Not quite, though I should have spoken generally about rulesets, instead of laws. Whether it’s a personal ruleset, or a legal ruleset, it needs be logically consistent.
“you don’t have to help but aren’t allowed to hurt” is probably as good a Schelling point as you’re going to find.
That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since the parents in questions wouldn’t be forced to help, they just wouldn’t be allowed to hurt by preventing others from helping.
Just foists the whole problem off on whoever has to define “harm.” That’s what a lot of modern law ultimately comes down to, of course, but I don’t think that’s a desirable endpoint.
Not quite, though I should have spoken generally about rulesets, instead of laws. Whether it’s a personal ruleset, or a legal ruleset, it needs be logically consistent.
That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since the parents in questions wouldn’t be forced to help, they just wouldn’t be allowed to hurt by preventing others from helping.
A parent may not injure a child or, through inaction, allow a child to come to harm...?
Just foists the whole problem off on whoever has to define “harm.” That’s what a lot of modern law ultimately comes down to, of course, but I don’t think that’s a desirable endpoint.
Yes, this is why we can’t build a FAI just by implementing the Three Laws.