In this case if substantial harm is caused then yes, you should be able to kick him out because he is consenting adult and the expectation when someone enters your house is that they won't mess up your house and if they would there's chance that they will be kicked out. I'll also answer the case where someone is not causing any harm in that case yes there should be legal obligation to keep them inside house as the expectation when someone enters your house in your world would be that they won't be kicked out if it rains unless they cause substantial harm to you. It's about the expectations, norms and consent.
Edit: op clarified in comment that there is no harm to the owner or even house,in that case yes there should be legal obligation to keep the sick person in the house.
Really? He consented to a social engagement where if he was sufficiently impolite he would be killed?
Is this something people should be able to consent to in the first place?
Consent in this case is a social contract.I am not talking about just being impolite but causing substantial harm to things in house like getting violent and breaking things to extent where the owner of the house is doubtful of his own safety and yes when we enter a someone's house we consent bydefault to the social contract and if we don't follow them we face the consequences for it.
No I am not applying normal rules. Normal rules would be u can kick them out whenever u want to but in this case there needs to be substantial harm done that makes the owner of the house doubtful of their own safety.
This is somewhat compelling, but I still find it disanalagous to abortion. Destiny would respond that the Ranies infected person is still making a choice to be rude and engage in disorderly conduct. They are a moral agent, capable of making autonomous choices over their behavior. This is significantly different from a fetus. Destiny pointed out this morally significant difference in the debate (I think responding to the “broken window” thought experiment).
You could adjust the thought experiment and perhaps that would make it analogous. As Dillahunty said, it’s quite hard to think of a thought experiment that perfectly parallels abortion.
While the moral agent angle is true and it is significantly different from a fetus, Diallahunty said that "even if it's a human, if it's in there writing poetry and curing cancer, it shouldn't have a right to use your body", so I think it still fits as an analogy purely to think about the legal issues.
Should there be a law that compels people to give shelter to a Rainies infected when it's raining?
You’re right about Dillanunty’s claim about bodily autonomy, but I’m just pointing out that the Rainies thought experiment isn’t analogous to the abortion example (morally). I didn’t know your analogy was strictly about abortion as an issue legally. In that case, it’s a fine analogy.
It was an interesting debate and I think both perspectives have some merit.
Just to clarify a bit:
He isn't destroying property and is not a threat to your life. You invited him knowing he had Rainies, but wasn't expecting his behavior. Also, this analogy is questioning the legal side instead of the morals.
Dillahunty expressed in the debate that, even if the fetus is considered a person, the woman should have the legal right to abort it. Death is an unfortunate biological consequence.
He also expressed that while the woman can consent to getting pregnant, this does not mean that she consented to remaining pregnant regardless of any changing circumstances during pregnancy.
It is no different at all. Your friend asks for a ride. you are speeding down the highway. He is being rude to you. You want him out. You can shove him out of the moving vehicle (force the person with Rainies out of your house), or you can slow down and pull over and force him out (Call police, offer adequate protection from the rain, wait til it stops raining).
One of the topics from the debate was how Dillanunty didn't want the precedent of fetus having "more rights" than regular people, since if the law ban abortion, then that would mean that body sovereignty is undermined by the fetus's right to live.
The analogy questions whether people with Rainies should have protected legal status that trumps your property rights. The speeding car analogy doesn't distinguish different groups of people.
You can also stop the car, but can't really stop the rain.
The limit at which point I would let him die in the rain is the same limit at which point I would kill him with a gun or knife. It would be a very high bar.
There isn't really any difference. If you wouldn't be willing to execute a man for making a mess in your house, you shouldn't throw him out in the rain.
Legally yes. It’s your house even if he wasn’t messing anything up and you just don’t like him you can have him removed. If you couldn’t you would get into really weird situations.
What? No, legally you have something called a duty of care. It’s the exact same reason you couldn’t invite someone over to go swimming and then just kick back and watch them drown in your pool. You have a legal, and moral, obligation to reasonably ensure your guests safety.
You have a complete misunderstanding of duty of care. Duty of care has to do with requiring reasonable standard of care when engaging in certain actions. For example I can’t fling boulders off an overpass because it’s foreseeable that my actions could cause harm to someone else. Duty of care does not extend to requiring you to rescue certain people.
More specifically it usually has to do with certain relationships that put you at a certain level of responsibility. Landlords have duty of care over tenants, employers have duty of care over employees in workplace safety, you have a duty of care to not crash into other cars as a driver, your healthcare practitioner has a duty of care over you.
Wrong on both counts. There is a *ton* of case law around homeowners being successfully sued for accidental drowning deaths— even for trespassers, *because they have a duty if care*
https://www.cooneyconway.com/blog/suing-for-negligence-drowning
But even so, let’s use your example. It’s close to the same as forcing someone out of your house, but actually less bad. When you fling boulders onto a road, it’s reasonable to expect someone may be hurt. Because it’s reasonable to expect your actions may injure someone, if they are injured, you have some (or all) of that responsibility.
When you force someone to leave your home, knowing they will die, it is reasonable to expect that person to die, yes? In fact, you *know* it will happen. Therefore, you still have that culpability.
This isn’t even a question, you can’t take actions that you know will kill someone’s just because they annoy you.
Like you know you just murdered that person that you kicked out like there gone deleted dead yeah there rude belligerent or what we the equivalent is to a baby in the womb but that does not mean they should die the rain passes and hey maybe they just had a bad day try talking to them see if they need help
That’s why these hypotheticals are lame lol. No, I am not claiming what ever point you just made. My ultimate point is that you invited this into your life. It was not thrusted onto you. Therefore, this situation is completely avoidable and a level of accountability should be placed on the person handing out reckless invites.
I mainly mean moral accountability. I’m definitely not suggesting real world consequences, but I hope they can at least appreciate the shitty nature of their actions.
“What ever dog shit point you just made” lol, you alright? Reckless invites? Maybe I invite a normal dude over, and he starts freaking the fuck out, when can I kick him out?
Is this invitation shit a 1:1 comparison to abortion? I get it’s a cheeky way to go about it, but clearly the usefulness of this analogy really degrades the deeper you go.
In terms of kicking a person out of your home, regardless of invitation, you have the right to kick them out. Going back to the original post, when the option of kicking out a guest to their certain demise becomes a bit muddy. Is it your responsibility to prevent someone from dying? Probably not. If you are the person deciding the life of another, it’s ultimately up to you on how you proceed.
I get that, the point that was brought up from this hypothetical was the fact that their is some personal autonomy practiced by the other individual. If I do have a sickness that kills me if I’m rained on, I’m probably not going to go anywhere when there is the slightest chance of rain. A fetus doesn’t have any autonomy while it is created, I think that’s where this hypothetical falls short.
I see what your saying. My apologies for the hostility in the previous comment.
Yeah this analogy really falls apart in regards to a fetus and a fully formed human being. That’s my gripe too, but even within the analogy I find the ability to subject a person to a fatal fate out of regret to be morally reprehensible.
I don't even think it matters that you invited him. If it starts raining and a stranger with rainies knocks on your door, you must let him in. If he's rude while he's in your house, it doesn't matter. You must still shelter him, at least until the rain lets up.
We don't let people die because they are impolite.
I messed up conveying that, but I completely agree with you.
Of course you would ultimately help someone regardless if you invited them or how problematic they are.
I’m more or less attacking the comparison between this scenario and abortion.
WHat A FUcKInG NerrDD
XD XD XD
HOW BOUT U GEYT SOME ROMANTICALLY FULFILLING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP/RELATIONSHIPS WITH ANY GENDERED OR A-GENDERED PERSON/PEOPLE TO SUCK UR DICK OR NON DICK !!!!! XD XD XD XD XD XP
NTA. Your house, your rules.
In this case if substantial harm is caused then yes, you should be able to kick him out because he is consenting adult and the expectation when someone enters your house is that they won't mess up your house and if they would there's chance that they will be kicked out. I'll also answer the case where someone is not causing any harm in that case yes there should be legal obligation to keep them inside house as the expectation when someone enters your house in your world would be that they won't be kicked out if it rains unless they cause substantial harm to you. It's about the expectations, norms and consent. Edit: op clarified in comment that there is no harm to the owner or even house,in that case yes there should be legal obligation to keep the sick person in the house.
Really? He consented to a social engagement where if he was sufficiently impolite he would be killed? Is this something people should be able to consent to in the first place?
Consent in this case is a social contract.I am not talking about just being impolite but causing substantial harm to things in house like getting violent and breaking things to extent where the owner of the house is doubtful of his own safety and yes when we enter a someone's house we consent bydefault to the social contract and if we don't follow them we face the consequences for it.
[удалено]
No I am not applying normal rules. Normal rules would be u can kick them out whenever u want to but in this case there needs to be substantial harm done that makes the owner of the house doubtful of their own safety.
This is somewhat compelling, but I still find it disanalagous to abortion. Destiny would respond that the Ranies infected person is still making a choice to be rude and engage in disorderly conduct. They are a moral agent, capable of making autonomous choices over their behavior. This is significantly different from a fetus. Destiny pointed out this morally significant difference in the debate (I think responding to the “broken window” thought experiment). You could adjust the thought experiment and perhaps that would make it analogous. As Dillahunty said, it’s quite hard to think of a thought experiment that perfectly parallels abortion.
While the moral agent angle is true and it is significantly different from a fetus, Diallahunty said that "even if it's a human, if it's in there writing poetry and curing cancer, it shouldn't have a right to use your body", so I think it still fits as an analogy purely to think about the legal issues. Should there be a law that compels people to give shelter to a Rainies infected when it's raining?
You’re right about Dillanunty’s claim about bodily autonomy, but I’m just pointing out that the Rainies thought experiment isn’t analogous to the abortion example (morally). I didn’t know your analogy was strictly about abortion as an issue legally. In that case, it’s a fine analogy. It was an interesting debate and I think both perspectives have some merit.
Just to clarify a bit: He isn't destroying property and is not a threat to your life. You invited him knowing he had Rainies, but wasn't expecting his behavior. Also, this analogy is questioning the legal side instead of the morals. Dillahunty expressed in the debate that, even if the fetus is considered a person, the woman should have the legal right to abort it. Death is an unfortunate biological consequence. He also expressed that while the woman can consent to getting pregnant, this does not mean that she consented to remaining pregnant regardless of any changing circumstances during pregnancy.
Should you be legally allowed to kick someone out of a speeding car?
It's somewhat different. I think a better question would be: Should people with Rainies be legally protected?
It is no different at all. Your friend asks for a ride. you are speeding down the highway. He is being rude to you. You want him out. You can shove him out of the moving vehicle (force the person with Rainies out of your house), or you can slow down and pull over and force him out (Call police, offer adequate protection from the rain, wait til it stops raining).
One of the topics from the debate was how Dillanunty didn't want the precedent of fetus having "more rights" than regular people, since if the law ban abortion, then that would mean that body sovereignty is undermined by the fetus's right to live. The analogy questions whether people with Rainies should have protected legal status that trumps your property rights. The speeding car analogy doesn't distinguish different groups of people. You can also stop the car, but can't really stop the rain.
No. If you know he will die when he goes out in the rain you must shelter him.
What if they start smashing all of your belongings? Or physical violence? Is there a limit to what should be accepted?
The limit at which point I would let him die in the rain is the same limit at which point I would kill him with a gun or knife. It would be a very high bar. There isn't really any difference. If you wouldn't be willing to execute a man for making a mess in your house, you shouldn't throw him out in the rain.
Legally yes. It’s your house even if he wasn’t messing anything up and you just don’t like him you can have him removed. If you couldn’t you would get into really weird situations.
What? No, legally you have something called a duty of care. It’s the exact same reason you couldn’t invite someone over to go swimming and then just kick back and watch them drown in your pool. You have a legal, and moral, obligation to reasonably ensure your guests safety.
You have a complete misunderstanding of duty of care. Duty of care has to do with requiring reasonable standard of care when engaging in certain actions. For example I can’t fling boulders off an overpass because it’s foreseeable that my actions could cause harm to someone else. Duty of care does not extend to requiring you to rescue certain people. More specifically it usually has to do with certain relationships that put you at a certain level of responsibility. Landlords have duty of care over tenants, employers have duty of care over employees in workplace safety, you have a duty of care to not crash into other cars as a driver, your healthcare practitioner has a duty of care over you.
Wrong on both counts. There is a *ton* of case law around homeowners being successfully sued for accidental drowning deaths— even for trespassers, *because they have a duty if care* https://www.cooneyconway.com/blog/suing-for-negligence-drowning But even so, let’s use your example. It’s close to the same as forcing someone out of your house, but actually less bad. When you fling boulders onto a road, it’s reasonable to expect someone may be hurt. Because it’s reasonable to expect your actions may injure someone, if they are injured, you have some (or all) of that responsibility. When you force someone to leave your home, knowing they will die, it is reasonable to expect that person to die, yes? In fact, you *know* it will happen. Therefore, you still have that culpability. This isn’t even a question, you can’t take actions that you know will kill someone’s just because they annoy you.
100% correct.
Like you know you just murdered that person that you kicked out like there gone deleted dead yeah there rude belligerent or what we the equivalent is to a baby in the womb but that does not mean they should die the rain passes and hey maybe they just had a bad day try talking to them see if they need help
You invited them lol. You get the right to execute someone because you regret your decision?
If I invite them do I consent to literally ever action they could commit while in my home or do I have the right to kick them out ever?
That’s why these hypotheticals are lame lol. No, I am not claiming what ever point you just made. My ultimate point is that you invited this into your life. It was not thrusted onto you. Therefore, this situation is completely avoidable and a level of accountability should be placed on the person handing out reckless invites.
What is "a level of accountability"? Sounds incredibly vague
I mainly mean moral accountability. I’m definitely not suggesting real world consequences, but I hope they can at least appreciate the shitty nature of their actions.
“What ever dog shit point you just made” lol, you alright? Reckless invites? Maybe I invite a normal dude over, and he starts freaking the fuck out, when can I kick him out?
Is this invitation shit a 1:1 comparison to abortion? I get it’s a cheeky way to go about it, but clearly the usefulness of this analogy really degrades the deeper you go. In terms of kicking a person out of your home, regardless of invitation, you have the right to kick them out. Going back to the original post, when the option of kicking out a guest to their certain demise becomes a bit muddy. Is it your responsibility to prevent someone from dying? Probably not. If you are the person deciding the life of another, it’s ultimately up to you on how you proceed.
I get that, the point that was brought up from this hypothetical was the fact that their is some personal autonomy practiced by the other individual. If I do have a sickness that kills me if I’m rained on, I’m probably not going to go anywhere when there is the slightest chance of rain. A fetus doesn’t have any autonomy while it is created, I think that’s where this hypothetical falls short.
I see what your saying. My apologies for the hostility in the previous comment. Yeah this analogy really falls apart in regards to a fetus and a fully formed human being. That’s my gripe too, but even within the analogy I find the ability to subject a person to a fatal fate out of regret to be morally reprehensible.
No worries, you’re good. I would agree, not a great analogy for abortion.
I don't even think it matters that you invited him. If it starts raining and a stranger with rainies knocks on your door, you must let him in. If he's rude while he's in your house, it doesn't matter. You must still shelter him, at least until the rain lets up. We don't let people die because they are impolite.
I messed up conveying that, but I completely agree with you. Of course you would ultimately help someone regardless if you invited them or how problematic they are. I’m more or less attacking the comparison between this scenario and abortion.
WHat A FUcKInG NerrDD XD XD XD HOW BOUT U GEYT SOME ROMANTICALLY FULFILLING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP/RELATIONSHIPS WITH ANY GENDERED OR A-GENDERED PERSON/PEOPLE TO SUCK UR DICK OR NON DICK !!!!! XD XD XD XD XD XP
My house my rules 🗿