tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924717973498368006.post1998392372667733299..comments2024-01-01T07:46:50.896+00:00Comments on Effortless Incitement: So PZ Myers stuck a nail through a cracker…Doctor Spurthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16403355179680558182noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924717973498368006.post-8624705739371766252008-07-28T18:41:00.000+01:002008-07-28T18:41:00.000+01:00I don't think we disagree. My point is simply that...I don't think we disagree. My point is simply that self-regarding preferences trump other-regarding preferences. Indeed, a large class of other-regarding preferences (i.e. that homosexual people don't have sex) are entirely illegitimate. That doesn't mean other-regarding prefs don't exist or should never be taken into account, it's just that, as you point out correctly, a charity does not get to force someone to use a bednet if they don't want to.Anony Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08077107616686254136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924717973498368006.post-7100192513256763642008-07-28T18:36:00.000+01:002008-07-28T18:36:00.000+01:00Isn't it just a fact that some of our preferences ...Isn't it just a fact that some of our preferences concern others? I take it we agree about that much. I don't want it to turn out that all such concerns are illegitimate is all. The fanatics seem typically to think that they have some kind of entitlement to interfere, which I want to reject without having to give up on the legitimacy of all other-regarding preferences.<BR/>I prefer to steer clear of the case of children, and others with reduced autonomy because there are special complications there. But the volunteer who helps out with disaster relief, and helps people who are grateful for the effort, shouldn't turn out to be in the same class as the fanatic who, for example, wants to stop two gay people she doesn't even know from living together...Doctor Spurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16403355179680558182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924717973498368006.post-62280158650882573482008-07-28T18:24:00.000+01:002008-07-28T18:24:00.000+01:00Well, I'm not sure we DO want to attach too much w...Well, I'm not sure we DO want to attach too much weight to your concern that someone else not come to harm. The reason we protect the rights of a child, and prosecute those who violate them, is not because of the parents' right not to have what they care for hurt - but because the child <B>himself</B> has rights. The child's parents may be motivated to provide extra protection to the child based on their other-regarding preferences, but these are (1) limited and (2) secondary. <BR/><BR/>(I say limited because I don't want to protect the other-regarding preferences of, say, Jehovah's Witnesses who don't want their children to undergo certain medical procedures).Anony Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08077107616686254136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924717973498368006.post-27055405922962077512008-07-28T18:14:00.000+01:002008-07-28T18:14:00.000+01:00Thanks. I'm not sure that I know that distinction ...Thanks. I'm not sure that I know that distinction correctly, if my concern that, e.g., harm not come to people I care about and who accept my care is still "self-regarding" in the required way, then it would do the job I was after, otherwise not. Pity JS Mill doesn't have a blog...Doctor Spurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16403355179680558182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924717973498368006.post-61713101846187217472008-07-28T18:04:00.000+01:002008-07-28T18:04:00.000+01:00Well said... The key difference, were I to analyze...Well said... The key difference, were I to analyze this from a political philosophy perspective, is between "self-regarding" and "other-regarding" preferences. Clearly, the Catholic preference for the non-abuse of the Eucharist is other-regarding and they can thus go jump in a lake.Anony Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08077107616686254136noreply@blogger.com