tronvillain

Actually, all that is being said their is that people don't necessarily have a right to do something if it affects someone else.

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

JL

I follow your logic trunks, quality as opposed to quantity. Its only superficially contradictory. Your girl is sticking to a strict interpretation of what life is, stripping it of value judgements, when in fact its the value judgements that make life... valuable. What life should be. Its a grey area because this can be a highly subjective, individual notion. As it should be. Eugenics strikes me as being at the opposite end of this spectrum, a very narrow interpretation of what a life should be. Apologies for the profusion of shoulds.

E_muse

The original statement:

Two statements being made here:

1. Every person has right to do what they want with their bodies.

2. The exception to this is if the action affects someone else.

1 and 2 can't both be true statements. You can't say that every person has the right to do whatever they want with their bodies (which strictly speaking is any physical action) and then say there are exceptions.

Perhaps the poster meant, "I believe that every person should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies so long as the action does not affect any one else."

There are still problems with this.

Firstly, to do whatever I want with my body is to take any physical action.

Secondly, if the exception is that our actions shouldn't affect someone else, what do we mean by that? Affect in whay way?

If someone committs suicide loved ones will suffer bereavement and loss. Others standing by watching another person taking drugs and seeing the effects which it is having on them may be deep affected emotionally, exremely concerned and anxious.

Lastly, physical actions can have a positive affect on others and so we wouldn't actually want the statement to be true under certain conditions.

Your statement is true. But it isn't what is being said in the original post. You've included 'don't necessarity' whereas the original poster has spoken in abosolute terms.

Call it semantics if you will, but I'm merely trying to demonstrate that certain 'truth' statements wouldn't be considered 'true' under all circumstances and so why should they be considered 'true' under any circumstances?

I suppose it is a philisophical question really.

tronvillain

You have artificially divided a single statement into two statements - from the original it is apparent that statement one is not declared to be true independent of statement two. It is trivially easy to say "every person has the right to do x, except under condition y" and there is nothing logically inconsistent about it.

My statement actually does follow from the original, since the exception only implies that "not every person has the right to do what what they want with their bodies if it affects someone else." It leaves open the possibility that some people may. Now, I am not interested in whether or not my statement is "true", just its relation to the original.

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

E_muse

But when we're discussing profound issues such as the very foundations of morality we need to be very clear what the intent of meaning is of the poster. Unfortunately the original poster hasn't commented. I was hoping they would.

Trivially, we may be able to use statements like this, but often such statements are idealistic and the result of something which has not been fully thought through.

My real point is that the statement is too general.

I was querying whether it is actually logical to say - people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies - and then suggest there are situations in which they can't.

Such statements are popular because they open by placing the emphasis on personal freedom and also suggest that the exeptions are not the rule.

I can assure you that such laxity in logical arguement would not be tolerated elsewhere on these boards and would be used as the foundation for dismantling an arguement. I've been on the receiving end of it so I know!

Legal rights dictate which actions are permissable in relation to others under the law.

I am simply arguing that it is ludicrous to suggest that actions should be excepted on the grounds that they affect anyone else in any way.

I've tried to demonstrate that even actions taken in private can affect others.

If we were going to say that the taking of certain drugs was only permissable when no-one else was affected, would we have to conclude that only single people should be allowed to take drugs!

The poster hasn't commented on how the exceptions relate to 'good' or 'bad'. It has to be taken as read and nothing can be assumed.

My comments are not simply to you but to everyone interested in this thread.

trunks2k

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I had some slightly more important matters to attend to.

Anyways...

YEah I need to clarify what I think a little more to her. I said I value each conciousness, and I do but there is a little more to it. In feeling empathy towards each conciousness, I do not wish to impose myself on others. Killing being the biggest imposition possible. However since we live in a society, so there are bound to be others that will impose themselves on others, whether it be by stealing or killing, etc. Now I think it's ok to remove those people from everyone else and work with them until they can function within the society. Wow that sounds doesn't sound like me talking... Anyways simply put, it is a very "if it doesn't hurt any non-consenting, fully mentally functioning adult, there isn't harm in it."

Grr.... I'm just kinda rambling, I need more sleep.....

tronvillain

E_Muse: My real point was that there is nothing illogical about the statement. Whether or not it's a useful statement when it comes to morality is not what I'm interested in, though you're probably right that it's too general (or rather, too vague).

echidna

Apologies for hit and run posting. I only have frustratingly limited access to internet at the moment. The thread seems to have died but I’ll reply anyway.

No I don’t mean it in the absolute sense (although in euthanasia it is applicable), the world seems to provide us with remarkably few absolutes. When two wills conflict, the moral solution is the ideal of self determination, that one will should not forcibly inflict their will on another.

FWIW, given the term "free will" forever will be contentious, simply substitute "will". Our consciousness has a will of its own, regardless of how "free" this is.

Again, this comes back to whether one is harming another unwilling individual. General consensus in western cultures (which I subscribe to) is that sex with minors is harmful to them.

Why not ask a morally trickier question "how much moral right does a parent have in controlling their child’s behaviour ?"

With precious few moral absolutes to steer us, a degree of cultural pragmatism seems appropriate.

It is a worthwhile ideal, however obviously impossible in practice as well. But there’s nothing wrong with pragmatic idealism.

Well IMO, jailing and punishing the rapists is more acceptable. Freedom is not an absolute.

This is the pragmatic problem. In reality it simply ends up coming down to numbers. A gang attacks an individual & inflicts their will. Society imprisons the gang and inflicts their will. Using the moral ideal of humanism this does seem the best way of dealing with the initial wrong.

The problem is when the largest group of people undertakes to support a morality such as that of the Third Reich, or the Taliban or Pol Pot’s Year Zero.

I agree, I don’t see much difference in a practical sense. And as such I doubt anyone who claims that their worldview gives them a superior morality to anyone else.

Also I’m not convinced that rationalism is always the healthiest emotional approach.

Ultimately both theism and atheism have far more in common than they’d like to admit. Even if they cannot be seen as absolutes, each worldview generally considers compassion, consideration, integrity, freedom as human virtues. It’s only in the details where debate breaks down into hostility.

In the historically tumultuous progression of human morality, I’d support that Christianity has served as an uncomfortable stepping stone from an age of animism and blood sacrifice towards the difficult emergence of humanism. Let’s not kid ourselves that abolishing religion will end warfare, famine and injustice. The parts of our humanity which create these things are far deeper than simply our superficially intellectual worldview.