Live and let Live.

Turtwig

(And the song 'Live and Let Die' would be playing in my head. . .)

This thread is going to be a fuzzy one, because the notion "Live and Let Live" is somewhat, fuzzy. People are free to do whatever they want as long as they're not interfering the lives of others. That all sounds lovely dove until you start testing it. Simple example of recent times being the whole Muslim malarkey. You are free to do whatever you like as long as that doesn't interfere in another Muslim's life. Don't offend them then.

Personally I regard the notion as a lovely ideal but nothing more. My question to the good peeps here is do you think it can actually work? I'd like if possible to try construct a framework where it could very possibly work, but the point of such a framework is actually to prove beyond doubt that it can't ever work in the world as it is now. What kind of world could it actually work in though?
Oh, and yeah, basically, if possible, I'd like a very sharp and succinct, possibly humorous debunking of the notion that I can keep for future reference.:)

[-0-]

It can't work because ideals from others always seem to impact the lives of people who do not share said ideals.

[-0-]

It's also a matter of incompatibility. When the Haiti earthquake happened a couple of years ago the archbishop deemed it to be an act of god delivering a message to the Haitians. I imagine this was pretty insulting to people who study plate tectonics.

joseph brand

Jernal wrote: »

(And the song 'Live and Let Die' would be playing in my head. . .)

This thread is going to be a fuzzy one, because the notion "Live and Let Live" is somewhat, fuzzy. People are free to do whatever they want as long as they're not interfering the lives of others. That all sounds lovely dove until you start testing it. Simple example of recent times being the whole Muslim malarkey. You are free to do whatever you like as long as that doesn't interfere in another Muslim's life. Don't offend them then.

The problem here, is that muslims aren't 'let live'. Just like North Koreans aren't 'let live' either. The biggest obstacle to 'live and let live' is perhaps, religion. Although racists would be a hindrance.


My Dad used a term last week that's stuck in my head. "It's a work in progress." I'm almost positive that he was using it in terms of women's rights. He believes that women are, for want of a better word, 'improving'. What he meant was that they have more rights than before, and are demanding equal rights. I think my daughter will have a better knowledge of her rights than my mother has. Obviously she'll have more rights. (when we get religious men to stop interfering in women's bodies)

I hope I've explained this correctly and apologies for going OT.

18AD

I'll have a go. :pac:

I think the idea assumes that everyone is on an equal playing field in the game of life.

So say for example, everyone in the world was to currently accept this and stop interfering with eachother and just began to leave others alone. The direct consequence of this is that all past "imbalances" in the moral framework of society, i.e. all past crimes (events of not living and letting live), become unpunishable because there is no more interference allowed. Basically it absolves all resposibility of past crimes. The guy who robbed the bank can enjoy the spoils of his crimes as long as he doesn't interfere with anyone thereafter.

Sycopat

Jernal wrote: »

You are free to do whatever you like as long as that doesn't interfere in another Muslim's life. Don't offend them then.

How is offending someone interfering with their life? Because people taking offence at idea's they don't like, that's fine but it's not inherently interfering is it? Although obviously someone taking offence at abuse is being interferred with.

But why is it my fault for having an idea they find offensive?

Why is it my fault that someone else doesn't like how I live?

And why does them being offended by my idea's license them to interfere with me?

What if I take offence at them being offended by me! Who has the right to interfere with whom then?

My point is that in order to be able to have a life where all are free to do what we want without interference, 'and let it harm none' or whatever, defining 'causing offence' as a form of interference and 'being offended' as justification for interfering makes it impossible for anyone to actually be free to do anything.

Because people are offended by everything.

So the only way to offend no one would be to allow nothing. And I would find that offensive...

So can it work? No. And the closest thing we can get to it is to allow people to offend each other and hope they have enough self control to leave it at that.

[Jackass]

If you're gay, I think you should get married and enjoy the same level of commitment that anybody else can share, if you so wish. I think you should share the same legal rights and the same opportunities, including having children.

If you get pregnant and can't have the child for any number of reasons, such as health risks, or the fact that it will ruin your life and will give a child a life of limited opportunities and you feel you've made a mistake, I support your right to terminate that pregnancy.

If you are terminally ill and no longer wish to live any more, I support your right to end your life and suffering.

If you lose a limb or suffer from an illness that will kill you, I hope that scientific research can cure it before it's too late, mostly by stem cell research to find techniques to potentially discover how to regrow limbs, organs, reverse spinal injury and increase massively the quality of life of very injured or ill people.

If you choose to devote your life to a religion of any kind, I fully support your right to do that, but expect you to make allowances to those have different beliefs to you as much as I understand and support your right to believe whatever you want.