Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion
Options
Comments
-
The species is the greater good, but not at the expense of allowing evil to prevail (refer back to my original analogy of forcing oneself on a woman). Extinction will never happen, or else it will happen just the once, but it will not be because abortion laws and limits became too lax!The Corinthian wrote: »Well, I would have considered the species the greater good as it includes both genders. And an extinction scenario would be considered pretty extreme I'd imagine.0 -
If something allows evil to prevail, it cannot by definition be the greater good.The species is the greater good, but not at the expense of allowing evil to prevail (refer back to my original analogy of forcing oneself on a woman).
Now you're backtracking as your example specifically cited extinction.Extinction will never happen, or else it will happen just the once, but it will not be because abortion laws and limits became too lax!
So is overriding an individual's right then superior to the right of the majority to survive - seeing as this is 'evil' in your eyes? If so what limits to individual rights would you see as justifying the right of the majority to survive?
Any individual right or is there some level at which the right of the individual is lesser to the right of the majority? If so, where?0 -
You've completely confused my original point. Your argument that limits and laws on abortion are needed to continue the species and the greater good is as far fetched as the possibility that extinction would occur if a woman had absolute control over her body concerning choice about abortion. The only difference is your argument promotes and relies on forcing your own belief and practice on a woman. Mine does not.0
-
No, you clearly stated that individual rights trump the greater good of society in a specific scenario. I asked on what basis you you see this being true - why is the right of the individual more important than that of the greater good (which is evil according to you)? What's stopping me from arguing that my personal rights to my earnings trump those of the greater good so I need not pay any taxes? When is it right to 'force' people to do something against their will and when is it not?You've completely confused my original point. Your argument that limits and laws on abortion are needed to continue the species and the greater good is as far fetched as the possibility that extinction would occur if a woman had absolute control over her body concerning choice about abortion. The only difference is your argument promotes and relies on forcing your own belief and practice on a woman. Mine does not.
You've stated a very overarching and, most people would likely think, extreme moral position? So either you can explain it rationally, or your position starts looking like ill-though-out nonsense.
So why don't you define where the right of the individual supersedes the right of society as a whole?0 -
I did it explain it rationally in my original post which I urge those reading to refer to, before you attempted to complicate something which is not, or at least should not be, complicated. And my view is shared by many thankfully. Also, comparing your right to earnings to a woman's right to control her own body is irrational in the extreme by the way. It is amazing the lengths people will go to try and apply reason to denying a woman's right to choose to have control over her own body. I hope we can revisit this page in 50 years time to see if my opinion is extreme as you say, or simply ahead of its time. I have faith in humanity, and I think I'll be proven right.The Corinthian wrote: »No, you clearly stated that individual rights trump the greater good of society in a specific scenario. I asked on what basis you you see this being true - why is the right of the individual more important than that of the greater good (which is evil according to you)? What's stopping me from arguing that my personal rights to my earnings trump those of the greater good so I need not pay any taxes? When is it right to 'force' people to do something against their will and when is it not?
You've stated a very overarching and, most people would likely think, extreme moral position? So either you can explain it rationally, or your position starts looking like ill-though-out nonsense.
So why don't you define where the right of the individual supersedes the right of society as a whole?0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm afraid it's not as simple as you'd like though. So there are no limits, no criteria to individual rights then? If so, my example regarding tax is equally valid. Is it or do you want to admit to being overly simplistic?I did it explain it rationally in my original post which I urge those reading to refer to, before you attempted to complicate something which is not, or at least should not be, complicated.
Yes, your extinction of the human race example has lots of support, no doubt... because you say so.And my view is shared by many thankfully.
Seriously, if you can't even properly explain your thought process, how can you expect it to be taken seriously?0 -
It's funny how you cannot even fathom how a woman would have absolute control over her own body. And you accuse me of being irrational. Sigh.The Corinthian wrote: »I'm afraid it's not as simple as you'd like though. So there are no limits, no criteria to individual rights then? If so, my example regarding tax is equally valid. Is it or do you want to admit to being overly simplistic?
But the analogy wasn't about the extinction of the human race, it was to show that once we force ourselves on women, we have nothing, we are nowhere; that's why we do have laws against rape for example. Forcing a woman to surrender control of her body to the state is a shocking indictment on us as a society. I'm not sure there is any where else to go with this discussion, so I think it's best we allow time decide who is right and who is wrong. I do think I am right, but only because I know that forcing a woman to surrender control of her body is never right, whether it's to conceive a child or to engage in sexual intercourse.Yes, your extinction of the human race example has lots of support, no doubt... because you say so.0 -
What I find funny is that you're repeatedly ducking out of explaining the basis of your moral logic.It's funny how you cannot even fathom how a woman would have absolute control over her own body. And you accuse me of being irrational. Sigh.
So, based on what you have said, if it is to do with a woman having control of her body then it's OK to go against the greater good, otherwise it's not acceptable. That's all you've been willing to proffer and have refused to offer any other criteria.
If so, your view is both chauvinist and a misandrist. Setting a moral standard for one gender, but excluding the other. Only a woman can ever have that right, and there is no circumstance where a man could have an equal right over his body. You've offered nothing else in your simplistic little model.0 -
I would say individual rights outweight the greater good. But it is a matter of perspective.
For me, my life experience is the ONLY experience I will ever have.
The majority can take a long walk in many situations lol
I care about humanity as much as I care about animals, possibly a little more.
I think the person who has to grow a fetus inside them should have the choice, even if the world is ending and we are in danger of extinction.
People who see value in having a legacy after they die might think very differently.
In my view, I won't be there toenjoy a legacy so it seems a thought purely to satisfy me while I am alive, which means to me, I am better served being efficienct and economical with my energy, and just enjoy the ride(while deciding as much as possible what happens with my body along the way).0 -
You introduced the concept of the greater good in an attempt to create an angle to strengthen your argument. The greater good, which in your opinion is the continuation of the species, can co-exist with a woman being allowed to have full control over her reproductive system, believe it or not.The Corinthian wrote: »So, based on what you have said, if it is to do with a woman having control of her body then it's OK to go against the greater good, otherwise it's not acceptable. That's all you've been willing to proffer and have refused to offer any other criteria.
I was wondering how long it would take you to throw that one at me! You truly will go to any lengths! Tell me please how I implied a circumstance where a man could not have an equal right over his body? I presume you do know a man can not give birth to a child. It's quite clear from your posts that you see this as some kind of a debate, and are determined to do anything to change the discussion to suit yourself. I've explained my view very clearly, it's not my problem your own views do not conform to mine. As I said, let's allow time to decide who is right and wrong. It's the only way we will know for sure.If so, your view is both chauvinist and a misandrist. Setting a moral standard for one gender, but excluding the other. Only a woman can ever have that right, and there is no circumstance where a man could have an equal right over his body. You've offered nothing else in your simplistic little model.0 -
Advertisement
-
Exactly. Who is anyone else to decide otherwise? Who is any man or woman to physically force themselves or their view on a woman? And then you have people who somehow manage to compare a woman's individual right to have control over her own body, to their right to earnings and not to have to pay so many taxes! They can't even see the ridiculous nature of the comparison, such is their conditioning concerning abortion.I think the person who has to grow a fetus inside them should have the choice, even if the world is ending and we are in danger of extinction.0 -
Not according to the scenario you offered - you specifically gave two options, of which extinction was one. Why are you attempting to backtrack?You introduced the concept of the greater good in an attempt to create an angle to strengthen your argument. The greater good, which in your opinion is the continuation of the species, can co-exist with a woman being allowed to have full control over her reproductive system, believe it or not.
Well, I've been going through hoops giving you every opportunity to explain how your bizarre logic was not based on gender, and having failed to do so gender was the only criteria you appeared to use. Ergo, your position is ultimately sexist.I was wondering how long it would take you to throw that one at me!
If this is not the case, please explain why not. I've given you, and continue to give you, ample opportunity to do so. It's you who have continued to indignantly refuse to engage as if you're offended by the fact that someone would not agree with you without question.
You've not. It's one thing to argue a pro-choice stance, but you went way, way further and that is what I am questioning and you are refusing to respond.I've explained my view very clearly, it's not my problem your own views do not conform to mine.
Do you think that such as stance is particularly healthy? After all, by your logic, my life experience is the ONLY experience I will ever have, so if I want to experience killing someone, I could kill you.I would say individual rights outweight the greater good. But it is a matter of perspective.
For me, my life experience is the ONLY experience I will ever have.
Note that this is no longer a question simply about abortion now, but a basic principle in morality. At what point is the right of the individual subservient to the greater good? If never, we can dispense with morality and just do what grabs our fancy.0 -
Not offended at all, in fact I think it's the opposite. I offered my view with a clear analogy and explained it further when asked. You simply disagree with it, or do not understand it, which is fine. But you have since then persisted in offering nothing but bizarre comparisons of a woman's right to control her body with the right to earnings, and how limits on abortion, and more specifically denying a woman's right to choose, are needed for the 'greater good'. The sexist argument is equally as baffling, considering you believe the world cannot exist without a woman's right to control her body being impinged in some way.The Corinthian wrote: »as if you're offended by the fact that someone would not agree with you without question.
I see you ignored the line that that poster quoted which is directly in relation to the discussion on abortion. You are the one making this discussion far more convoluted than it needs me, in fact you have to, if you are to give any credibility to your argument. Here is the line by the way, and it ties into my original point which you refuse to accept.Note that this is no longer a question simply about abortion now, but a basic principle in morality. At what point is the right of the individual subservient to the greater good? If never, we can dispense with morality and just do what grabs our fancy.Torakx wrote:I think the person who has to grow a fetus inside them should have the choice, even if the world is ending and we are in danger of extinction.0 -
150,000 + Irish women have had abortions since the 80's. Hard to see what the greater good of forcing them to have had those babies would have been. The human population won't go extinct because of abortion.0
-
There is nothing new about abortion in Ireland. It has been with us all the time as it has been in the country of the OP. Even in the dawn of history we had it just as we had it in the time of my youth. Old priest or granny had a cure for that problem then as we have now. We have just now become aware of the need to make it acceptable as a matter of daily routine. Perhaps if our species as a society had put more effort into our moral/ethic standards we would not be now asking this question. We have always it seems lived in times of lack of leadership and understanding in this as we have in many subjects in daily life. We now live in times where we may ask questions. Questions which may be asked by individuals of modern so called leaders who most often lack the knowledge of people on such boards as this seek.
Modern Ireland it would appear now seems to need abortion to keep in step with the world. It has always tried to deny, shun, export, home remedy such things. Most likely as a result mainly of being good Christians, moral people of our past. Modern Ireland though seems to lack the thought of perhaps there being another way. Modern Ireland will not promote family values quite so easily in their media as it will promote abortion as a contraceptive. Modern Ireland as will the world promote the demeaning of life, and even the feckless killing of the unborn. We have as I have said here before. Even become to believe life after immediate birth is not yet life. This creation of life though man may think it his is not of his making. It is of a higher knowing not yet gained lest we pollute it as we have done with the few simple laws we were given to live by................Thou shalt not kill.
Dozer.0 -
The moment you decided to equate a personal right as more important as the collective right for the human race to survive, is when this discussion stopped being simply about abortion, whether you like it or not.But you have since then persisted in offering nothing but bizarre comparisons of a woman's right to control her body with the right to earnings, and how limits on abortion, and more specifically denying a woman's right to choose, are needed for the 'greater good'.
You upped the ante from abortion simply being a right to a woman's control of her body to one that would determine the survival of the species and to suggest that the morality of the two does not change given those parameters is ridiculous. Indeed, the moment you did this, the discussion stopped being about abortion and became one about individual versus collective rights.
That, and not a woman's right to choose, is what I have asked you to explain. Not whether an individual right has presence, but if it has always precedence even unto the point of extinction - something your introduced to the discussion, not I.
What I asked is what limits are there to individual rights then? If to the point that they supersede the right of humanity to survive, on what basis? Instead you've failed to address this and have instead gone to extremes to try to backtrack your introduction of extinction into the discussion. All that was left, was apparently a right for women, because you refused to give any other criteria - and that would be sexist.
If you'd not mentioned human extinction, there would be no argument, but you did. So either you explain your position on individual versus collective rights in the context you gave or I an only presume you don't have an answer.
I didn't. I responded to them that they were putting forward the position that individual rights or desires will trump the collective good every time. Unfortunately that means that I can equally argue that I can kill someone or take their property if it satisfies my individual rights or desires too. Unless there are limits or criteria to this, which is what I have asked you to offer.I see you ignored the line that that poster quoted which is directly in relation to the discussion on abortion.
I was responding to the specific moral scenario which specifically saw humanity going extinct. Why is everyone pretending now that this was not actually brought up, and not by me?150,000 + Irish women have had abortions since the 80's. Hard to see what the greater good of forcing them to have had those babies would have been. The human population won't go extinct because of abortion.0 -
In a discussion about abortion and a woman's right to control her own body, your use of language here is very telling. Subservient? Defined as being prepared to obey others unquestioningly. Greater Good? Well we both agree that this is the continuation of the species, though you would seek to control women in order to do so, rather than allow it to happen naturally. Of course women hold the reproductive organs to bring life into the world, and that is the way it has been and probably always will be. But while you seem to think that the world will fall apart or become extinct if women are suddenly given full control over their body and reproductive organs, my argument would simply be that that wouldn't happen. Nature has made us so that will not happen and Eviltwin's post alludes to that. I used an analogy to originally explain this point; even if the world was about to become extinct, it would not be right to force the last remaining woman left on earth to engage in sexual intercourse, but rather convince her that it is for the greater good. That is my argument. Yours is one of control and force, and subservience.The Corinthian wrote: »At what point is the right of the individual subservient to the greater good? If never, we can dispense with morality and just do what grabs our fancy.0 -
You simply cannot comprehend that a woman's right to control her own body is as much her right now, as it would be if she was the last woman left on earth tomorrow and there were ten guys surrounding her. Just as it would be wrong for any of those guys to force her to have sex against her will, or to force her to give birth to a child, it is wrong now. We have the laws preventing her from being raped, yet we also have laws which would force her to give birth to a child. It's wrong and it's illogical.The Corinthian wrote: »The moment you decided to equate a personal right as more important as the collective right for the human race to survive, is when this discussion stopped being simply about abortion, whether you like it or not.
Yes, but you conveniently ignored the line which I mentioned, and which is on the money. You're comparing your right to kill someone (presumably not in self defence?) to a woman's right to control her own body. Ridiculous. A woman's individual right, and collective right, as it is the right of all women, to control their own body, exists now in the same way it would exist if we were on the brink of extinction tomorrow as I already explained.I didn't. I responded to them that they were putting forward the position that individual rights or desires will trump the collective good every time. Unfortunately that means that I can equally argue that I can kill someone or take their property if it satisfies my individual rights or desires too. Unless there are limits or criteria to this, which is what I have asked you to offer.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Do you think that such as stance is particularly healthy? After all, by your logic, my life experience is the ONLY experience I will ever have, so if I want to experience killing someone, I could kill you.
Note that this is no longer a question simply about abortion now, but a basic principle in morality. At what point is the right of the individual subservient to the greater good? If never, we can dispense with morality and just do what grabs our fancy.
I think that is simply how the world works. Morality are structures for control.
Morals do as much harm as they do good.
Therefore if pushed to a choice, I choose complete freedom of all things to act as they wish. However, there is also the issue of taking responsibility for your actions.
Do unto others etc.
That also means if my own parents had chosen that option, I would accept it, but it's a strange paradox...which also highlights one of my points on choice. If my parents had chosen abortion, I wouldn't be here to regret it. it then becomes a question of whohas the regret and in many cases in Ireland it is culture and society, not the baby itself.
Everyone is welcome to attack me, lie to me, steal from me, I don't judge that harshly. As long as I am allowed to be free to act in return.
The smart ones learn to survive this way and the more ignorant might end up in trouble.
I let karma or evolution take care of most things.
I suppose I must be amoral.
A note to the idea of regret. It might be said that the will to live and the action of organisms are showing a sign of seeking life and procreation, but there are also theories that pose the idea that living things live to expel their energy.
I don't think it is easy to come to a yes or no. I could abstain and ignore it. But given the choice, I chose in favour of preserving the life experience, over that which has no regret.
It seems the value for me is in the experience and for others it looks to be in the idea of having experienced.
Anti abortion is saying, one has the right to an experience that overrides any other right to their experience. Which I personally don't agree with.
But it is really all about perspectives here isn't it? We can't all decide on a correct answer.0 -
The language is called English. Nice try at playing the misogyny card, BTW.In a discussion about abortion and a woman's right to control her own body, your use of language here is very telling. Subservient?
Actually, I can't really comprehend hyper-individualism to the level that individual right is more important than the right of the species to survive.You simply cannot comprehend that a woman's right to control her own body is as much her right now, as it would be if she was the last woman left on earth tomorrow and there were ten guys surrounding her.
Were it a right to property - a patent for a medicine that someone is refusing to release even though not doing so would doom humanity to extinction - are you suggesting that this individual right would be more important than the collective one?
This is what I'm asking, but you simply cannot seem to get your head around the greater moral implication. It's bizarre.0 -
Advertisement
-
So in a society where the individual right trumps all, you don't mind if I beat you up, take your wallet and leave you in a pool of your own blood? I'll take 'responsibility', but given this is permissible by the code of morality you've proffered, I can live with that meaningless burden.Therefore if pushed to a choice, I choose complete freedom of all things to act as they wish. However, there is also the issue of taking responsibility for your actions.
Nope. That's not what it is. It's do what you want, there was no mention of limiting this on the basis of what you would expect done to you.Do unto others etc.
So survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism without restraint. As for Karma, nice idea but it doesn't exist.I let karma or evolution take care of most things.
Amoral does not mean foolish. In a completely anarchic society where anything goes, you ironically have less freedom than in one where some of your freedoms are restricted. You would likely not be able to go out, unless well armed and with back up for a start. Your home would likely need to be a fortress. The simplest social interaction would resemble a stand-off from a Sergio Leone movie.I suppose I must be amoral.
That's the paradox of hyper-individualism.0 -
I don't think you dislike or hate women, but you cannot deny that you have no problem controlling them and their bodies. You have said as much in your whole argument concerning individual v collective rights and the greater good. My argument is that there is never a need to control women, and that by not controlling them, the world will not suddenly fall apart or head down the road of extinction. Men and women are naturally attracted to each other, women are willing to consent to sex, and are willing to have children. There's no need for the control over them!The Corinthian wrote: »The language is called English. Nice try at playing the misogyny card, BTW.
So the scenario with one woman and ten men left on earth, you would think it right that one or more of those men rape the woman to continue the species, if they could not convince her to have consensual sex? Or do you think the woman would automatically be willing to have sex? Which if that is the case, then my argument is proved right that humanity will continue on regardless of whether a woman is free to have an abortion at any time, and your argument is based solely on your opinion of what is right and wrong, and one which you would happily force on women, whether in my hypothetical scenario or in everyday life.Actually, I can't really comprehend hyper-individualism to the level that individual right is more important than the right of the species to survive.0 -
Ahh... when all else fails attack the poster not the post.I don't think you dislike or hate women, but you cannot deny that you have no problem controlling them and their bodies.
Sorry, I haven't been talking about women at all for a few pages now. I've been talking about a larger moral question which you inadvertently brought up and you've been trying to backtrack from ever since. So nice try, but no cigar.
You specifically gave an example where by not controlling women, the world will would head down the road of extinction and I am responding to that and that alone. You're frankly being dishonest here at this stage.My argument is that there is never a need to control women, and that by not controlling them, the world will not suddenly fall apart or head down the road of extinction.
For a start, if there is only one woman left, the species is already doomed as the gene pool is too small.So the scenario with one woman and ten men left on earth, you would think it right that one or more of those men rape the woman to continue the species, if they could not convince her to have consensual sex?
But if you had a situation where without enforced reproduction the species would die then yes a case can be made that it is moral on balance. In the same way, if we had a situation where if we did not kill off a proportion of the population otherwise everyone would die, then yes also.
It's a utilitarian judgment and (if you can get your head around this) has absolutely nothing to do with gender or women's rights.
But it is dependent on the extreme case you gave, one where humanity faces extinction, so to suggest that because one can accept individual rights being superseded by the greater good in one, doesn't imply that individual rights can always be superseded elsewhere; that would be a juvenile deduction.0 -
Nothing more need be said. Goodbye.The Corinthian wrote: »But if you had a situation where without enforced reproduction the species would die then yes a case can be made that it is moral on balance. .0 -
-
I like your replies, they are interesting to consider.The Corinthian wrote: »So in a society where the individual right trumps all, you don't mind if I beat you up, take your wallet and leave you in a pool of your own blood? I'll take 'responsibility', but given this is permissible by the code of morality you've proffered, I can live with that meaningless burden.
Nope. That's not what it is. It's do what you want, there was no mention of limiting this on the basis of what you would expect done to you.
So survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism without restraint. As for Karma, nice idea but it doesn't exist.
Amoral does not mean foolish. In a completely anarchic society where anything goes, you ironically have less freedom than in one where some of your freedoms are restricted. You would likely not be able to go out, unless well armed and with back up for a start. Your home would likely need to be a fortress. The simplest social interaction would resemble a stand-off from a Sergio Leone movie.
That's the paradox of hyper-individualism.
On the first part, I don't mind being beaten up and i have been attacked without any reasonable provocation. And I didn't mind too much afterwards. But remember also if you are allowed to attack someone, they may kill you instead. it goes both ways. Maybe the local community would hang you for a senseless killing. Or a family member would look for revenge(or just local police arrest you and you go to trial). That is karma to me, I know I use it a bit loosely.
But I do see that the people who reach for violence are much more likely to recieve it and usually have in the past as well.
In an anarchy based society, it does not mean there would be no order or social justice. There are a few different views on what anarchism means, in terms of politics and social structures.
You automatically jump to a premise that all people or a majority will turn violent without an authority figure with an iron fist(economical fist even).
I personally am a bit more optomistic for the human spirit.
I think people might also pull together and create new support networks.
But this is starting to slide away from the main topic via individual rights versus group rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
That is what i meant when writing "do unto others".
I think i learned this from my bible study years ago, but may have been wrong. The idea is clear enough though.
I'm not sure what you mean by foolish and amoral. I don't think it is foolish.
I think it is actually sensible. Because morals are a human thing and to a great deal a controlling mechanism for the mind and decision making.0 -
Liesannenl wrote: »Hi there!
I'm Liesanne and I'm from the Netherlands. I'd like to ask you a few questions about Abortion. Like I already said I'm from the Netherlands, where abortion is generally accepted. But when I'm reading the news about Ireland and abortion it's rather the opposite. So the reason why I opened this thread, is because I wonder where this comes from. Why is abortion still illegal in most of the cases? I wonder what you think of abortion and what do you think should be the law in Ireland of abortion?
Sincerely,
Liesanne
This is the original post of the OP...........
What I would like to know from the OP.
What have you learned from the answers you have seen here ?
Would the Op like to say what they have learned from the various replies ?
Forgive me if I missed some of the replies on behalf of the OP. I may also have thought of this thread becoming something other than that which the OP first enquired of.
My thoughts on Abortion..........No.
Life is a gift. Mankind was created to protect life. We just learned to like how we can kill life. Now we have to learn how to live with the justification.
Our reasons thus far.............Christianity and some old fashioned moral structure. Maybe even stupidity.0 -
Caramelporter wrote: »It's interesting that some people think we supposedly should have the right to control our own bodies yet they also think they have the right to control the body of a surgeon by forcing them to perform an abortion.
If I want to have my liver removed should I be allowed to demand that a surgeon removes it?
If not do I not have control over my own body?
The surgeon should have as many rights as the patient no?
In this case the patient would go to a surgeon or someone who could and would perform the pocedure.0 -
Well, any order or social justice would be coincidental. And temporary.In an anarchy based society, it does not mean there would be no order or social justice. There are a few different views on what anarchism means, in terms of politics and social structures.
You don't need a majority to turn to violence to turn a society into Hell. Just a few will suffice.You automatically jump to a premise that all people or a majority will turn violent without an authority figure with an iron fist(economical fist even).
You're right, it's never worked out without bloodshed and violence anywhere else in history, so a first time is long overdue - right?I personally am a bit more optomistic for the human spirit.
You mean turn away from anarchy back to a system where individual rights are limited for the good of the group?I think people might also pull together and create new support networks.
The main topic was Irish attitudes to abortion, if I remember correctly.But this is starting to slide away from the main topic via individual rights versus group rights.
That's a very wide topic and not so clear cut. The consequences of "doing onto others" (or not doing, for that matter) are not always evident for example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
That is what i meant when writing "do unto others".
I think i learned this from my bible study years ago, but may have been wrong. The idea is clear enough though.
Even if one is amoral, that does not mean that one does not see the value in morality - Machiavellianism being a prime example of this. The anarchic 'utopia' you've suggested is anything but, it simply would result in a worse situation for the vast majority and after a period of chaos and bloodshed ironically return back to the ordered system that is sought to escape.I'm not sure what you mean by foolish and amoral. I don't think it is foolish.
I think it is actually sensible. Because morals are a human thing and to a great deal a controlling mechanism for the mind and decision making.
Ultimately, unless you want to live in a cave in the mountains as a hermit, society requires that those living in it compromise to coexist. That means individual rights are sacrificed for the greater good.0 -
Advertisement
-
If a surgeon refuses to operate on someone on the basis of race, is that acceptable?Caramelporter wrote: »If I want to have my liver removed should I be allowed to demand that a surgeon removes it?0
Advertisement