|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 29, 2008 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So if it weren't dangerous you would say it would be ok.. Interesting
What do you mean by "okay"? It's not okay to kill, as it violates the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle is founded upon the interests of society, i.e. it is not in society's interest for people to go around killing other people. Now, there are certain isolated scenarios, such as the one you mentioned, in which killing would seemingly not affect society, but, if you look carefully, it actually does, in two ways.
First, what is society? It is a large group of individuals. None of those individuals would like to get killed. So even an individual that is 5 minutes away from death would not want it (unless he's asking to be euthanized, in which case it'd be okay). So you go up to him and say, "Joe Smith, I'm going to kill you, since you're going to die in 5 minutes anyway and won't affect society." He replies, "No u," and kills you. Though this is self-defense, it is more than just self-defense. This is also punishing a person (through the act of self-defense) for breaking the non-aggression principle. And since society is a group of individuals, and none of them want to get killed, it would thus be wrong to kill the previously mentioned Joe Smith, since it violates the non-aggression principle.
Second, while in theory society could say, "OK, you can kill people as long as it doesn't hurt the majority", this kind of statement would be open to extremely great abuse. It would be dangerous for society to permit such a thing, which is another reason why it isn't permitted, and indeed greatly discouraged.
Quote:
Nature has a very delicate balance and cycle -- food is part of it
Yes, but if I'm not mistaken, the apple race is older than the human race. 
Quote:
Exactly it is a part of you, depending on you
So is your arm. Your arm is dependent on you. Nevertheless you wouldn't say that it should be illegal to cut your arm off, would you?
Quote:
you dragged him in
You can't drag in something that didn't previously exist.
Look at it this way. The pregnant woman had sex willingly, and her partner used protection, but the condom broke and now she is pregnant. Obviously she didn't drag or invite the fetus into her own womb, since she didn't want it there in the first place. But now she is pregnant. The fetus is there against her will. She did know the risk of getting pregnant, but she made no contract with the fetus to carry it to term. Indeed, how can you make a contract with something that doesn't exist (yet)? So she wants to get the fetus out in the gentlest way possible. She can't just ask it to leave, so she has to get an abortion. It is not gentle, but the gentlest way possible.
If you look at the situation from the risks point of view, she shouldn't blame her partner for getting her pregnant (since it was consensual and they used protection). When you get drunk, you shouldn't blame the bartender. But the pregnant woman has no obligations towards the fetus.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 07:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean by "okay"? It's not okay to kill, as it violates the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle is founded upon the interests of society, i.e. it is not in society's interest for people to go around killing other people. Now, there are certain isolated scenarios, such as the one you mentioned, in which killing would seemingly not affect society, but, if you look carefully, it actually does, in two ways.
First, what is society? It is a large group of individuals. None of those individuals would like to get killed. So even an individual that is 5 minutes away from death would not want it (unless he's asking to be euthanized, in which case it'd be okay). So you go up to him and say, "Joe Smith, I'm going to kill you, since you're going to die in 5 minutes anyway and won't affect society." He replies, "No u," and kills you. Though this is self-defense, it is more than just self-defense. This is also punishing a person (through the act of self-defense) for breaking the non-aggression principle. And since society is a group of individuals, and none of them want to get killed, it would thus be wrong to kill the previously mentioned Joe Smith, since it violates the non-aggression principle.
Second, while in theory society could say, "OK, you can kill people as long as it doesn't hurt the majority", this kind of statement would be open to extremely great abuse. It would be dangerous for society to permit such a thing, which is another reason why it isn't permitted, and indeed greatly discouraged.
I was talking about the issue that killing is not good, no matter of the society -- even if we were all in anarchy (that does not mean however that thieves don't exist!). They can be immoral and they aren't afraid of it either.
Quote:
So is your arm. Your arm is dependent on you. Nevertheless you wouldn't say that it should be illegal to cut your arm off, would you?
But my arm will not be another human actually... it can't be on it's own until I die
Quote:
You can't drag in something that didn't previously exist.
What if you dragged him from another dimension?
(biologically of course you dragged into the fertilization stage, etc.. doesn't happen out of the blue).
Quote:
Look at it this way. The pregnant woman had sex willingly, and her partner used protection, but the condom broke and now she is pregnant. Obviously she didn't drag or invite the fetus into her own womb, since she didn't want it there in the first place. But now she is pregnant. The fetus is there against her will. She did know the risk of getting pregnant, but she made no contract with the fetus to carry it to term. Indeed, how can you make a contract with something that doesn't exist (yet)? So she wants to get the fetus out in the gentlest way possible. She can't just ask it to leave, so she has to get an abortion. It is not gentle, but the gentlest way possible.
If you look at the situation from the risks point of view, she shouldn't blame her partner for getting her pregnant (since it was consensual and they used protection). When you get drunk, you shouldn't blame the bartender. But the pregnant woman has no obligations towards the fetus.
Actually she did 'drag' the fetus, but did so by accident. Ok set let me put up another drunk analogy, one much closer to this one, hope you'll understand this time.
You get drunk. You go ahead and beat some guy (irrelevant to our analogy), and then drag him to your home (you're drunk, it is an 'accident'). The guy is in shock and is not awake and will not be until after 9 months.
Now you wake up. You see the guy in your home (but he's there because of you). You can't wake him up, you can't get him out (supposing!) unless you 'kill' him in a way (this isn't a reality analogy but you get the point). What I'm trying to get is that it's your accident, your responsibility to take care of him in your home, because you brought him there.
Outside of course you had no responsibility or obligation for him -- inside, where he is because of you, so you HAVE to take care of him until he can get out (let's say he wakes up from his 9-month sleep).
But of course for this analogy to work, let's say for some reason you can't get him out by yourself (nor can anyone else), he has to wake up.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:01 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:02, 29 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
You get drunk. You go ahead and beat some guy (irrelevant to our analogy), and then drag him to your home (you're drunk, it is an 'accident'). The guy is in shock and is not awake and will not be until after 9 months.
Now you wake up. You see the guy in your home (but he's there because of you). You can't wake him up, you can't get him out (supposing!) unless you 'kill' him in a way (this isn't a reality analogy but you get the point). What I'm trying to get is that it's your accident, your responsibility to take care of him in your home, because you brought him there.
Outside of course you had no responsibility or obligation for him -- inside, where he is because of you, so you HAVE to take care of him until he can get out (let's say he wakes up from his 9-month sleep).
But of course for this analogy to work, let's say for some reason you can't get him out by yourself (nor can anyone else), he has to wake up.
But with abortion you actually get him out! With abortion you don't kill the fetus, you actually just get it out (but it dies because it's dependent on your hormones and other stuff)
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:02 PM |
|
|
|
If you read my analogy I also said that you can get him out by killing him (before he wakes up), but that is the only thing you can do beside waiting 9 months and giving him some kind of food (injecting water, etc).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I was talking about the issue that killing is not good, no matter of the society
Nothing can be good or bad independently of society.
Quote:
even if we were all in anarchy
If we were in anarchy, government would no longer exist, but society still would (or at least the morals that it has impressed upon us).
Quote:
you dragged into the fertilization stage
The purpose of an egg is to get fertilized. So you're not dragging it through fertilization.
Quote:
But of course for this analogy to work, let's say for some reason you can't get him out by yourself (nor can anyone else), he has to wake up.
In other words, this analogy does not work. At all. It's ridiculously contrived beyond any possilble usefulness.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you read my analogy I also said that you can get him out by killing him (before he wakes up), but that is the only thing you can do beside waiting 9 months and giving him some kind of food (injecting water, etc).
Yes, but if that guy wouldn't live before you beat him, and by getting him out you don't make him suffer (the fetus can't feel pain), then I think it's OK to get him out (of course, a more "good" solution would be to take care of him in these 9 months, but not everyone wants to be "good")
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:08 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:09, 29 Jun 2008.
|
@mvassilev:Quote:
The purpose of an egg is to get fertilized. So you're not dragging it through fertilization.
I meant more like e.g: sperm
Quote:
In other words, this analogy does not work. At all. It's ridiculously contrived beyond any possilble usefulness.
Why not?
@Asheera:Quote:
Yes, but if that guy wouldn't live before you beat him, and by getting him out you don't make him suffer (the fetus can't feel pain), then I think it's OK to get him out (of course, a more "good" solution would be to take care of him in these 9 months, but not everyone wants to be "good")
The guy doesn't 'suffer' either because he is in sleep. (not that we would know precisely when a fetus suffers or not anyway)
I don't think it matters that it hasn't lived before -- at least, you can consider all the materials required for fertilization the thing that you 'drag in'.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I meant more like e.g: sperm
Well, the purpose of sperm is to fertilize an egg.
Quote:
Why not?
When constructing analogies, generally you want to keep to things that could actually happen in real life. (If youo could drag him in without killing him, why can't you remove him, at least to the hospital?)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, the purpose of sperm is to fertilize an egg.
I wasn't talking about the purpose. I meant that you 'drag in' the sperm, so to speak, to fertilize the egg.
If you want it like that, well, the purpose of the sperm is to fertilize the egg. Then the purpose of the egg is to grow into a baby, not be aborted
Quote:
When constructing analogies, generally you want to keep to things that could actually happen in real life. (If youo could drag him in without killing him, why can't you remove him, at least to the hospital?)
Because you can't bring the fetus to the hospital.
I hope the idea was important as the analogy itself is not exactly a real-world one. So let's suppose that you somehow 'connected' the guy to your body/home -- that is, he can't survive without your home until 9 months later when he wakes up.
I'll think up a better analogy but really, does it matter? I think you got the main point.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I meant that you 'drag in' the sperm, so to speak, to fertilize the egg.
No, because dragging in implies that it's against their will.
Quote:
Then the purpose of the egg is to grow into a baby, not be aborted
So? The purpose of a cancer is to grow just as well.
Quote:
I'll think up a better analogy but really, does it matter? I think you got the main point.
The point is that your analogy doesn't work (not because it's not applicable to pregnancy, but because it's not applicable to anything that might actually happen in real life). Being able to drag someone in, but not being able to remove them? Hooking someone up to your house?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 08:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, because dragging in implies that it's against their will.
I certainly think it's against the fetus' will to be 'dragged' in and then aborted 
Quote:
The point is that your analogy doesn't work (not because it's not applicable to pregnancy, but because it's not applicable to anything that might actually happen in real life). Being able to drag someone in, but not being able to remove them? Hooking someone up to your house?
I will try to think of a better analogy.
In the meantime let's suppose that it's what happens in real life -- in fact, let's suppose that he has a special coma state in which you can't move him because any movement will kill him. So the only two possible ways to get him out of the house are:
1) Wait 9 months, supply him with food, until he wakes up
2) Kill him (or move him, which kills him in this example), and then throw him out, or put him up for research, etc.
I think you can see the similarity with the fetus.
And who said I can find a perfect analogy? It's why all things are different -- but the main idea is there and I think you got it.
So supposing the above analogy happens in real life, what would be the answer?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I certainly think it's against the fetus' will to be 'dragged' in
The pregnant woman doesn't want the fetus to be there in the first place. And it is the "will" of the sperm to fertilize the egg and it is the "will" of the egg to be fertilized. So the fetus is growing against the mother's will.
Quote:
So supposing the above analogy happens in real life, what would be the answer?
So supposing that something that is impossible happens, what do you do? I don't know, I've never seen anything impossible happen.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The pregnant woman doesn't want the fetus to be there in the first place. And it is the "will" of the sperm to fertilize the egg and it is the "will" of the egg to be fertilized. So the fetus is growing against the mother's will.
Sorry but the "will" of the sperm is more like the will of the man
Quote:
So supposing that something that is impossible happens, what do you do? I don't know, I've never seen anything impossible happen.
So supposing that we don't have a society. People talk about "how is it to kill someone else" being bad for society and blabla. I don't know, never happened (laws) so let's not think about it, ok?
I don't know where you're heading, this thread is for discussion and THINKING. Now what would you do if the analogy would apply? And besides, that special state of coma is not necessarily unreal -- it can very much be true at some point. What would you do?
I'd like to know instead of attacking the fact that it hasn't happened to you. You know, that's why it's called "thinking"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry but the "will" of the sperm is more like the will of the man
Okay, replace "will" with "nature".
Quote:
So supposing that we don't have a society. People talk about "how is it to kill someone else" being bad for society and blabla. I don't know, never happened (laws) so let's not think about it, ok?
I don't see what you're getting at here.
Quote:
Now what would you do if the analogy would apply?
For that, you would have to clarify the situation. How exactly could a person survive getting beaten up and dragged to your house, but not survive being gently moved afterwards? It's one thing to talk about drunk people beating each other up, because that actually happens. But scenarios such as this are more doubtful. For an analogy to work, two criteria have to be fulfilled:
1. It is similar to the situation that it is being compared to.
2. It happens fairly commonly, and/or is commonly dealt with.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't see what you're getting at here.
Laws never happened before, why did people think them up?
Quote:
For that, you would have to clarify the situation. How exactly could a person survive getting beaten up and dragged to your house, but not survive being gently moved afterwards? It's one thing to talk about drunk people beating each other up, because that actually happens. But scenarios such as this are more doubtful. For an analogy to work, two criteria have to be fulfilled:
1. It is similar to the situation that it is being compared to.
2. It happens fairly commonly, and/or is commonly dealt with.
Ok, so you don't beat him up, but you inject some kind of poison or special drug developed. Then, you drag him home (while drunk of course), and you go to sleep. Then, the drug starts to have a side effect -- it brings him into a coma in which you can't move him outside or he dies (can't move him; if so he dies). But he will wake up in 9 months and you know that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Laws never happened before, why did people think them up?
Because they benefitted them. It is to people's benefit not to get murdered.
Quote:
Ok, so you don't beat him up, but you inject some kind of poison or special drug developed. Then, you drag him home (while drunk of course), and you go to sleep. Then, the drug starts to have a side effect -- it brings him into a coma in which you can't move him outside or he dies (can't move him; if so he dies). But he will wake up in 9 months and you know that.
Okay, this analogy is still extremely contrived. Can't you call the paramedics, have them gently slide him onto a stretcher, and take him to the hospital? Of course, you'd have to pay to take care of him, but you wouldn't have to keep him at home.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:29 PM |
|
|
You can't do that with a fetus though which was my point. I'm asking you, in such a case (if it would happen), what would you do? Even if it didn't happen, let's suppose that it happens -- what would you do? Just a question.
del_diablo also put me up with a question that is not 'real' for me (my life).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm asking you, in such a case (if it would happen), what would you do?
If you suddenly grew five more arms, what would you do?
Really, when making an analogy, you're supposed to make them realistic.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:48 PM |
|
|
But the five-arms is not an analogy to anything. And I could still answer that but no purpose as it has no analogy to the subject in question.
Besides, that is very close to a fetus analogy. Even if it's not realistic, but the point is there, and I think you it. It's pretty realistic in a way because it is similar to the fetus one.
Not all analogies are 1 to 1, in this one I tried to make it 1 to 1 but it is obviously a bit off (although it COULD happen, one never knows).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2008 09:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the five-arms is not an analogy to anything.
Yes, but that's not an answer. What would you do if you grew five more arms?
Quote:
Besides, that is very close to a fetus analogy.
Analogies have to have two qualities: they have to be similar to the thing that they're being compared do (and your analogy passes that test), and they have to describe something that actually happens or is conceivable to happen to somebody in real life (yours fails that test).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
