Parents convicted of murder for using faith-healing on unconscious 11 year old daughter.

[CanuckMA]

But the big difference here is between someone making such a decision on their own behalf, and on behalf of someone for whom they are the guardian. Did the child want to die rather than go to a hospital? Those parents can fight their own cancers with laetrile if they want, for all I care--but making the decision to pray only for an unconscious 11 year old child for whom they were responsible is different. If your religious beliefs allow you to kill your own children through inattention (or starvation or exposure on a mountainside or whatever), then I've got a problem with that. That's no longer a self-determination issue.

Also, as noted above, had it worked they would have faced no problems--indeed, who would have known? They made a bad choice--evidence that they did use a reasonable standard of care w.r.t. the child.

When God starts healing broken arms at the same rate that orthopedists do, or internal bleeding as well as a general surgeon, then we can reconsider the matter. Until then, it's really about the concept of an age of majority, and the care due a minor who is legally unable to obtain her own health insurance and too young to make informed decisions.

But it does open a slippery slope. What if some government official decides that I cna't have my boys circumsised at 8 days because they can't give consent? Or that I should use a specific treatment for a cold?

While I would have rushed my kid to the hospital, it is a hard thing to judge.

 

[arnisador]

There are lots of borderline issues, sure...but death isn't one of them.

 

[Carol]

But it does open a slippery slope. What if some government official decides that I cna't have my boys circumsised at 8 days because they can't give consent? Or that I should use a specific treatment for a cold?

While I would have rushed my kid to the hospital, it is a hard thing to judge.

I don't think the slope is slippery under WI law. If they were Christian Scientists, they may not have been charged when Kara died. They aren't followers of that path, so if Kara had survived, even with impaired health, chances are they may not have faced charges. It seems their protection under the law stopped at death. It is a high standard to meet.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Yup. It's a view that tries to make things simpler than they are, as in comparing abortion to drug abuse. One can start from the same core principles and reach different conclusions in different situations. In particular, with drug abuse there are larger societal issues and those also come into play--and perhaps conflict--with other principles. Real life is messy, and politics is the art of compromise.

Not at all. And I am not talking about politics, I am talking about logic. If you state a premise, be ready to have it tested, especially if you are using it as a core principle. Now if people were to say something along the lines of:

A person's body is there's to do with as they please, as long as........


Then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. But then expect to have that premise challenged for consistency across the spectrum also.

If I say that the sky is blue, I am not making any allowance for it to be any other color. So if someone were to challenge me and say that today, the sky is grey, that doesn't make what I said any less true, but only in one context which I failed to address. Then the problem is mine, not there's as I have an premise which is inconsistent and incomplete with reality.

To bring it back to this case:

People should be allowed to have whatever beliefs they choose as long as those beliefs do not harm (submit your definition of harm here), and if they do harm others, then government the government has the right to intervene when both the victim and the suspect are citizens of said government.

But to submit the mere premise, as is often done here, that the government has no right to interfere with the beliefs of others is incomplete and insincere.

And I will finish by saying that WI law apparently addresses it quite specifically:

I don't think the slope is slippery under WI law. If they were Christian Scientists, they may not have been charged when Kara died.

They made a very specific allowance. They articulated themselves, as many here do not. Often, I believe, because they haven't thought everything through, or because they choose to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[arnisador]

If you state a premise, be ready to have it tested, especially if you are using it as a core principle. Now if people were to say something along the lines of:

A person's body is there's to do with as they please, as long as........


Then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. But then expect to have that premise challenged for consistency across the spectrum also.

There are multiple premises in life, and since definitions are fuzzy, they can conflict at times. If I believe that you should have the freedom to do as you please and also that an orderly society is necessary, at some point one of those must give. This is fine, because I don't mean them as some sort of bizarrely absolute mathematical axioms--they apply via practical logic to real life. You're taking the Descartes' Dream approach, wherein no one needs judges because every ethical/legal question has an explicit, calculable answer. Life doesn't work that way--that's why human judges interpret conflicting principles like "hurting people is wrong" and "using violence self-defense is acceptable" and make decisions in grey areas.

If I say that the sky is blue, I am not making any allowance for it to be any other color.

Physics is different. You can apply the logic much more strictly to 'blue' than to 'justice'.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

There are multiple premises in life, and since definitions are fuzzy, they can conflict at times. If I believe that you should have the freedom to do as you please and also that an orderly society is necessary, at some point one of those must give. This is fine, because I don't mean them as some sort of bizarrely absolute mathematical axioms--they apply via practical logic to real life. You're taking the Descartes' Dream approach, wherein no one needs judges because every ethical/legal question has an explicit, calculable answer. Life doesn't work that way--that's why human judges interpret conflicting principles like "hurting people is wrong" and "using violence self-defense is acceptable" and make decisions in grey areas.

Once again, not at all. If you take your second premise to be true, it necessarily negates the first one. How can you not see that? By stating the second, you obviously feel that there are times when it is allowable to hurt someone. Therefore the first can't be true as a core principle.

Your true premise would then fall along these lines: It is only acceptable to hurt someone in self-defense. The only thing left to do then is to define "hurt" and "self-defense" in order to solidfy one's position. However, when one states the first in one instance, and in a completely separate argument uses the second, how can you not see that one is, in essence, contradicting oneself.

And judges are there because the laws are made by multiple people using different standards. Because the conflicting laws are made by different people at different time period using differing standards, conflict usually arise. Therefore, they are not, strictly speaking, core principles of an individual, which is what I am arguing here. The law, in fact, defines no core principles, only what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. And, legally speaking, judges do not define what is moral or not. I have ready many a judicial opinion where a judge morally disagrees with the judgement that the law forces them to make.

I don't take one person's principle and apply it to anothers and then say there is a conflict. I take the principles that a single person has espoused, and show the contradiction in what that person says. It is certainly possible to clean it up, as I have shown. But most people, usually due to ego, and emotional attachment to a particular argument, or not understanding the principles of reasoning and logic, usually cling to a position that is not longer tenable.

Physics is different. You can apply the logic much more strictly to 'blue' than to 'justice'.

Agreed. I was trying to simplfy an argument to make a point. Apparently it was lost on you.

 

[arnisador]

Once again, not at all. If you take your second premise to be true, it necessarily negates the first one. How can you not see that?

Because I believe that real life doesn't allow an axiomatic formulation a la geometry. The words don't have the same strict meaning. Life is fuzzy.

The only thing left to do then is to define "hurt" and "self-defense" in order to solidfy one's position. However, when one states the first in one instance, and in a completely separate argument uses the second, how can you not see that one is, in essence, contradicting oneself.

Given that one can't (or at last shouldn't) define "point" and "line" in geometry, this seems a difficult goal to achieve. Why can two judges reach different decisions based on the same sets of facts and laws?

And judges are there because the laws are made by multiple people using different standards.

Different standards--there you go.

I don't take one person's principle and apply it to anothers and then say there is a conflict. I take the principles that a single person has espoused, and show the contradiction in what that person says.

You seem to think this can always be done, then? Find a contradiction?

But most people, usually due to ego, and emotional attachment to a particular argument, or not understanding the principles of reasoning and logic, usually cling to a position that is not longer tenable.

I think it is you who assigns too much value to a strict logic in a realm in which it is inapplicable. We don't know if arithmetic is free of contradictions, or even whether it's reasonable to ask whether it is--how can we hope for more from human thought?

 

[Carol]

I can see what you're saying 5-0. The trouble that I'm having with it is that it takes a principle that is an absolute, but giving it an application that not absolute (people, and their opinions).

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I can see what you're saying 5-0. The trouble that I'm having with it is that it takes a principle that is an absolute, but giving it an application that not absolute (people, and their opinions).

I understand that. But I don't have a problem with exceptions to rules. Hell, they exist all the time. As Arnisador's example shows, there are exceptions to the "rule" that "it is wrong to harm someone".

All I am saying is that when you express yourself, say what you really mean in such a way as that argument can't come back to bite you in the behind later. In my opinion, most people can't do that because they are unable to see logical extensions to what they are saying. I can even accept that in a given argument, they are being simplistic so that they don't have to convey every single exception that they feel exists to that argument. But, when called on it, they better be able to explain it, or expect that they will be labeled as irrelevant to the discussion for lack of congruity.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Because I believe that real life doesn't allow an axiomatic formulation a la geometry. The words don't have the same strict meaning. Life is fuzzy.

Physical theories have exceptions. Geometric formulas have exceptions. We don't choose to ignore, or label as wrong, those formulas because they have exceptions, do we?

And, you are right, words don't have the some strict, universal meaning. As I pointed out in my reply to your example, one would have to define "hurt" and self-defense", because the meaning is not the same to everyone. But, based on your reasoning here, because we can't strictly define words, apparently even internally within our own mind, there is no point to having even the simplest of debates.

Given that one can't (or at last shouldn't) define "point" and "line" in geometry, this seems a difficult goal to achieve. Why can two judges reach different decisions based on the same sets of facts and laws?

1. Because they are attempting to interpreting the intent of legislators whom they have never met, nor to whom they have spoken.

2. Because they have experiential biases.

Different standards--there you go.

Yes, but do they have different standards in their own minds. What I stated was that they are trying to interpret the standards of different people. As an example, my position is not that I am trying to apply Carol's argument to yours, and then show how it is contradictory. I am trying to show how your own positions on various issues are contradictory.

You seem to think this can always be done, then? Find a contradiction?

Can you always find a contradiction within the thought process of a single individual? Of course not. Some people have very logically consistent argument. Maybe there is a contradiction that exist that I haven't heard of, but then, I wouldn't be bringing it up.

I think it is you who assigns too much value to a strict logic in a realm in which it is inapplicable. We don't know if arithmetic is free of contradictions, or even whether it's reasonable to ask whether it is--how can we hope for more from human thought?

Here is another area which I think you misunderstand me. Logic will not always be applied to an individual's argument. For instance, a Christian may say that homosexuality is against God's commands. There is not logical argument for that. It is a faith based position. As another example, someone being in love with a murderer, even though they believe that murder is wrong. That is an emotion based position.

I am not saying that human beings are, or even should always be, logical. But, when they give an argument that is not, they should say as much, or again, be relegated to the realm of irrelavency. To bring it back to the OP:

These people believe that God does not wish them to use modern medicine because it would be placing medicine before God. There is no argument against that. That is simply what they believe. Of course you might use the Bible to try to convince them otherwise, but using logic is not going to solve your purpose. And even then, it still does not negate that the government in which the live has enacted legislation which provides a punishment for their behavior.

But when someone who says simply that people should be allowed to believe and practice whatever religion they choose, and then turns around and condems these people who are practicing the religion that they choose, I find that disingenuous. Unless they then provide an exception to their rule. However, what was done here, in my opinion, was to state that they still believed their original premise without changing it to include the exception. What was said was that "I still believe that people should be able to practice whatever religion they choose", but then also state that these people were wrong to use their religion the way that they chose.