape they provide for him. But it is no less an important part of learning to put health before habit. Would I take away a book or blanket or animal? That is more or less irrelavent since those things are hardly detrimental to one's health And no, I wouldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scubabmama
The issue is she *needs* oral sensory stimuli to provide self-soothing. And something to occupy her hands.
I was a nail-biter my whole life and am only now getting a handle on it. I don't recall either of my parents ever bringing it up to me in an informative way, or at all for that matter. I wish they had - perhaps it would have been different. After all, it's a nasty habit. But I certainly don't need to do it. Not until I was in highschool did I realize that if I wanted to, I would have to struggle against the desire to overcome it. What was stronger - my desire (habit) to chew or my desire to have beautiful hands? The battle's still ragin.... Is it oral fixation? I dunno. I'd like to think it's just habit. Nothing more. Honestly. But she is still young. Yes, an oral phase is still present and I respect that of her.

Quote:
By judging what is or isn't needed by another individual, you are discounting her own opinion. I am not discounting that you think that your daugher needs to stop sucking her thumb.
Pat I am so glad you worded it that way at the end because any thing less may have sounded contradictory to m own feelings I know my daughter very well and I can say that my implying she doesn't "need" her thumb is perfectly reasonable. Her opinion: "I like it" with a and a ..... No "I need it" in there....

Quote:
You do not "have to" provide her with braces.
This hadn't even occured to me as an option. Of course, from this thread it is inferred that no one "has to" do anything, but it had never occurred to me that this in particular was hanging out there... of course I would if it were needed, because one can hardly blame a child for not wanting to give up something so precious to them, or punish them by not providing braces because it was "their fault" so to speak. (Actually I "blame" someone else )

Quote:
She apparently doesn't have a concern about that at this point.....And sucking (or not sucking) her thumb is her department to control.
So yesterday we were in the car and she was sucking. I said, "So Raye, I wonder if you notice that you are sucking your thumb?" She said "Oh, yes I guess I am." Then I explained in an informative kind of way of what thumb sucking may do to the teeth, casually mentioning that the sucking action may move the placement of the teeth or what-not and that when she is older, she may need braces to realign them. I assured her that the reason I want to talk about it is because I hope she always desires to have healthy teeth, not because I think she is wrong for wanting to suck her thumb. (She is big on "what's healthy" right now so this is right up her alley ) Anyhoo, we went to the library and got some books about braces and thumb sucking and after reading them objectively, she ultimatly decided that she will try to be more aware of the sucking. That's good enough for me I told her that sometimes she does it and I think that it's out of habit - that she may not realize it, and that I may point it out to her but it is her decision whether she wants to continue doing it.

The last thing I ever want is a battle. And rarely do we. To tell you the truth, she is an incredibly well-behaved and undertanding person and even when I have shut the TV off, she would say "well, okay then." because she knew that there was a rhyme and reason for it. And I would explain that she CHOSE thumb sucking over the TV. It was never a punishment or an argument. It was cause and effect, a consequence of her choice. She could continue sucking after as well, because it was what she chose. I think there is a difference between the way we approached it and punitive limitations. We were very considerate of her feelings; but there ARE consequences to be learned. We decided to drop it all together and stick to the informative approach instead, however. Now and then (not always) I will casually say "Raye, did you know you're sucking your thumb right now? Are you sure it's something you want to do?" "Yes/no" "Okay" end of conversation. Just for awareness sake.

On a lighter note, I think instead of "punishing" my daughter for sucking her thumb, I will "punish" my mother for giving her the idea! Maybe I'll have her pay for the braces if they are ever needed (she still hasn't lived that one down )

~Sara, WAHSingMomi to girls R and AV, S.O.A.R. Scout Leader and Homeschooling In Detroit Blogger

SunRayeMomi is offline  
#372 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 06:23 PM
 
ambdkf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunRayeMomi
You know why, that's what this is about It's about her health.
OK, well I guess this is where we differ because I don't see it as a health issue. I found no one that could prove it would cause x, y or z and had examples in my own family and friends where it hasn't. So to me it's just a 'boogeyman'. I see you that you feel differently.

Anna
ambdkf is offline  
#373 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 06:31 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
SunRayeMomi,

I will refrain from comment unless you are requesting further non-coercive "guidance".

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#374 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 09:51 PM
 
SunRayeMomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 1,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wouldn't really be posting about it here if I wasn't. Actually, no that's not entirely true. Sometimes I like to hear myself talk. But BY ALL MEANS, please share advice if you have it!

~Sara, WAHSingMomi to girls R and AV, S.O.A.R. Scout Leader and Homeschooling In Detroit Blogger

SunRayeMomi is offline  
#375 of 434 Old 11-19-2005, 11:11 PM
Dal
 
Dal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Pat, you don't believe in the need for any kind of social contract? How then are we to get on as a society? There are people who want to harm others. It is not o.k. to stop them because I might be wrong that rape and murder are wrong? I'm saying "I" here only because you are refusing this. The boundary conditions I'm defending are hardly my own creation.

You accept anarchy now? By what basis, please do tell, should I never interfere with Simon's autonomy? Because according to your argument, I'm not really ever justified in doing so, though sometimes I'll do this because of my "hang-ups" about the importance of his health and the well-being of others. These are hardly hang-ups. What mother doesn't feel this way? Sometimes things go wrong, but we do have natural inclinations to care about each other. You don't agree that this is the case?

If you see a person running from a lion, do you know that that person is scared and doesn't want to be harmed? Everyone knows this. None of us wants to be eaten by a lion. The position that you are defending refuses to acknowledge that we can have any knowledge at all, moral or otherwise. There is no need to think that knowledge has to be absolute to be worth asserting. Were that the case I would not be justified in stating that I know what my name is as I may be dreaming or what-have-you.

You haven't dealt with my argument, you've just rudely spit on the effort I put into writing it and claimed that I must not have been of sound mind while writing it.

You can see a child being tortured and have no sense of concern for that child? You don't think that this is our natural state of being? You don't think this is a universal human sentiment (shared by many other species as well, I believe)?

Morality never requires that we help others? It's never a good thing to discount the opinion of someone who insists on coming into my home to kill me? This is not founded by morality, just my own subjective preference? Some opinions suck. The beliefs of the KKK suck. They are wrong. It is a good thing to discount their opinions and force them to stop acting on them. Would you rather they be allowed to put their burning crosses on people's lawns and hang people? There is nothing morally wrong with that, and no sound moral reason to stop them?
Dal is offline  
#376 of 434 Old 11-20-2005, 01:17 AM
 
SunRayeMomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 1,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think sometimes people set up a belief system and tout it as perfection, so when there are eventual possible exceptions to the rules of the system brought forth, the people must then create more levels and sublevels and rules to cover the exceptions so as not to imperfect the system they believe in. Does that make sense? .... I'm not sure. I'm still working it out. But the ideal of perfectly non-coercive parenting is so majestic it's making my head spin a little.

~Sara, WAHSingMomi to girls R and AV, S.O.A.R. Scout Leader and Homeschooling In Detroit Blogger

SunRayeMomi is offline  
#377 of 434 Old 11-20-2005, 01:49 AM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Dal,

I am sorry that you feel that I discounted your efforts in articulating your beliefs. I fully agree with your autonomy to believe as you do. And Trust you to act on your moral code as you see fit in those self-defensive or 'helping others' situations that you described. However, I do not believe as you do regarding imposing my morality as an external universal (or societal) moral code on others. I have no perception that this would be effective in providing the protection from the Fears that you speak of anyway. There are already laws against murder. People murder irrelevant of laws. I do not share your Fears of others acting violently due to a lack of an external moral authority.

Proscribing a moral code against which others are punished serves no real assurance such as you desire, imo. It is no different in children. The underlying need is the catalyst for people's actions, positive or negative by whatever definition. I believe that meeting the underlying needs of our children (which our culture is widely failing to do (according to the individual child's judgement, not mine), and which our culture fervently sanctions ignoring) is the most effective means of honoring and nurturing the inherent value of life that you embrace, imo.

The judgement that the KKK's beliefs "should be" forbidden is no different than the KKK's beliefs that equality of rights for African Americans "should be" forbidden. The common premise is the belief of one's own higher moral authority; and both beliefs embrace using force to subject others to their own moral code.

I truly believe that nurturing the development of communication skills of finding mutual agreeablity is that which will change the dynamics of the world from force to negotiation and consensus. As such, I believe there are many non-mandated ways that society can exist and prosper without force. I agree that sharing a common belief system based upon common "moral" precepts makes that more likely. But forced morality doesn't effectively control people's actions; it is only when morality is internally directed that it is most likely to be consistent.

I am fully confident in applying my own moral code (irrelevant of any externally imposed one) based on many of the instinctual reactions which you define as needing to be mandated. I believe this is an aspect of your assertions. As a child, my own instinctual reactions (representing my underlying needs) were subjected to imposed consequences (punishments without regard to the underlying need); and I learned to ignore (and distrust) my instinct unless it was externally validated by higher "moral" authorities than myself (parents, teachers, police officers, ministers, etc.). Or, I would circumvent to obtain my desires anyway without getting caught (we are talking sneaking to see boyfriend, trying alcohol, that sort of moral depravity. ) However, as an adult, I have regained much of my instinctual moral authority for myself. (I confess to being concerned with what people think who hold the threat of legal authority over me, and this does generally deter my desires to act in opposition to amoral (according to my own personal moral code) laws (ie. taxation)). But my *learned* Fear of acting upon the externally imposed moral code of our culture in opposition to my internal moral code (my natural moral imperitive), has waned greatly. Now, I Trust my moral compass, irrelevant of any other's beliefs (except for a few people with whose moral codes I confer).

I believe it is the act of parents modelling disregard (distrust) of their children's own instinctual moral code of valuing the autonomy and integrity for their own life that disrupts (and diminishes) their natural regard of other's autonomy and integrity of life. I Trust that our son will continue to naturally regard his own and other's autonomy and integrity because his has been honored consistently, if not perfectly. But, I do not spend my life Fearing those adults who had their autonomy and integrity disregarded who might act against an external moral authority, as they will regardless of an external moral authority. : Those adults who were disregarded and act on their own internal moral authority do not cause me Fear either. I am one, and I turned out pretty damn moral, even by your high standards.

I believe the construct of "The Lord of the Flies" (depicting "instinctual" moral depravity) is a product of the disregard of human instincts in our culture, not the naturally inherent regard of human instincts of humanity. In general, I Trust people's inherent moral compass based upon my own instinctual perception and awareness. I haven't always Trusted and I was "taught" not to. But, I have unlearned Fear of other's morality. (except morality dictated by the government )


Pat-isms

Btw, the Buddhist beliefs that I have been exposed to about suffering and living in the moment (as opposed to distancing from our innate reactions) are different than you depicted to such a degree that I don't know where to begin. And I don't hold the "life is suffering" premise inherent to Buddhism either. I believe I am more Taoist, no justification necessary for that which is. But, I am frequently conflicted by what I have learned to 'expect' and what is.

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#378 of 434 Old 11-20-2005, 02:06 AM
Dal
 
Dal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can't read everything now, but are you glad that there are laws? According to your position, it is wrong for there to be such laws since they can never be justified and they disrespect the opinions of the "criminals."

Your position seems to fold because as you present it, it seems incompatible with respect for respect. What is that respect founded on? Why is respect a good thing?

I prefer a mutual agreeability that is founded on commonly accepted beliefs about the importance of respecting people. Without this, what you seem to be advocating is complete moral relativism and anarchy.

There are situations in which it would be wrong to not impose your will on your son. You do not believe that? You would be doing absolutely nothing wrong if you sat back and watched as he picked up an infant and threw her into a well?

Because Hitler imposed his ARBITRARY position on others and much harm resulted does not mean that all impositions of power are arbitrary and wrong. What is important is to identify when it is justified. There are needs for the use of power unless one accepts anarchy as a mutually agreeable position, or as otherwise acceptable.

It seems politically naive to say that "well, there are laws so I don't need to worry about this." Are the laws just? I assume you value your safety. If they are all as arbitrary as you sugget must be the case, they are unjustified. So are you willing to accept that your position leads to the end result of a total hands off society in which there is no widely accepted moral or legal authority by which to stop anyone from doing anything? How is that a good thing?

Libertarianism is about minimal governmental imposition, the government should ensure people's basic rights, whatever these are taken to be (I think most libertarians take them to be quite minimal, and not to include health care or education, but I could be wrong about that). The position is distinct from anarchy, which is opposed to any government at all.

I'm sorry that I haven't had a chance to read all of your response. I meant for this to be just a few lines. I only have so much time to engage in this debate and regret that I haven't been able to do more to respond to individual posts and points.
Dal is offline  
#379 of 434 Old 11-20-2005, 02:47 AM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do not consensually embrace any law which is not solely for self-defense of the autonomy of the individual. I would believe that I fall much farther from the Libertarian platform and closer to no governmental rule. I have often stated that the only proper role of government is self-defense. Where as others in this country also have a say in the implementation of government, I am able to be in consensus with the implementation of a government for the sole purpose of self-defense of the individual to the degree that the individual expresses or implies a desire to be defended. (Disregarding my stated wishes not to have a feeding tube is not the role of governement to impose on me as an individual imo, fortunately the Supreme Court agreed. However, the issue of my right to euthenasia, is subject to the government in ways that I do not agree with their imposing "self-defense" upon myself from myself, for instance.) And there are tons of laws that others feel impose on their own rights to self-defense such as gun laws, abortion, and acts which are initiated in the name of self-defense such as the War in Vietnam, Iraq, interrogation of suspected "terrorists", etc.

But any further role of government in our lives is not consensual to me. The system we in America have is flawed to be certain. But there is some opportunity to alter the system. However, I choose to voluntarily subject myself to living within the community of a system that imposes upon others and myself beyond the scope of my moral code. And it is getting harder to condone what America does around the world and here, to be sure. I am actively working to change that in the manners that I can. I did not originate the system obviously; and it isn't compatible with my code of non-force by a LLLOOOONNNNGGGG shot. But, so far, it seems the best current alternative for me based upon my own current priorities.

But, no government involvement in my life and living in community by consensus would be my preference. And obviously with 290,000,000 people, getting as close to that as is mutally agreeable requires considering other's moral standards which are in opposition to mine. The fact that we are governed by a representative democracy is perhaps as good as it can get? But, that doesn't seem to be working very well for many people either. I do not know the answer to this. But it is not up to me alone. And fortunately it isn't up to Bush alone either. But he certainly is eating away our civil liberties with the Homeland Security impositions.

I have no meglomaniacal precept of changing the system to my moral code. But, I am working to change it from the point of advocating parents embrace mutual respect, non-coercion and mutal agreeablity as a means of conflict resolution. And every child will touch many lives. And the world will change.

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#380 of 434 Old 11-20-2005, 08:14 AM
Dal
 
Dal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Pat:

It is not megalomaniacal to search for an ethical code that is apt to be mutually agreeable to the vast majority of humans. I do believe in right and wrong and feel a need to arrive at a justified answer to the questions we’ve been discussing in order to decide how to best parent my son. When am I justified in asserting authority over him? I do not want to decide this arbitrarily and do not believe that it is never justified (if I did believe this, I’d have to accept that I somehow violated his interests by keeping him alive when he wanted to dart out into traffic, which is both absurd and patently false). Safety issues are not the only issues that come up in our lives. I want to do the best I can to determine when it is fair for me, dh, or someone who is taking care of him to expect Simon to do something or to refrain from doing something.

You are taking my desire to arrive at a determination of what is ideal as though I’m trying to impose it on others. How could I do this? If we have no ideals, at what are we to aim? I’m all for determining ideals, discussing them with others (who come to the table with their own account of what is ideal), and ideally arriving at mutually agreeable consensus about what is and is not acceptable to the group. So, I set out to limit my position to that which I think is most apt to be mutually agreeable.

Back to the discussion. It's hard for people to have self-defense of their autonomy if they are murdered. And of course, no one wants to be raped -- that is also an infringement on autonomy. So, your position does seem to advocate the use of power to prevent someone from infringing on another person's autonomy. You do want for there to be a government (or community consensus) and do believe that the government (or consenting body) has a proper role (protecting the autonomy of individuals). As such, you do seem to embrace the boundary conditions that I've been advocating. The idea of forming a society in which no one ever violates that which has been agreed upon is utopian and unrealistic (unless perhaps the community is very small and very isolated). In real life, there is sometimes a need to impose these limitations on others as they are unable or unwilling to respect the well-being of others on their own. When we are dealing with toddlers and children, even in a Utopian consensual community, they will sometimes do or try to do things that violate the autonomy of others (e.g., hit a sibling).

It is not possible for the government to protect individual autonomy if it doesn't prevent people from doing things that infringe on the autonomy of others. It is not the case that any and every infringement is a problem, which is what you seem to have been arguing in your previous posts. It is justifiable to impose a limitation on a person’s autonomy if that person poses a real threat to the autonomy of others (what counts as such needs to be decided). So then, your position does seem to hold that the government (or intentional community members) must prevent actions that cause needless harm. It is safe to assume that everyone wants their safety and autonomy to be respected. So, the autonomous choice of Jimbo to take his gun and shoot school children need not be respected, and indeed, force should be taken if he were to attempt to do this. Such a shooting is antithetical to the morally sanctioned respect for autonomy that is guaranteed to every citizen and ensured to the greatest extent possible by the governing body. Ideally Jimbo will not want to shoot anyone and will happily agree with the rest of society that such an action is morally corrupt. If he does this, we have no issue to deal with. If not, there is a need to somehow coerce his compliance or otherwise deter such actions.

Am I right in thinking that we've achieved some degree of consensus?
Dal is offline  
#381 of 434 Old 12-10-2005, 08:42 PM
 
WuWei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the moment
Posts: 11,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just "had to" revive this thread since I keep hearing people say they "have to" do xyz and their child "has to" do abc.

Pat

I have a blog.
WuWei is offline  
#382 of 434 Old 12-10-2005, 08:53 PM
 
MommyMine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How would you have them say it?

Under duress that if I fail to do this I will not be able to get my child to the doctor appointment and may have to wait for two months to get another appointment- I choose to rush my child out the door?

Would that be better?
MommyMine is offline  
#383 of 434 Old 12-10-2005, 09:03 PM
 
TinkerBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scubamama
I just "had to" revive this thread since I keep hearing people say they "have to" do xyz and their child "has to" do abc.

Pat

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I respect that. But, I do not fully agree. While everything is not a "have to", sometimes it is. Perhaps you have oodles of time to take care of things. Perhaps you have lots of help to do it with. I do not. Sometimes, it has to be the way it has to be, because of time constraints or other reasons. Like I have stated before, I do not feel that way about EVERY situation.

Everything has some shades of gray.
TinkerBelle is offline  
#384 of 434 Old 12-10-2005, 09:10 PM
 
TinkerBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyMine
How would you have them say it?

Under duress that if I fail to do this I will not be able to get my child to the doctor appointment and may have to wait for two months to get another appointment- I choose to rush my child out the door?

Would that be better?
Exactly. It is not like I stand over my kids and shove and push them and pull them by their hands to do everything I want to do, and nevermind their feelings. But, I believe in teaching children that sometimes we do not always get to do whatever we wish anytime we want, or fullfill every whim and desire, whenever we feel like it.

I think it is more like give and take.

The other day, my 11 mo old had followup to some minor surgery he had a couple of weeks ago. I homeschool my 8 yr old. The 8 yr old did not want to go. He wanted to stay home. Well, I could not reschedule the appointment until after the first of the year, and that was not going to happen. The baby needed to have things checked out. My husband works and cannot just take off anytime he wants to. What was I supposed to do? Just sit and wait for DS1 to decide to go? Leave an 8 yr old home alone? No way. Not go, although the baby needed to go? Anyone I would trust to sit with my child works for a living. Not any family nearby. So, guess what, DS1 did go with us. And guess what? He lived. And he learned a lesson that other people have needs too.
TinkerBelle is offline  
#385 of 434 Old 12-10-2005, 09:40 PM
 
2tolove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: chasing squirrels out of my garden
Posts: 538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scubamama
I just "had to" revive this thread since I keep hearing people say they "have to" do xyz and their child "has to" do abc.

Pat
So....What do you say? Do you just NEVER get anything done because my two yo would rather sit in the play room and NEVER go to bed, eat, go potty etc...? While I have read numerous things by peole who feel the same way as you, I have not seen any real practical suggestions that I could use in my daily life.



I guess that I am not able to read the entire thread due to having two little ones So please forgive me if thathas been answered already....


I LOVE doing things that my dc's like to do, BUT I also do HAVE to get things done aroun the house in order to live in it...And sometimes this requires the HELP of the family as a whole. I do think that is important to teach that there are others around you that have needs and we function as a more civilized society if we can be aware of that fact... (IMHO)

I love all of the help & encouragement that I get from all of you at MDC! However I sometimes feel judged for asking the question and trying to do the right thing...rather then encouraged in a new direction
2tolove is offline  
#386 of 434 Old 12-11-2005, 02:37 AM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
WHy bother. Nobody was convinced the first go-round. . .
johub is offline  
#387 of 434 Old 12-11-2005, 08:24 AM
 
KaraBoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alb-uh-kirk-ee
Posts: 4,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it all comes down to how someone views life and priorities and choices. I don't think anyone "has" to do anything. For example: There's an old saying that you don't have to do anything but die and pay taxes. Well, you have a choice about paying taxes...you just might not like the consequences if you don't.

I think that many people go through life thinking there aren't that many choices but I disagree. Choices are limitless. It's just that we may not like all the choices equally.
KaraBoo is offline  
#388 of 434 Old 12-11-2005, 02:03 PM
 
johub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraBoo
I think it all comes down to how someone views life and priorities and choices. I don't think anyone "has" to do anything. For example: There's an old saying that you don't have to do anything but die and pay taxes. Well, you have a choice about paying taxes...you just might not like the consequences if you don't.

I think that many people go through life thinking there aren't that many choices but I disagree. Choices are limitless. It's just that we may not like all the choices equally.
The problem is that when people say "I have to do this"
The "Or this will happen" is implied but not said.
IT is always true that it is a choice. But when the consequence is unacceptable there really isnt a choice.
But it doesnt make the "I have to " any less true for the speaker.
johub is offline  
#389 of 434 Old 12-11-2005, 02:07 PM
 
mommaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: on a wonder wheel
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have taken a long break from this thread in order to give-it-a-go with "non-coersive" living in our home. The points made by Scubamom early on made me think about this topic and I sincerely wanted to give it a shot--I liked that way of thinking/living.

Well, I'm back to report.....it hasn't gone so well. Though I haven't read the entire thread, I know it has turned to a discussion about morality/political affiliations/religion, etc. but I am back to discuss the mega-important topic of oral hygiene

I tried the "give her the tools and let her brush her teeth when she wants to" tactic. Guess what? No interest--for days. After a few days I "insist" that she brush her teeth and then she is confused because it had been a non-issue and suddenly I was insisting. It occurred to me that this inconsistency is much more confusing and damaging to our relationship than any sort of gentle coersion to doing daily hygiene.

In a previous post (early on) someone said that if we "make" them brush their teeth they may grow up to hate it. ??? How many adults do you know who despise brushing their teeth? Or love it? or are torn over the process? NONE! It just IS. Its so silly to take a simple daily task such as this and analyze it to the point of how we "feel" about brushing our teeth.

I am no longer worried about whether or not DD will be ruined for life and have a horrible relationship with her toothbrush as an adult. She has to brush her teeth. Simple as that. I will make it a fun process, but a necessary one. Some things just don't need to be analyzed. There are some things in our house that we "have" to do. Yes, I know there is an alternative, but its not one I'm willing to accept and I believe DD is too young to decide whether or not she wants to keep her teeth for the rest of her life. (and yes I know she looses her baby teeth anyway....not quite the point). BTW, I am not a freak about this....brushing every other day is fine.

Sorry for once again reducing this fabulously intelligent discussion to healthy hygiene habits. Scubamom, please know I mean no disrespect to your ideas, I love them. Some of them just didn't work in our home.

I will leave you with this smilie, as she is showing her pearly whites, from years of brushing no doubt
mommaJ is offline  
#390 of 434 Old 12-11-2005, 02:55 PM
 
KaraBoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alb-uh-kirk-ee
Posts: 4,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Are you suggesting that if a consequence is "unacceptable," then there isn't a real choice? What if putting on a coat when you tell her/him to is "unacceptable" to your child, do you consider it a real choice then? Or does that only apply to adults?
KaraBoo is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off