I was afraid I had not expressed the point clearly enough...

"Rights" are a whole different discussion, and we've talked about that quite a bit here. It depends a lot on how one defines a "right," of course. That's not what I want to do here.

I'm talking about a moral response to something we find abhorrent or believe is morally wrong ourselves. I'm struggling with a question like that in my personal life and have given it much thought lately.

I define myself as a sovereign individual who needs nobody else to rule me, make my choices or clean up my messes. I live by the non-aggression principle as totally as I think humanly possible and have no desire to run the lives of others in any way.

That said, I also believe that I have both the "right" and duty to defend the innocent and helpless when appropriate.

I like to think that I could and should only intervene if actual aggression is taking place and the victim is not able to defend themselves, but that often seems terribly inadequate.

Where would I get the "right," or authority or prerogative to intervene absent physical aggression? I don't think there is any, as uncomfortable as that often is.

I can't buy into the libertine idea that absolutely anything goes, so have grave problems with some things that are, obviously, personal choices for adults, but exploitation and damaging to children when they are included.

But who am I to intervene in another's life... and what is a moral response to such a situation? That's my dilemma.

I've read a lot of Davidson's material and know him personally. I find him to be a consistently irrational person, even though he talks a good game. :)