 |
|
Ok, here's where I found it confusing on your part
Posted on: March 4, 2020 at 15:23:19 CT
Mormad MU
Posts:
54895
Member For:
18.07 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
You correct summarize the belief. Since they have the "right" to do nothing, doing nothing does not result in a violation of the law. It may be immoral. It may be repugnant. It may be cruel. It is not "illegal" and shouldn't (under that view) ever be the basis of a "law" for which punishment could be imposed.
Where you appeared confused to me is when you said that none of them have the right to impose their obligations on you or anyone else. How are they trying to do that.
Simply put, if they choose not to take care of their child, the child will surely die if no one does anything to help. However, they're not imposing that duty on you, they're just willing to accept that result. YOUR feelings of morality or justice or empathy or whatever you want to call it is compelling you to feel obligated - not anything that they are mandating. All they did was put the ball in motion. You have the right (but not an obligation) to choose how you want to respond.
Where you appeared confused to me is when you said that none of them have the right to impose their obligations on you or anyone else. How are they trying to do that.
Simply put, if they choose not to take care of their child, the child will surely die if no one does anything to help. However, they're not imposing that duty on you, they're just willing to accept that result. YOUR feelings of morality or justice or empathy or whatever you want to call it is compelling you to feel obligated - not anything that they are mandating. All they did was put the ball in motion. You have the right (but not an obligation) to choose how you want to respond.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
Ok, here's where I found it confusing on your part - Mormad MU - 3/4 15:23:19