continuing from mrcheapass's post.

[ogiwij]

I'm not sure I'm as an advocate of freedom of choice as I think I am. There seems to be some complication with inequalities, due to everyone else's lack of responsibility(?), and it's practically unnecessary for people to die and barely survive within a world where others are living luxuriously; I doubt the aforementioned chose that fate. It all

Comments

[ogiwij]

oh wow, so funny.. I have just recently read that, and remember that quote specifically.. I even mentioned it to my prof.

Feminism (of Atwood), I'd say relates, because "freedom to" I'm guessing means the opression in/of actual choice.. society's response and such and the rest of the world's fare, whereas "freedom from" might elude to social responsibility.. freedom from opressed equality (or lack of), where everyone now has a role, and no questions asked.. but it'd be hard to desire such a sex-based utilitarianistic structure.. or whatever Gilead might be considered.

I agree that people wouldn't naturally desire to degrade themselves, in regards to another, but I don't think that should entirely rule it out in the broad (at least I hope not). Although you're right, we can't realistically expect some global change after these inequalities and harms to humankind have been consistent for I don't know how long, too long.

That question looks metaphysical, but I don't know.. maybe preserving life overall isn't the goal, as those selfless beings don't mind if they die, at least to allow another person to live.

Such as, for example, if somebody stops you on the street and gives you a choice of that person killing yourself or the random stranger (across the street). Selflessness, at it's best, in regards to killing at least, but it'd still be selfish to the people who care about that person, or the possible future lives that person could've saved; depends if the person has nobody or not, and also who knows what the future holds. I'm not sure if that's where you were going, but I ran somewhere with it;

Gaborn1985: Is your objection in YOU doing the act of killing, in which case your death is a result of SOMEONE ELSE choosing to take your life, or are you objecting to their killing so your response is to save as many lives as possible
Gaborn1985: see, if you object to the ACT of killing you shouldn't kill someone else just because they're a killer
Gaborn1985: but if you don't object to the ACT but merely to the death of innocents...
Gaborn1985: then its different

I think I see what you were saying, tho. As I said I doubt people in unfair circumstances chose that fate, yet it has nothing to do with freedom of choice; it's a matter of effect.

I guess I just think that if people who can cause substantial change, or somehow take a direction to lead to it, would be selfish and particularly unjust for not doing so. I'm not sure if that's extreme and could then consider anyone who doesn't do anything selfish and unjust, but if someone has an easy enough ability to, then social responsibility might come in, unless that doesn't include matters of degree.

[ogiwij]

I'm not so sure I was talking specifically about killing per se, the situation I wanted to propose was something more along the lines of someone is trying to kill you and you can either kill him in self defense or let yourself be killed. I was thinking that while there is the choice to die, I think most people would try to defend themselves (especially knowing they probably wouldn't be charged with murder since it was in self defense). Yet, they would have to live with the fact that they killed someone. I feel that freedom of choice in that situation is compromised. I guess its when you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't know...I just feel that there isn't always freedom of choice. Not to sound too deterministic, but I think choice is limited.

On another note, if one objects to the act of killing, one shouldn't kill someone for any reason since the individual probably believes in the universal preservation of life. Objecting to the lives of innocents also gets tricky because when does one draw the line between who deserves to live and who deserves death (ie where does the American government get off by using the death penalty? sorry, tangent, continuing). The death of innocents gets into some pretty hazy moral ground.

I agree with the social resonsibility though. I think those in power should use it for good (although now I sound like I'm advocating superheros). Possibly not unjust, but I would say selfish. People in power often don't like to sacrifice comfort because they believed that they've earned it when they don't realize that most people born into difficult situations have a lower probability of getting out than people born in high society. Sure, it isn't a rich person's fault that there are starving children, but while I don't think they are necessarily obligated to help out, I think helping is the morally correct thing to do.

-Layne

[ogiwij]

ah yeah, I can see where freedom of choice is definitely limited to any person naturally defending themselves (in that situation); kill or be killed as you said, I understand what you were saying now.

Morally correct.. agreed, although too bad it's mostly acknowledged only in theory or concept. Maybe unjust sounds too brutal, or moral even, but it practically is.

You might agree too, but as social responsibility may not sound exactly fair in a country not founded on it, it's easily understood that corporation and economics, which justifies capitalism, has taken over any morality this country was founded on (for the most part). If social responsibility were to have any legal influence, I'd start with business. Although, why am I ranting.

[ogiwij]

I don't know if you can enforce social responsibility legally. I guess you could, but what I think it comes down to is you can't make people actually care. You can make them go through the motions and that would help, but it's changing people that's the problem. Making people less disaffected. I'm not saying I am disaffected...I ignore a lot of problems and fail to take action to help worthy causes. Maybe people who don't care but act anyways are better than people who care but don't act? I'm not sure, nor am I sure where I'm going with this.

When do you come back from State?

-Layne

[ogiwij]

heh, at the end of the first week of May I'll be back, and I'm free until that next weekend, when I'll be going to Florida to see my Grandparents for a couple weeks (and driving them back).

Social responsibility.. at least for businesses, maybe some law that says if a town is economically dependant on a business there, they can't pick up and leave as they deem necessary, but that goes into a lot of complications.. I don't know.