In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
How this would apply to ABDLs. Someone is asserting that it is wrong to be ABDL. By making a positive claim they have the burden of proof.
For example, someone who claims that Aliens in UFOs exist has the burden of proof. They can come up with with many arguments as to why they are unable to provide any substantial evidence. Because it is impossible for someone to proof the nonexistance of aliens those making the claim that the do exist have the burden of proof.
In the USA, and other countries that embrace liberty, the general assumption is that a person is the best person to decide what to do with their own lives. If someone makes a claim that an activity is morally wrong they have the burden of proof to show how this activity harms the life liberty or property of other people.
For example, let's say that some people juggle geese. To simplify things lets say they are toy geese. A person can say that it is wrong to juggle toy geese. They can say that it is not normal. They can say people who enjoy juggling toy geese want to have sex with real life geese. The first argument is irrelevant as there is no moral or legal obligation to be normal. The second, while disturbing, amounts to an accusation of thoughtcrime, unless you have evidence that geese jugglers are actually having sex with geese. A person cannot disprove that they don't want to have sex with real life geese. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those making the claim that it is wrong to juggle toy geese.
A person might say that it is crazy to juggle toy geese, or event to want to juggle toy geese. They would have the burden of proof of showing that it is crazy. They would have to show that in and of itself, the activity of juggling geese prevents them from supporting themselves and having relationships with other people. And you would have to show evidence from the real world. Just because you imagine that the activity of juggling geese in your spare time would prevent you from having a job, from having a place to live, paying your bills, eating a healthy diet, and interacting with other people.
It is not up to us to defend what we do with our lives. We are free to live our lives as we see fit, so long as we are not violating the life, liberty or property of another. This is the philosophy of liberty.
I quite possibly will expand this article, as well as others, and plan on writing a separate article on the subject of mental health.
No comments:
Post a Comment