Claudia sounds quite sympathetic! But you should tell James that he doesn't need a deed poll to change his name: as Claudia suggested, a little photoshopped certificate affirming his new name, same as the old name, would be exactly as legally binding.
I started off being sceptical that this was a freedom worth caring about, but congratulations: you had me fully convinced by the end. (Although, in my case you’re pushing at an open door).
Footnote five, however: you may be overstating here. Presumably the victims family Googled the name of the proposed new carer. If past offences were committed under another name, this would’ve gone undetected…
Doesn’t change your overall case, but is fair to point out
Hmm, I don't think so? In this particular case, the problem was that the victim had a "a 'neglectful mother', and a 'barely present' father" (https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/girl-groomed-top-pops-abused-24935056). It seems, although the reporting is a bit ambiguous, that the parents in fact knew that their house guest was on parole; even if they didn't know what his crime was, it hardly would have taken a huge effort to find out if they'd tried, new name or not.
This is hardly contingent: sex offences are primarily committed against children who are already-otherwise vulnerable, precisely because it's relatively hard (certainly not impossible! but harder) to hide offending from parents who are involved in their kids' lives - unless you are the parent, which is another large category of abuse (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/03/dna-tests-incest/677791/). Neglected kids with bizarre, ad hoc, or state-provided care arrangements are at unusually high risk of abuse of all kinds, not just sexual.
yep, fair point. Sufficiently involved parents would likely do more than a Google search, and insufficiently involved ones likely won't even do that. As ever, the details matter…
Just read the Velleman article you link to. Hadn't seen that one before. Characteristically brilliant on the philosophy, but it does strike me as fatally flawed in quite a few respects. Feel free to email me over any links to other things on that topic that you think I should know.
Yes, I think you can probably guess my overall feelings towards its conclusion from what I'm currently doing for work. But I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, if you sent them over! And I'll have a think on other stuff.
1. In practice, I don’t see why permissibility and right cash out with Meaningfully Different consequences
2. Why should those who want to die be sacrificed for those who don’t? Sure, a right to die might have negative consequences, But he doesn’t even mention how the status quo has negative consequences too
3. I find implausible and inadequate the supposed case of somebody who wants to stay alive, but this is somehow outweigh by their sense of needing to die to stop being a burden. Speaking from personal experience, the fact that I perceived myself to be a Burden is not somehow weighed in the balance with other other desires, it becomes constitutive of the reasons to die. And I don’t care that everybody I know says I’m not a burden. And I don’t care that they’re telling me the truth. My Self conception now is that I am a burden, regardless of what people think, and one good reason to die it’s because I have no desire to live *like that*. The on the one hand this, on the other hand that, approach, Radically miss characterises the psychology in play
4. I find analogy with refusing gifts and preferring people hadn’t put you under the obligation of having to refuse weak. Contrary to what V claims, I would be delighted if official policy was “this is not too much to ask”. In the case of gifts, we often secretly suspect that it is even when people say it isn’t. States are not Friends, even so, being explicitly told that this is not too much can be a release of obligation not creation. I don’t think the causal arrows point as straightforwardly in the same directions as he claims
5. Connectedly, being told this is not too much to ask can relieve one from the pressure of suspecting that it is, really. And that can Be unburdening. The burdens are complicated and in different directions here. Different people will be different
6. He often trades on empirical claims which I doubt are true and for which he provides no evidence
Etc
Sorry for typos, et cetera. Voice dictation can be really shit and I’m trying to watch the Liverpool game
I am reminded of a friend's attempt to change his name to his own name as kind of existential affirmation:
https://soundcloud.com/iamjamesward/claudia
https://iamjamesward.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/deed%c2%a0poll/
It didn't go well.
Claudia sounds quite sympathetic! But you should tell James that he doesn't need a deed poll to change his name: as Claudia suggested, a little photoshopped certificate affirming his new name, same as the old name, would be exactly as legally binding.
I started off being sceptical that this was a freedom worth caring about, but congratulations: you had me fully convinced by the end. (Although, in my case you’re pushing at an open door).
Footnote five, however: you may be overstating here. Presumably the victims family Googled the name of the proposed new carer. If past offences were committed under another name, this would’ve gone undetected…
Doesn’t change your overall case, but is fair to point out
Hmm, I don't think so? In this particular case, the problem was that the victim had a "a 'neglectful mother', and a 'barely present' father" (https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/girl-groomed-top-pops-abused-24935056). It seems, although the reporting is a bit ambiguous, that the parents in fact knew that their house guest was on parole; even if they didn't know what his crime was, it hardly would have taken a huge effort to find out if they'd tried, new name or not.
This is hardly contingent: sex offences are primarily committed against children who are already-otherwise vulnerable, precisely because it's relatively hard (certainly not impossible! but harder) to hide offending from parents who are involved in their kids' lives - unless you are the parent, which is another large category of abuse (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/03/dna-tests-incest/677791/). Neglected kids with bizarre, ad hoc, or state-provided care arrangements are at unusually high risk of abuse of all kinds, not just sexual.
Anyway, glad you enjoyed the post!
yep, fair point. Sufficiently involved parents would likely do more than a Google search, and insufficiently involved ones likely won't even do that. As ever, the details matter…
Just read the Velleman article you link to. Hadn't seen that one before. Characteristically brilliant on the philosophy, but it does strike me as fatally flawed in quite a few respects. Feel free to email me over any links to other things on that topic that you think I should know.
Yes, I think you can probably guess my overall feelings towards its conclusion from what I'm currently doing for work. But I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, if you sent them over! And I'll have a think on other stuff.
1. In practice, I don’t see why permissibility and right cash out with Meaningfully Different consequences
2. Why should those who want to die be sacrificed for those who don’t? Sure, a right to die might have negative consequences, But he doesn’t even mention how the status quo has negative consequences too
3. I find implausible and inadequate the supposed case of somebody who wants to stay alive, but this is somehow outweigh by their sense of needing to die to stop being a burden. Speaking from personal experience, the fact that I perceived myself to be a Burden is not somehow weighed in the balance with other other desires, it becomes constitutive of the reasons to die. And I don’t care that everybody I know says I’m not a burden. And I don’t care that they’re telling me the truth. My Self conception now is that I am a burden, regardless of what people think, and one good reason to die it’s because I have no desire to live *like that*. The on the one hand this, on the other hand that, approach, Radically miss characterises the psychology in play
4. I find analogy with refusing gifts and preferring people hadn’t put you under the obligation of having to refuse weak. Contrary to what V claims, I would be delighted if official policy was “this is not too much to ask”. In the case of gifts, we often secretly suspect that it is even when people say it isn’t. States are not Friends, even so, being explicitly told that this is not too much can be a release of obligation not creation. I don’t think the causal arrows point as straightforwardly in the same directions as he claims
5. Connectedly, being told this is not too much to ask can relieve one from the pressure of suspecting that it is, really. And that can Be unburdening. The burdens are complicated and in different directions here. Different people will be different
6. He often trades on empirical claims which I doubt are true and for which he provides no evidence
Etc
Sorry for typos, et cetera. Voice dictation can be really shit and I’m trying to watch the Liverpool game