Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The right to die?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Joel View Post
    I'm not seeing how I made your point. Yes, we both agree that these are cases of injustice. That's not what I'm disputing.
    As I said, these cases are unjust because of the lack of consent. It's the same with this example: you did not consent to anything being done with the bank account except to deposit $1 million. Thus if the con-man takes money from the account it is done without consent. That's why it would be unjust. Your giving the bank account information was conditional. It's the same as lending the car for 1 day: consent was only to a limited, defined use. Using it for more than that is unjust because it's done without consent.

    If there is injustice via fraud in a case of assisted suicide it would likewise be because of something done without consent.
    You are arguing legal consent vs ACTUAL consent. It might not be legally binding consent, but when you gave me your bank account, you ACTUALLY consented and gave me your bank account number. Because you were EXPECTING me to give you $1 Million. You were wrong. but that doesn't change the fact that you actually consented and gave me your account number. You can whine about it later to the judge, but by then it is too late to change the fact that you consented (stupidly) to my request. You can sue me if you can catch me, but as a slippery pirate, I have already moved to a non-extradition country.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      You are arguing legal consent vs ACTUAL consent. It might not be legally binding consent, but when you gave me your bank account, you ACTUALLY consented and gave me your bank account number. Because you were EXPECTING me to give you $1 Million. You were wrong. but that doesn't change the fact that you actually consented and gave me your account number. You can whine about it later to the judge, but by then it is too late to change the fact that you consented (stupidly) to my request. You can sue me if you can catch me, but as a slippery pirate, I have already moved to a non-extradition country.
      I can see the distinction you are making. When you say "actual consent", I would call that a voluntary action. But it is in no way consent to what the con man does (or fails to do). When you rent the car for a day, when I hand you the keys to the car that's a voluntary action. You'd say I consented to perform that act. Okay, but that act alone doesn't tell us whether I consented to your making any given use of those keys (I could entrust keys merely to your safekeeping). And thus the voluntary action (what you are calling "actual consent") does not determine whether any particular use (by you) is just/unjust. The thing that tells us whether your using those keys in any particular way is unjust is whether I consented to that use--whether I consented to your action (involving what is mine).

      If I voluntarily leave my car parked outside, you'd say I consented to do that. And if you break into it and take it, that is unjust (theft) because I didn't consent to you doing that with my car. It's no morally different in that case than if you leave with the rental car never to return. It's also morally the same if I parked the car and left the keys in it and you came along and stole it. What matters is whether I consented to your action. Of course I consented to my action; I have free will. What matters is whether I consented to your action.

      As a natural rights theorist, what I'm saying I mean apart from man-made law or enforcement. What I'm talking about I would say is actual consent (which is morally required). Your stealing my stuff is also unjust apart from my going to a judge or being able to catch you. It being unjust is nothing other than you doing something with what is mine without my consenting to your doing that.

      It's also not about you doing something different from what I merely expected. If I voluntarily perform my side of the agreement first, yes, I probably trust and expect you to not be unjust (but knowing you could use your free will to be unjust). But that doesn't cause the unjust act to be unjust. Rather it presupposes that the unjust act is unjust. Breaching the contract is unjust regardless of my level of confidence that you will not breach. (I can expect something without a contract, and I can possibly contract without confidence.)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Joel View Post
        You were talking about "destruction...not disposal", so I was replying regarding destruction, not disposal. I don't know how you think I'm confusing them. Your claim was that "For destruction to be a necessary component creation must also be a necessary component." I pointed out that it is possible to have a right to destroy without having had anything to do with its creation. Thus it seems possible for the right to destroy to be necessary without having anything to do with creation of the thing. What you say here in your response doesn't seem to be related to your claim that it follows that "creation must also be a necessary component."

        As for what you do say here:

        I don't think I agree that destruction may morally be prohibited. I see no problem with a right to destroy one's property, including by polluting it (supposing that it could be done in such a way as to be contained to one's own property and affects no one else's person or property).

        But even if this weren't a disputed premise, I don't see how it would show that it follows that "creation must also be a necessary component."
        Okay,

        You remember I said I misread your post? In retrospect, it's this one that I misread. If destruction is necessary to ownership it follows that creation is also necessary.

        Problem disappears when you use disposal instead of destruction. That's what the other bit is about.

        Sorry for the confusion.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          You are arguing legal consent vs ACTUAL consent. It might not be legally binding consent, but when you gave me your bank account, you ACTUALLY consented and gave me your bank account number. Because you were EXPECTING me to give you $1 Million. You were wrong. but that doesn't change the fact that you actually consented and gave me your account number. You can whine about it later to the judge, but by then it is too late to change the fact that you consented (stupidly) to my request. You can sue me if you can catch me, but as a slippery pirate, I have already moved to a non-extradition country.


          The

          The consent isn't the problem here - the fraud is. The consent is perfectly legal - it's the fraud that makes the contract invalid which invalidates the consent.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
            Because not everything that is immoral or "not right" should be illegal. I have a right to do a lot of things that are not moral - particularly when the morality here is a vertical morality primarily.
            I agree with this DX, however as a Christian I find myself experiencing an uneasiness about some of the terminology used in articulating these discussions and there definitely needs to be more emphasis on the fact that de legislating does not mean something is suddenly 'right'. No one has a 'right' to take their own life as far a I am concerned. As I Christian I don't think I could spend my time seeking 'rights' for people to do things I believe are wrong. Surely as Christians we should be about our own business - the laws they pass or repeal outside the Church are only of interest to me in as far as I have a say in how I want society to operate and in that capacity I vote with my Christian conscience because I believe that will ensure the best society for all. If the vote goes against me then so be it, I know I have voted for what I believe will ultimately benefit all. My major concern is within the church. If the laws outside come into conflict with my way of life then I suffer as a Christian for my beliefs and am prepared to do that because they are important to me. Just like Christians before us have done.
            Last edited by Abigail; 11-04-2016, 04:04 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joel View Post
              I can see the distinction you are making. When you say "actual consent", I would call that a voluntary action. But it is in no way consent to what the con man does (or fails to do). When you rent the car for a day, when I hand you the keys to the car that's a voluntary action. You'd say I consented to perform that act. Okay, but that act alone doesn't tell us whether I consented to your making any given use of those keys (I could entrust keys merely to your safekeeping). And thus the voluntary action (what you are calling "actual consent") does not determine whether any particular use (by you) is just/unjust. The thing that tells us whether your using those keys in any particular way is unjust is whether I consented to that use--whether I consented to your action (involving what is mine).

              If I voluntarily leave my car parked outside, you'd say I consented to do that. And if you break into it and take it, that is unjust (theft) because I didn't consent to you doing that with my car. It's no morally different in that case than if you leave with the rental car never to return. It's also morally the same if I parked the car and left the keys in it and you came along and stole it. What matters is whether I consented to your action. Of course I consented to my action; I have free will. What matters is whether I consented to your action.

              As a natural rights theorist, what I'm saying I mean apart from man-made law or enforcement. What I'm talking about I would say is actual consent (which is morally required). Your stealing my stuff is also unjust apart from my going to a judge or being able to catch you. It being unjust is nothing other than you doing something with what is mine without my consenting to your doing that.

              It's also not about you doing something different from what I merely expected. If I voluntarily perform my side of the agreement first, yes, I probably trust and expect you to not be unjust (but knowing you could use your free will to be unjust). But that doesn't cause the unjust act to be unjust. Rather it presupposes that the unjust act is unjust. Breaching the contract is unjust regardless of my level of confidence that you will not breach. (I can expect something without a contract, and I can possibly contract without confidence.)
              ok. But many times conmen will get what you call "consent" by talking their victims into things that even later after they realized they got ripped off, they still won't "take back" - I watched a reality crime show about a man who was not that bright, but owned a large tree farm and was worth a lot of money. Some conwomen weaseled her way into his life and got him to fall in love with her. He made her his bookkeeper and married her. She stole all his money, pretended to get pregnant, and did all sorts of stuff. The guy ended up broke and alone with his company sold and in shambles. He still says he loves her and although he knows she ripped him off he forgives her. So, he gave consent, still doesn't regret it, yet a great injustice was done to him and she is in jail (because his relatives pressed charges on his behalf)

              If someone gets talked into ending their life to "stop being a burden" because some family talked him into it, just because they don't want to take care of him any more, to me that would be him giving actual consent, and yet it would be a great injustice, because he didn't need to die just to make it more convenient for someone else.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                ok. But many times conmen will get what you call "consent" by talking their victims into things that even later after they realized they got ripped off, they still won't "take back" - I watched a reality crime show about a man who was not that bright, but owned a large tree farm and was worth a lot of money. Some conwomen weaseled her way into his life and got him to fall in love with her. He made her his bookkeeper and married her. She stole all his money, pretended to get pregnant, and did all sorts of stuff. The guy ended up broke and alone with his company sold and in shambles. He still says he loves her and although he knows she ripped him off he forgives her. So, he gave consent, still doesn't regret it, yet a great injustice was done to him and she is in jail (because his relatives pressed charges on his behalf)

                If someone gets talked into ending their life to "stop being a burden" because some family talked him into it, just because they don't want to take care of him any more, to me that would be him giving actual consent, and yet it would be a great injustice, because he didn't need to die just to make it more convenient for someone else.
                Except that some people are willing to do that to their kids. And of course babies can't even consent.
                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  Okay,

                  You remember I said I misread your post? In retrospect, it's this one that I misread. If destruction is necessary to ownership it follows that creation is also necessary.

                  Problem disappears when you use disposal instead of destruction. That's what the other bit is about.

                  Sorry for the confusion.
                  What? How does it follow?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                    Except that some people are willing to do that to their kids. And of course babies can't even consent.
                    and cult members.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      and cult members.
                      Are you referring to the poisoned flavor aid incident at Jonestown?
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        Are you referring to the poisoned flavor aid incident at Jonestown?
                        not specifically. cults in general will convince you to do things that you willingly do and consent to, that are injust and take advantage of the members, and even while and after it happens they still think they did the right thing and do not revoke consent. They consent to being ripped off willingly, yet it is objectively injust and wrong. Like giving all of their property to the cult even to killing themselves for the cult.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          (Carry will probably point out there are another half dozen possibilities so I'll save him the trouble)
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                            You sound ridiculous.

                            Laws prohibiting what you can do to another member of society exist precisely because your neighbor has rights - one of which is the protection against bodily harm.
                            There is no such right. This is what I mean by nonsensical claims. You don't have a right to not be bodily harmed. It's absurd on the face of it. We don't want to be harmed, and we attempt to codify what will happen to someone who does harm us. Protection against harm isn't a mandate, though, even if it were possible to achieve. Would you tell a snake that bites you that it violated your rights? Of course not.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Yeah I remember when gay marriage was being discussed on tweb. The liberals all said:

                              "no, gay marriage won't lead to normalizing polygamy or pedophilia. That is a fallacy of the slippery slope argument"

                              Slippery meet slope.



                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]19373[/ATTACH]
                              It's still a fallacy insofar as one doesn't necessitate the next. The arguments behind same-sex marriage (two consenting adults) are easily extended to polygamy (multiple consenting adults). They don't extend at all to pedophilia (children can't legally consent). Legalization of same-sex doesn't mean polygamy will be legalized, though. I'm not particularly in favor of polygamy. There are better ways to solve the 'real' impetus behind it.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                I'm pretty sure Xena and I mean the same thing by rights, based on recent discussions. And Xena said in that post of hers (that I was defending) that her position was natural rights, and gave breathing as an example.
                                I agree that you and Xena mean the same thing by rights. The divergence is when you talk to Teal or myself who define them differently.


                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                I don't wish to say anything against your arguing against natural rights (if you wish). I have no problem with such an argument, or participating in such a discussion. I was only trying to point out (probably poorly) that it's not relevant to the particular argument I made, which was in the context of an assumption of natural rights. I should have kept my comments focused on my argument in particular rather than referring to the thread in general. I apologize.
                                This is helpful. I think we have another disconnect, though. I don't know if there's a proper term for it, but I think of it as directionality. That is, a right to X doesn't necessarily imply a right to not have Y happen. If you had a right to turn around, that doesn't mean you have a right to not turn around (if that makes sense). I can protect one without the other.

                                I use directionality because it brings to mind the focus of the law. Is the focus to preserve a certain thing or to prevent something else? A right to life focuses on preserving life, and therefore involves laws against murder. A right to not be murdered focuses on murder specifically. I can use a right to life to justify a lot of other things. I can't use a right to not be murdered the same way. Even though the end result is the same, the intent and implications are very different.


                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                So I'm curious then. When Sea Of Red asks, "Do people have a right to end their lives on their own terms?" and "right" means codified statutes, then wouldn't the question just be what are the current statutes? Wouldn't "Do people have a right to" be the same as "Is it legal under codified statutes to"? Where is the 'should' in that question? I'm not trying to be dismissive here; I want to understand your position.
                                I think a political theory discussion implicitly involves both what is and what should be. The simple (and boring, as you pointed out ) answer is just 'no'. We don't have codified statutes allowing this action. Far more interesting is deciding on if or how we should change those statutes. I'm actually in favor of changing the laws here. I don't think there's a natural rights 'right to die', but I don't find the arguments in favor of prohibiting the act at all convincing.


                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                I was only suggesting possible common ground for us.


                                You might be surprised how much we have in common. I think most of my disagreement with your stances are the footing of natural rights. I can get to similar reasoning with a much stronger footing (imo) that doesn't rely on basic beliefs. It's not that I have anything against basic beliefs, only that I consider them inherently flawed when it comes to any discussion with someone who doesn't share them.
                                I'm not here anymore.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                374 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X