Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Dictating what others can do?

katebutler
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:38:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do we hold the right to dictate what others can do?

This is in relation to larger ideas with intense repercussions (ie. murder, rape etc), and also on some level more trivial ideas such as clothing and language.
We as people take a profound pleasure in telling others what they can and can't do, and my question is: who are we to tell them what to do?
This somewhat vague question comes with other considerations that should be addressed such as the idea that an individual has the right to behave in any way they see fit, and that there are no physical barriers stopping us from doing so, thus should we listen to the social/legal/religious barriers?

A possible example of this (to make a clearer picture): A man speaks of his desire to rape a woman and is told by people he knows and does not know that he is not allowed to do so, because it is morally wrong. But if this man wishes to rape the woman and is willing to suffer the consequences of this, then who is anybody else to infringe on his freedom as a person to do as he pleases, despite that it will cause harm?

Hopefully this makes sense, I am NOT on any side of this argument but am simply curious of the morality behind it.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:15:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 5:38:05 AM, katebutler wrote:
Do we hold the right to dictate what others can do?

This is in relation to larger ideas with intense repercussions (ie. murder, rape etc), and also on some level more trivial ideas such as clothing and language.
We as people take a profound pleasure in telling others what they can and can't do, and my question is: who are we to tell them what to do?
This somewhat vague question comes with other considerations that should be addressed such as the idea that an individual has the right to behave in any way they see fit, and that there are no physical barriers stopping us from doing so, thus should we listen to the social/legal/religious barriers?

A possible example of this (to make a clearer picture): A man speaks of his desire to rape a woman and is told by people he knows and does not know that he is not allowed to do so, because it is morally wrong. But if this man wishes to rape the woman and is willing to suffer the consequences of this, then who is anybody else to infringe on his freedom as a person to do as he pleases, despite that it will cause harm?

Hopefully this makes sense, I am NOT on any side of this argument but am simply curious of the morality behind it.

There is no natural or divine gift or grace or worldly privilege or economic asset that will compensate for a profound, vicious and virulent vacuum at the core of HUMAN values"and we have, as a civilization, the most massive and deliberately composed such vacuum in world-history (scientism, capitalist nihilism, radical value-neutralization or anomie). Which is, all in all, to make of course a characteristically Greek point about values, that every principle or virtue or form of intelligence and insight is always liable to peripeteia, i.e. to an utter reversal in value-polarities: "freedom," "rationality," and all other banausically graspable and desirable "goods-in-abstracto" inevitably and eventually slue around to become malignancies, mind-eating and personality-snuffing cancers and obsessions. Contrary to the delusions of Christian fideism and authoritarianism, values are inherently incapable of being presented or comprehended in an ABSOLUTE form: a malignant or delusive mentality, a malformed personality or character, can SUBVERT anything"and of course conceal from itself utterly that it itself has such a warpage or privation.

Kenneth Smith

More interesting view points from a man who has been equated as being a modern day Socrates, Aquinas, Aristotle, ..etc.
http://blog.gaiam.com...