Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    My point here is "Why do people who have an opinion about something which doesn't affect them feel they have the right to affect that thing?"

    You can apply this to different activities... the American woman who wasn't fed and let to die with all the religious pro-life activists, gay sex with strict catholics opposing it, the under age people having sex, euthanasia if the person gives recorded consent, NOT abortion nessecarily.

    Take one example: euthanasia.

    Now if someone is in a lot of pain and want to die they should be allowed to die. They make their own decisions and they should be allowed to chose to die. Why? Because that's what they want. They are the only person directly involved with the activity (suicide), and so they are the only person who has the RIGHT to decide if the activity will take place.

    Why do other people act on their opinions, which may or may not be biased, if they are NOT directly being affected by the activity? Why should a pro-life campaigner in Newcastle have ANY say as to whether a person in Brighton is allowed to kill themselves or not. It is wrong that they do.

    But to answer the question! Why do they feel they have the right to interfere?
    1. They have been raised (democratically) to believe that they have that right
    2. They believe that the person(s) commiting the activity are making an uninformed decision


    The first point has no logical backing and is just a "flaw" in the democratic way of thinking. Take an example of two gay men, in their own house, considering having sex. I personally don't like this idea (but there is a difference between disagreeing and taking action to prevent it), but why should popular majority affect whether they have sex? No one else will even KNOW about it, let alone be affected by it!

    As for the second point, this is weak as well. Again, the point is, even though they are trying to help, they still do not have the final say in the matter! A doctor will try to help a patient, but at the end of the day is it upto the patient to take medication or have the operation. So why not the same in other cases?

    -------------

    My point is NOT that people should not try to influence it becuase they are biased. People might not be biased. A doctor could tell someone that if they play football on a healing broken leg it will brake again, but even though the doctor is not biased, he still should not have the final say.

    -------------
    Abortion:

    I said above that this is a different story.. abortion should NOT be upto the couple whose baby it is, because they are NOT the only people being affected by it! The baby is affected! This is where interference is acceptable because the baby will not have had a say in the matter. (and this is where it gets difficult!)

    -------------

    COnclusion!

    There is a difference between your opinion and your right. You should be free to think what you like! But similarly, a person chosing to do something should be free to do that thing, WHATEVER IT IS, as long as nobody else is affected. If others are affected, they should agree as well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with this approach (reminiscent, may I say, of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty) is that people would argue that euthanasia does effect everyone who is a member of this society. "No man is an island" (John Donne). For example, euthanasia could:
    1. produce a society in which life is less valued. This is particularly relevant to many religious people who see life as a gift from God rather than something which belongs to the liver (as in the person living not the organ :p: )
    2. set a precedent which could then be applied to you, if you were in that situation
    3. harm those who knew that person (friends, family etc.)

    Having said that I totally agree, we should have control over our own lives.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think your point is that the world would be a better place if we concentrated on minding our own business. That (in most situations) is hard to argue with.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Of course one could construct a cogent philosophical argument (as has been done in the past) that everyone is affected by everything.

    Personally the reason why I think that people get involved in things that appear not to be their business is because these things set precedent. If you disagree with something then you neccessarily cannot tolerate it happening even if it doesn't affect you, because it sets a precedent and that precedent might by used in a situation that does affect you. Really this is the basis of mass politics and the legal system we have.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Live and let live.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think your point is that the world would be a better place if we concentrated on minding our own business. That (in most situations) is hard to argue with.
    I don't think that is the point.

    The argument was that a person who didn't have the slightest idea on what someone would be going through in order to consider euthanasia should mind his own business - and this could be applied to similar situations such as homosexuality.

    On the whole, if we concentrated on minding our own business, we would neglect people in need. 'Minding our own business' if we are rich and others are poor is not good.

    And can I remind you that by coming on this website and questioning other people's opinions, you are not exactly minding your own business.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This irritates me more than anything else.

    If we take George Bush's utilitarian approach to policy making, for example, with gay marriage.

    The way i view it is; If you are catholic, then don't get in a same sex marriage. If youre an atheist, then why should you be forced to change your life so that is in line with certain beliefs?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)

    And can I remind you that by coming on this website and questioning other people's opinions, you are not exactly minding your own business.
    Nice. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1w)
    My point here is "Why do people who have an opinion about something which doesn't affect them feel they have the right to affect that thing?"

    You can apply this to different activities... the American woman who wasn't fed and let to die with all the religious pro-life activists, gay sex with strict catholics opposing it, the under age people having sex, euthanasia if the person gives recorded consent, NOT abortion nessecarily.

    Take one example: euthanasia.

    Now if someone is in a lot of pain and want to die they should be allowed to die. They make their own decisions and they should be allowed to chose to die. Why? Because that's what they want. They are the only person directly involved with the activity (suicide), and so they are the only person who has the RIGHT to decide if the activity will take place.

    Why do other people act on their opinions, which may or may not be biased, if they are NOT directly being affected by the activity? Why should a pro-life campaigner in Newcastle have ANY say as to whether a person in Brighton is allowed to kill themselves or not. It is wrong that they do.

    But to answer the question! Why do they feel they have the right to interfere?
    1. They have been raised (democratically) to believe that they have that right
    2. They believe that the person(s) commiting the activity are making an uninformed decision


    The first point has no logical backing and is just a "flaw" in the democratic way of thinking. Take an example of two gay men, in their own house, considering having sex. I personally don't like this idea (but there is a difference between disagreeing and taking action to prevent it), but why should popular majority affect whether they have sex? No one else will even KNOW about it, let alone be affected by it!

    As for the second point, this is weak as well. Again, the point is, even though they are trying to help, they still do not have the final say in the matter! A doctor will try to help a patient, but at the end of the day is it upto the patient to take medication or have the operation. So why not the same in other cases?

    -------------

    My point is NOT that people should not try to influence it becuase they are biased. People might not be biased. A doctor could tell someone that if they play football on a healing broken leg it will brake again, but even though the doctor is not biased, he still should not have the final say.

    -------------
    Abortion:

    I said above that this is a different story.. abortion should NOT be upto the couple whose baby it is, because they are NOT the only people being affected by it! The baby is affected! This is where interference is acceptable because the baby will not have had a say in the matter. (and this is where it gets difficult!)

    -------------

    COnclusion!

    There is a difference between your opinion and your right. You should be free to think what you like! But similarly, a person chosing to do something should be free to do that thing, WHATEVER IT IS, as long as nobody else is affected. If others are affected, they should agree as well.
    all very nice...but whats it got to do with the topic title?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Really good thread.

    I guess the question is where to draw the line. There are many laws that don't effect me directly, but I am still in favour of locking up murderers, rapists etc. I'm not too concerned about activities that involve consenting adults (pornography, gay sex etc). We should however protect the vulnerable (mainly children) from experiencing certain activities - it would be wrong to film a porn film in a childrens playground whilst they were playing.

    Someone mentioned J.S.Mill, and I think the idea of 'free to do as you choose unless it harms others' is a good bases for laws in general.

    I agree with euthanasia but I disagreed with the recent case in the US. I got the impression that it wasn't her decision. Her parents on the one hand wanted her to live, and her husband on the other hand wanted her to have the right not to live. I'm not sure it was fair for another to in affect play 'God'. I also think that her parents should have had the final decision, rather than her husband.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The title of the thread "Liberalism Vs Ignorance!" is crap, you say it like there is nothing in the middle. What happends if a lobby group demans the right to have sex with 5 year olds? would I be ignorant to oppose it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, you would. But the 5 year olds wouldn't be ignorant to oppose it. It affects them, not you.
    And if they oppose it then it should not happen!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    As for the title, I thought of a few really boring sounding ones, but thought this would catch a few more eyes. I think it is pretty good... I mean it is liberal to allow something to happen if everyone involved is happy regardless of the opinions of those not affected by it. And it is ignorant to think that your opinion should automatically give you a right to impose it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1w)
    Yes, you would. But the 5 year olds wouldn't be ignorant to oppose it. It affects them, not you.
    And if they oppose it then it should not happen!
    So let me get this straight, ANYONE (who is not 5)who opposes middle aged men shoving their penis into a 5 year old is ignorant? If thats the case
    IM IGNORANT AND PROUD OF IT.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There is a flaw I've noticed:

    If the decision is 50:50, eg. let the person live or die, you can't just say that if one person affected is not consenting out of five that will be affected, then the activity is not allowed. Becuase that gives a definite bias towards letting the person live - the chances that ALL the people consent are much slimmer than the chances that NOT ALL the people do. So perhaps there should be a majority rule - a vote, exclusively between the close family members perhaps.

    However, in some acts this 50:50 situation needs a default position (in the example above this "default position" would be to let the person live, ie. if not all people affected agree against this position, then the position will be kept, which I called biased above). This is because of the effect on some people. For example, if three people consider the activity "kill the third person", then with no default position of not killing the third person, by applying my rule they would legally be able to kill them by majority rule! (This assumes the law is changed to allow my rule when making decisions, and so is purely theoretical)

    So although these are two extremes, there is probably some situation where the solution is much less clear cut and this might run into some problems. Interesting though!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LARA2005)
    So let me get this straight, ANYONE (who is not 5)who opposes middle aged men shoving their penis into a 5 year old is ignorant? If thats the case
    IM IGNORANT AND PROUD OF IT.
    If the 5 year old is happy (and has been educated of the consequences) then why would you go out of your way to stop something both people were happy with?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1w)
    If the 5 year old is happy (and has been educated of the consequences) then why would you go out of your way to stop something both people were happy with?
    That's argument is alarmingly common amongst pedophiles.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    That's argument is alarmingly common amongst pedophiles.
    "Funny, thats what Hitler said".

    Love those refutals
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think that people get up in arms about stuff as although it may not relate to them now it could in the future, or someone they love and they think its important and they feel passionate about it x
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madjackie)
    I think that people get up in arms about stuff as although it may not relate to them now it could in the future, or someone they love and they think its important and they feel passionate about it x
    That's very true. I suppose when you think about it most politicians spend their entire careers being passionate about things that'll really never have much impact on them. Blair, Thatcher, Major......etc etc.....all have a lot to say about the NHS but bugger all chance of them actually needing to use it. It must be great to decide what's best for everyone else without it ever really applying to you.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.