- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,130
- Reaction score
- 58,865
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I agree with you. People don't have absolute control over themselves. A you point out, one's choices may be be influenced by any number of factors, including the subconscious. The ethical question is simply who gets to do the choosing, the person or someone other than the person?
Its a good question and often one with a very complex answer. This is why I brought up the points about how the brain works. What we often think is our conscious choice is in fact subconsciously influenced by a whole host of factors. So to answer your question, who gets to do the choosing? Well I think the real answer is "it depends ..."
Regardless of how the brain works, I am finding it hard to think of a scenario where I would consider it right for one adult to make a choice for another adult.
I don't agree with you that influencing someone is the same as making a choice for someone.The simple fact is that because of the points I brought up, you do every single day, whether through limiting their choices, changing their circumstances, influencing them, or any number of interactions. Every single action you take ripples through society and has these effects. This is why the larger fabric has to be addressed and libertarian solutions are often inadequate.
I don't agree with you that influencing someone is the same as making a choice for someone.
I may not be expressing myself properly. I am not talking about writing a catchy jingle and influencing someone to buy a particular brand of soap. I am referring to a situation where a person decides some course of action, say X, and I say, "No, you will do Y." That's what I mean by making a choice for someone else.
You are expressing yourself properly, but your philosophy is just limited in what it considers. Which is one of the reasons it is often inaccurate in predicting human behavior, the results of policies, and would end up in disaster and suffering if ever truly implemented.
So you can envision a scenario where it would be right for one adult to say to another, "No, you're not doing X; you're going to do Y?" How, in your philosophy, does person A acquire this right to make decisions for person B?
No, I am smart enough to know it happens anyway whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.
I can buy that. There is no rationality to my belief that it is wrong to hurt other people. I simply believe it because I believe it to be right.
I don't think that one can leave the question unanswered. Either the individual is deciding, directing, and controlling himself, or someone else is.
Regardless of how the brain works, I am finding it hard to think of a scenario where I would consider it right for one adult to make a choice for another adult.
I don't understand your response. When you say no, are you saying that you can't envision a scenario where it would be right for one adult to say to another, "No, you're not doing X; you're going to do Y?" Or are you saying that it's not right but that you know it happens anyway?
"No, you are not going to rape that unwilling woman."
There you go.
You can (do the envisioning of the answer being one or the other in absolutes), due to the limited scope in which you choose to consider the question. I view my expanded scope as more accurate and my scope does not yield simple answers like yours does.
This all goes back to my points about human interaction, brain function, etc. I suspect we are as not free in our personalities as many others here think we are. In other words, I am more nature than most in the nature vs nurture debate. There is a lot about our very selves we have no real control over, thus its not always a black or white question as to what is controlling us.
I agree with you that it is not always a black or white question as to what is controlling us. But that's not what I am asking. I am asking whether you think it's right for one person to forcibly override the choice of another person? It's a question about ethics.
I don't agree with you that influencing someone is the same as making a choice for someone.
I may not be expressing myself properly. I am not talking about writing a catchy jingle and influencing someone to buy a particular brand of soap. I am referring to a situation where a person decides some course of action, say X, and I say, "No, you will do Y." That's what I mean by making a choice for someone else.
To decide or direct IS to control - and I still don't see what ownership has to do with it unless you want a method to transfer that control to someone else. Since we seem to agree that control can only reside in the person him/herself, adding ownership into the mix is superfluous.It's an ethical premise, not a fact. It can't be proven or dis-proven. It is a matter of one's beliefs.
You either believe that ownership (the right to decide, to direct, to control) of a human person is vested in the person himself, or you believe that it is vested in some other person(s).
Using your outlook:I agree with you that it is not always a black or white question as to what is controlling us. But that's not what I am asking. I am asking whether you think it's right for one person to forcibly override the choice of another person? It's a question about ethics.
so you seek to limit the question so fundamentally that you only regard the scope that your philosophy covers?
Agreed, if A wants to go on living, and B decides to override that choice by killing him, then B is controlling A. B is violating A's self-ownership.Using your outlook:
If one person tried to kill another I would do everything in my power to override that choice.
I would also consider that override to be very much a correct action.
Yes, it is a very specific question.
I think it depends on the situation.
Fair enough.
Did you not see the third person in the example?Agreed, if A wants to go on living, and B decides to override that choice by killing him, then B is controlling A. B is violating A's self-ownership.
Did you not see the third person in the example?
Or did you ignore the third person on purpose?
And it's still not ownership. Nice try.
Either person A or person C would be justified in stopping B from interfering with A's choice to live.
As I've said before, I don't care if it is called ownership or simply the ability to make one's own choices.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?