From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 19:34:16 MDT
Peter McCluskey writes about http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/:
> But I'm unconvinced by the TCS claims about what obligations parents
> have towards their children, as illustrated by this attitude towards
> carnivorous children:
>
> The vegetarian who believes that meat eating ought to be legal ought
> to buy it for their child and give them the respect they would give
> another human being.
>
> I didn't see any argument that this view is better than the more standard
> view that the parental payment for the food gives them substantial
> authority to influence what their children eat, just as it would if they
> were feeding adult friends. Did anyone see an argument that I missed?
I don't think that someone feeding adult friends on a long-term basis
does in fact have the authority to influence what they eat, especially
if for some reason the friends can't leave (say, they are disabled and
under the care of the food-preparer).
Parents are financially obligated to their children, hence the parents'
payments for child-related expenses must be counted against those
obligations and don't have the same status as payments offered freely
and voluntarily.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 19:45:49 MDT