Originally posted by Joel
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The right to die?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou 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.
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 PostYou 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."
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 PostYou 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 PostBecause 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.Last edited by Abigail; 11-04-2016, 04:04 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostI 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.)
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 Postok. 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.If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostOkay,
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostAre you referring to the poisoned flavor aid incident at Jonestown?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostYou 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.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYeah 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]I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostI'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.
Originally posted by Joel View PostI 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.
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 PostSo 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.
Originally posted by Joel View PostI 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
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
374 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment