Moved Bilby/Algor Derail

[Algor]

I don't think people have rights: I think we have obligations. Rights are a shorthand for universal obligation: I have an obligation to make sure you can vote: I fulfill that by paying taxes and by participating in the political system. etc. I think the language of rights is misleading, so (for instance) I do not have an obligation to give anyone guns or to make sure guns are available (the right to bear arms) although I do have an obligation to make sure that the laws and freedoms of a country are protected. We do have the right to live unmolested.

I think that this discussion is definitely worth having. But not here in the basement of IIDB, as a derail of a derail...

It should be in the Philosophy section under Morals and Principles. Perhaps you should ask the staff to split it out and move it?
Tom

I think it is rambling out of control. I'm just gonna quietly put on my shoes and sneak out the door.

Thank you all

 

[TomC]

I don't think people have rights: I think we have obligations. Rights are a shorthand for universal obligation: I have an obligation to make sure you can vote: I fulfill that by paying taxes and by participating in the political system. etc. I think the language of rights is misleading, so (for instance) I do not have an obligation to give anyone guns or to make sure guns are available (the right to bear arms) although I do have an obligation to make sure that the laws and freedoms of a country are protected. We do have the right to live unmolested.

I think that this discussion is definitely worth having. But not here in the basement of IIDB, as a derail of a derail...

It should be in the Philosophy section under Morals and Principles. Perhaps you should ask the staff to split it out and move it?
Tom

I think it is rambling out of control. I'm just gonna quietly put on my shoes and sneak out the door.

Thank you all

Darn.
I don't think it's rambling out of control, quite the opposite. It needs to be discussed openly.
Oh well. Hope you come back!
Tom

 

[Elixir]

My disregards to the disingenuous of CARM.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any person threatening to take away my right to die, poses an equal threat to my life to that posed by a person threatening to kill me, and persons making such threats don't get to act all shocked and hurt* if I respond to their threats with an unequivocal warning that I will not stand for them.

Disagree on the equality part.

Why?

I don't think someone stopping you from dying is as big a threat as someone killing you.

 

[Elixir]

Any person threatening to take away my right to die, poses an equal threat to my life to that posed by a person threatening to kill me, and persons making such threats don't get to act all shocked and hurt* if I respond to their threats with an unequivocal warning that I will not stand for them.

Disagree on the equality part.

Why?

I don't think someone stopping you from dying is as big a threat as someone killing you.

That's what they all say, until someone puts THEM in a padded cell "for their own good".

 

[bilby]

Any person threatening to take away my right to die, poses an equal threat to my life to that posed by a person threatening to kill me, and persons making such threats don't get to act all shocked and hurt* if I respond to their threats with an unequivocal warning that I will not stand for them.

Disagree on the equality part.

Why?

I don't think someone stopping you from dying is as big a threat as someone killing you.

In many ways, it's a bigger threat. Better to die quickly, than to live in interminable misery.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

No question, but not an offence punishable by death. Of the 3 or 4 groups that are likely to try to prevent an earnestly desired death, the only one I could think of that wasn't well intentioned is the busy-body religious kind. And even then you could argue good intentions.

As tempting as it is, it is more moral to circumvent their intervention than to remove them by execution.

 

[bilby]

As tempting as it is, it is more moral to circumvent their intervention than to remove them by execution.

Of course it is. And the same is true of someone who is trying to kill you.

But if the only way to avoid their intervention entails the use of lethal force, then it is morally justified to use that level of force, either in defence of your right to live, or of your right to die.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I realise you are making a highly theoretical argument but it is a false equivalency. In practical terms, killing the politician who opposes legislation, the doctor who won't give you extra morphine or the loved one who won't do what you need them to do, in order to die, doesn't advance your aim one iota. It is a vengeful killing.

You are sounding like an American, and not the good kind.

 

[TomC]

You are sounding like an American, and not the good kind.

He sounds like Rhea, Sohy, and me.
Tom

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Nah, if you have the capacity to kill someone, and you want to die ... do I have to spell it out?

 

[bilby]

I realise you are making a highly theoretical argument but it is a false equivalency. In practical terms, killing the politician who opposes legislation, the doctor who won't give you extra morphine or the loved one who won't do what you need them to do, in order to die, doesn't advance your aim one iota. It is a vengeful killing.

I agree. None of those would qualify. And yes, it's a highly theoretical argument.

You are sounding like an American, and not the good kind.

 

[bilby]

Nah, if you have the capacity to kill someone, and you want to die ... do I have to spell it out?

I can imagine a situation where you have the capacity to kill someone, but not to kill yourself. Though I agree such circumstances are very unlikely to arise.

My position is a thought experiment about morality, though; It is not intended as a practical guide to behaviour, any more than Schrödinger was expecting people to actually put cats into boxes.

Indeed, this entire thread exists only because Unknown Soldier couldn't grasp the concept of a thought experiment in which his death is imagined, without any actual threat existing against his life.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My position is a thought experiment about morality, though; It is not intended as a practical guide to behaviour, any more than Schrödinger was expecting people to actually put cats into boxes.

Oh, shit. I'll be right back.

*runs down to the lab in his basement*

Indeed, this entire thread exists only because Unknown Soldier couldn't grasp the concept of a thought experiment in which his death is imagined, without any actual threat existing against his life.

It could have been a pretense, too, who knows. I mean, imagine that there was a thread about the right to life and someone had posted that if someone else was trying to take their life, they'd respond with force to protect themselves, and then a poster freaks out "Help, they threatened to kill me!" It's a bit absurd as we all know that the threads are thought experiments and philosophical in nature anyway.