continuing from mrcheapass's post.

Apr 08, 2006 23:04

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 ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

anonymous April 10 2006, 03:25:03 UTC
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

Reply

ogiwij April 10 2006, 03:59:05 UTC
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.

Reply

anonymous April 12 2006, 01:46:39 UTC
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

Reply

ogiwij April 12 2006, 06:24:53 UTC
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.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up