3 ms·

Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy. Whether the wife or the society of Massachusetts. That was their choice. That choice should no

Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy. Whether the wife or the society of Massachusetts. That was their choice. That choice should not automatically impose limitations on 3rd parties that would like to make their own choices.

dctoedt 6y ago
If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I'm not taking sides here but, original post > Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy Taking care of people is a good thing. What you're suggesting, of other adults banding together and ruining someone's life (assuming for no good reason but their personal gain), is clearly a bad thing. I mean there are no absolute good and bad but you're
- mikem170 6y ago
  > If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. If that were the case we would all be wrong for not donating all of our money to the poor. Philosophers better than you and I have grappled with this, I don't think they'd support your reductio ad absurdum.
  - dctoedt 6y ago
    > The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Agreed, but the distinction might not be relevant. > Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are circumstances in which the law says exactly that. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      > Depending on the jurisdiction... well, ok, I see your point but is this one of those cases? I'm pretty sure it's not; to rescue is a transient thing and of extreme circumstances, and nothing like caregiving which is a long-term process. Edit: and therefore the distinction is relevant.

dctoedt 6y ago

If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
I'm not taking sides here but, original post > Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy Taking care of people is a good thing. What you're suggesting, of other adults banding together and ruining someone's life (assuming for no good reason but their personal gain), is clearly a bad thing. I mean there are no absolute good and bad but you're
mikem170 6y ago
> If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. If that were the case we would all be wrong for not donating all of our money to the poor. Philosophers better than you and I have grappled with this, I don't think they'd support your reductio ad absurdum.
- dctoedt 6y ago
  > The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Agreed, but the distinction might not be relevant. > Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are circumstances in which the law says exactly that. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    > Depending on the jurisdiction... well, ok, I see your point but is this one of those cases? I'm pretty sure it's not; to rescue is a transient thing and of extreme circumstances, and nothing like caregiving which is a long-term process. Edit: and therefore the distinction is relevant.