The apartment

[tman_ndsu08]

A person owns a house that has an apartment attached to it.

Currently, no one is renting the apartment.


The owner lives in a very cold climate.

This night, it is -40 degrees with a -80 windchill. More than likely, a person would die without shelter.


The owner awakes to discover that someone has broken into the apartment late at night. All the owner can find is a small child in the apartment.


Presumably, the parent(s) broke into the apartment with the child and left it there in the apartment.


IE, the child is not at fault for anything. It was merely dragged along for the ride by its parents and has come to a stop in the apartment.





Should the owner of the apartment be allowed to force the child to leave since it is occupying the apartment without the consent of the owner?

Or, should the owner of the apartment not be allowed to force the child to leave since the child would surely die outside?



Note that allowing the owner to do so doesn't automatically mean he will.

[Kamehameha34]

He should be able to force the child out - but he would be morally obligated, by our standards, to feel horrible about it.

It's an issue of property rights. All you're doing is blurring it with an appeal to emotion.

[Autolykos]

I would say that, morally speaking, it would be wrong for him to force the child out.

- Rob

[Mr.Vicchio]

Morally the right thing to do would be to contact the proper authorities as soon as possible so the child could be re-united with it's parents or family, and lacking that a legal guardian.

The owner here is in a catch-22, if he let' the child stay and something happens to him... say the apartment is not being rented because it's being renovated and something falls and hurt or kills the child he could be sued.

If he throws the kid out, which as a property owner IS his right and something happens to the child he again be sued. In either case he is open to a lawsuit that a good attorney could appeal to people that would be swayed so easily by the OP's post.

The right thing is to call the police, and get a video camera to record the child until the police arrive and then turn that tape over to them to keep himself safe from a lawsuit.

[5010]

If he knowingly forces the occupier into the lethal environment, he should be considered the primary cause if that action results in injury or death. On the other hand, he is allowed to force the child out into a safe environment, such as an agency supported by society to take on such needs.

[brien]

Should the owner of the apartment be allowed to force the child to leave since it is occupying the apartment without the consent of the owner? Or, should the owner of the apartment not be allowed to force the child to leave since the child would surely die outside? Note that allowing the owner to do so doesn't automatically mean he will

The owner is obligated, imo, by moral law to shelter the child and then call the authorities to take the child immediately.

[tman_ndsu08]

Interesting responses so far.


Question to those of you who feel (even if it is just morally) that the person should not kick the child out:


should abortion be allowed in the case of pregnancy caused by rape?

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Interesting responses so far. Question to those of you who feel (even if it is just morally) that the person should not kick the child out: should abortion be allowed in the case of pregnancy caused by rape?

What? You just presented a totally different topic, that should not be a part of this. Make a new thread if you wish to address that. Don't, actually, because there's an abortion thread already (on the front page of Volconvo).

[The Bacon Guy]

I assume he was going to make some sort of link between the two situations.

Anyway, with regards to the original question, he should not be legally obligated to keep the child on his property. With regards to the second, yes, the abortion should be allowed.

[DEEJ85]

The owner should contact the authorities to report an abandoned child. If you force the child out into the cold isn't it child endangerment, regardless of property laws?

If you were to force the child out instead of contacting family services or police what do you gain out of it? perhaps you would get rid of the child 10 minutes sooner and also the blame if he directly dies because of it.

Wouldn't it be easier to play it safe legally and morally and do what the legal system tells us to do? Seeing as it would cost you maybe half an hour of your time only?

[saltinespike]

Quote by: DEEJ85 The owner should contact the authorities to report an abandoned child. If you force the child out into the cold isn't it child endangerment, regardless of property laws? If you were to force the child out instead of contacting family services or police what do you gain out of it? perhaps you would get rid of the child 10 minutes sooner and also the blame if he directly dies because of it. Wouldn't it be easier to play it safe legally and morally and do what the legal system tells us to do? Seeing as it would cost you maybe half an hour of your time only?

Let's say that the chill was caused by a storm, and no one in their right mind would go outside. And the police say that they will pick him up in a few days. Raised bills, no food for you, etc. A heartless person could easily blame the parents. But that's where morals kick in.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: saltinespike What? You just presented a totally different topic

It's exactly the same scenario.

Replace apartment with womb.


A person breaks in and leaves their child behind (or his seed if you prefer). The child is not at fault in either case.


The question, the same in both identical scenarios: "should the owner of the apartment (or the owner of the womb, the mother) be allowed to kick the child out since it got their without his consent (or be allowed to abort the child since it got there without her consent)?".

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's exactly the same scenario. Replace apartment with womb. A person breaks in and leaves their child behind (or his seed if you prefer). The child is not at fault in either case. The question, the same in both identical scenarios: "should the owner of the apartment (or the owner of the womb, the mother) be allowed to kick the child out since it got their without his consent (or be allowed to abort the child since it got there without her consent)?".

Well. Not the exact same scenario. You'd be carrying that child for 9 months in pregnancy, and you'd be a lot more justified kicking that child out rather than having a child for a few days, at max.

[DEEJ85]

Also there are more direct complications pregnancy can inflict on you then a child on a house.

Even if the child had to remain in your apartment for a couple days, if you kicked the child out into a place where it isn't safe then you are endangering that child.

A child is not the same as an adult. An adult can look after itself. A child of 7 cannot be expected to support themself. You can kick the adult out but not the child.

[Slevin57]

"Possession is 9/10ths of the law"

Legally speaking the power rests solely in the person who owns the property.

Morally and ethically speaking, if the owner is aware that the child my die (regardless of the cold) he should take the appropriate actions to secure the child shelter.

But no, he doesn't have to do it.

[Heather]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's exactly the same scenario. Replace apartment with womb. A person breaks in and leaves their child behind (or his seed if you prefer). The child is not at fault in either case. The question, the same in both identical scenarios: "should the owner of the apartment (or the owner of the womb, the mother) be allowed to kick the child out since it got their without his consent (or be allowed to abort the child since it got there without her consent)?".

These are not the same at all. In one case we are talking about a child. In another, we are talking about a fetus. Completely different.

Child does not equal fetus.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Interesting responses so far. Question to those of you who feel (even if it is just morally) that the person should not kick the child out: should abortion be allowed in the case of pregnancy caused by rape?

Good question.

Should abortion be morally allowed in such a case? No, I suppose not. After all, the developing fetus is innocent.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Heather These are not the same at all. In one case we are talking about a child. In another, we are talking about a fetus. Completely different. Child does not equal fetus.

Ah, but that's the question, isn't it? Is a fetus equal to a child (i.e., a human being)? My own answer is yes.

- Rob

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Autolykos Ah, but that's the question, isn't it? Is a fetus equal to a child (i.e., a human being)? My own answer is yes. - Rob

No, that isn't the question. The question is, do the rights of the fetus to survive override the rights of the mother to control her own body? Change the situation and ask it again: if I have a lollipop and a small child wants my lollipop, do I have to give it up to him? If the child is diabetic and needs some kind of food immediately or there will be some repercussions to his health, do I have to surrender my bagel? Or is that child the responsibility of its legal guardians?

The apartment owner may not have the moral right to throw the child out into the cold, but he does have the moral right to remove the child from his property; he should simply see to it that the child goes to a safe place. If there is no such safe place, he is not obligated to adopt and care for the child, not even for one night. It is not his child, he did not put it into the situation, he did not accept the responsibility either explicitly or implicitly. If that kid died because the window had been left open before the owner got there, it would not morally be the apartment owner's fault -- would it?

Turn it back to abortion now. The mother is not obligated to care for the child. She did not give her consent to carrying the child, either explicitly or implicitly. If society does not want the child to die, then society needs to figure out how to keep that child alive outside of the womb; that is not the mother's responsibility. She has the right to remove it from her body.

The problem with this analogy is that the apartment is not equivalent to a womb. One's property is less sacrosanct than one's body, because one's body is irreplaceable. Not even a full grown human has the right to crawl into someone's body and parasitize her, not even if it is the only way that adult parasite could survive. We don't have to sacrifice our extra kidneys, either, but what is the moral difference? If I am dying and you have a spare kidney, wouldn't you be obligated to surrender it? What if I was a small and adorable child?

We don't have to surrender our bodies to another. We are not property -- not even of the state.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint No, that isn't the question. The question is, do the rights of the fetus to survive override the rights of the mother to control her own body? Change the situation and ask it again: if I have a lollipop and a small child wants my lollipop, do I have to give it up to him? If the child is diabetic and needs some kind of food immediately or there will be some repercussions to his health, do I have to surrender my bagel? Or is that child the responsibility of its legal guardians? The apartment owner may not have the moral right to throw the child out into the cold, but he does have the moral right to remove the child from his property; he should simply see to it that the child goes to a safe place. If there is no such safe place, he is not obligated to adopt and care for the child, not even for one night. It is not his child, he did not put it into the situation, he did not accept the responsibility either explicitly or implicitly. If that kid died because the window had been left open before the owner got there, it would not morally be the apartment owner's fault -- would it? Turn it back to abortion now. The mother is not obligated to care for the child. She did not give her consent to carrying the child, either explicitly or implicitly. If society does not want the child to die, then society needs to figure out how to keep that child alive outside of the womb; that is not the mother's responsibility. She has the right to remove it from her body.

Great post.

I pretty much agree with you 100%.

The problem with this analogy is that the apartment is not equivalent to a womb.

No analogies are ever exactly equivalent.

If I am dying and you have a spare kidney, wouldn't you be obligated to surrender it? What if I was a small and adorable child?

Right back onto you for "not equivalent analogies":

An abortion is taking an action in order to kill someone.

Not giving a kidney to someone who needs it is a lack of action.