tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6952541300358816516.post6760702427207378983..comments2023-06-05T05:40:42.711-07:00Comments on Precipitate: Social Obligations, Or How You Can Back Into Paternalism Without TryingKunalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13452252297480755308noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6952541300358816516.post-37821072375694847102011-02-15T18:25:35.973-07:002011-02-15T18:25:35.973-07:00Some points of clarification:
1. I'm not awar...Some points of clarification:<br /><br />1. I'm not aware that Nozick does provide that criterion. But I haven't read his whole book either, so I'm not familiar on all his positions.<br /><br />2. Also, I don't think <i>every</i> self-harming action is an other-harming action, just more than we think; and the more embedded we are in social networks, the more our self-harming actions matter to well-being of others.<br /><br />3. I don't believe that in my example <i>the state/society</i> should be the one to step in and prohibit the father. I take Nozick's position to mean that those directly affected by the undue risk have the right to prohibit, and in this case I see those people being the family members.<br /><br />In sum, though, I think you captured the thrust of my argument better than I did: we need to be careful where we draw the line between individual-harming and other-harming actions, and at times the line can be fuzzy. That's why, in the end, I think the truth lies somewhere between paternalism (harm-prevention) and anti-paternalism. People are simultaneously individuals and members of a social system, and I think the impulses to harm-prevention or anti-paternalism are attempts to respond to the demands of each reality.Kunalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13452252297480755308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6952541300358816516.post-46018379720028326372011-02-14T22:02:53.883-07:002011-02-14T22:02:53.883-07:00Does Nozick provide a criterion for when self-harm...Does Nozick provide a criterion for when self-harming actions become socially harmful?<br /><br />There is no contradiction as long as a distinction exists. In fact, even if the distinction is vague, that is not sufficient to show that it is a contradictory position. Only that it has not been fleshed out fully.<br /><br />In your example, perhaps the just state (or society) can only intervene if the father starts beating his child. Your own opinion might be that the father should be stopped even before that happens. If he drinks habitually, perhaps someone (society) ought to step in and say, "You are a bad father and we will intervene before you harm your child." <br /><br />I think what you're arguing against is not the distinction between self-harm and societal harm (which to me sounds just like Mills' harm principle; does Nozick differentiate his argument somehow?) You seem to be arguing that we have to be careful where we draw this line i.e. that some actions that seem to only harm the self are indeed harmful to others.<br /><br />But are you arguing that EVERY self-harming action is an other-harming action?Derek Huanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05533866255162456593noreply@blogger.com