If you vote your personal morals are you voting against personal freedom

[Skyhunter]

It is not a poll I would simply like some feedback from the community here.

I was listening to the radio this morning and someone made this argument.

(And I paraphrase)
If you don't believe in the right to have a medically assisted suicide, then don't get one. However don't prevent me from getting one if I want.

I have to go now.

Looking forward to reading your comments

 

[inha]

It is not a poll I would simply like some feedback from the community here.

I was listening to the radio this morning and someone made this argument.

(And I paraphrase)
If you don't believe in the right to have a medically assisted suicide, then don't get one. However don't prevent me from getting one if I want.

I have to go now.

Looking forward to reading your comments

I agree 100% with the person. Nothing pisses me off like people who try to impose their morals on others.

 

[SOS2008]

As I stated previously in the thread on separation of church and state: An individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin. If we look at individual rights in the purest sense, as long as an individual is not causing harm to another individual than they have the right to do as they choose.

Suicide is illegal in the U.S., and the validity of this law has been questioned. You really can't stop someone from taking their own life, and afterward you certainly can't punish the person. However, someone who assists and remains alive, here is the real situation to look at.

These scenarios usually are in cases of terminal illness, and often prolonged suffering. We feel it humane to end the suffering of an animal, but we struggle with doing so in regard to our own kind. Terri Schiavo is a recent and good example. The feeding tube was removed, and IMO it was the thing to do, because most of us would have wanted the same thing done if it had been us. Though I feel slow death by starvation was not right--maybe lethal injection?

 

[honestrosewater]

That individual rights ought to be protected is also a moral stance, no?

 

[Archon]

That individual rights ought to be protected is also a moral stance, no?

Perhaps. But the protection of individual rights is well accepted as a vital part of any "enlightened" system of government. Some things are just obvious: if you don't want to country to fall into a state of death and destruction, you have to outlaw murder. The belief that humans shouldn't kill each other is a moral belief, but one essential to the stability and success of modern society. In truth, every law is moral, in the sense that laws define what is right and what is wrong.

Anyway, I don't think many people would object to having their individual rights protected. But laws based on very specific moral codes, like that of Christianity, are unacceptable to a large number of people.

 

[Art]

It is not a poll I would simply like some feedback from the community here.

I was listening to the radio this morning and someone made this argument.

(And I paraphrase)
If you don't believe in the right to have a medically assisted suicide, then don't get one. However don't prevent me from getting one if I want.

I have to go now.

Looking forward to reading your comments

The danger in allowing this form of euthanasia is where do you start and where do you end? A few obvious quandaries are; somebody suffering from severe depression might well genuinely feel that they want to die but with treatment they could overcome the depression and be very glad that people ignored their request made while ill. Another case is where a relative who stands to gain has in some way influenced the choice of the wouldbe suicide. Another example would be where doctors are involved in the decision making whilst their own opinions are biased by resource funding.

In the specific example you mention whilst I see the point of view of the person talking it reminds me of the guy (who's name I forget - Gary something?) who was on death row in America for years. He insisted on his right to be executed which duly happened but also opened the floodgates for hundreds more people on death row to be executed who very much did not want to be.

Far safer to leave assisted suicide illegal and if a case does come to court judge it on it's individual merits.

 

[russ_watters]

The concept of morals would be meaningless if everyone got to decide what constituted "moral".

 

[Archon]

The concept of morals would be meaningless if everyone got to decide what constituted "moral".

This sentance is confusing. Are you saying that the concept of morals would be meaningless if each person got to decide for themselves what is and is not moral, or are you saying that this would be the case if, somehow, everyone agreed on a single description of morality? Or something else entirely?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well this is a rather impossible thread to give a yes/no reply to.

Peoples morality ranges from, as I've said before, 15th century medieval Christianity morals that dictate women not show any skin and that cursing should be a jailable offense down to modern day ultra-liberal morals where anything and everything should be allowed and encouraged besides maybe a couple of things like murder. Since everyones morals are pretty much spread inbetween the 2 extremes, a democracies job should be to set up a system of laws that are objectionable to the least # of people. The ironic part is that if you did subscribe to the laws wanted by the extreme 'do anything and everything' view, you actually are creating a dictatorship ruled by the immoral. I say its a dictatorship because since most people don't want that, your inevitably letting a few people rule over the many.

Of course, you then run into the problem of defining what "freedom" is along with the debate of whether an extremely free society is actually counterproductive and harmful. One persons freedom might be a restriction to another person. Say for example, the misnomer of separation of church and state. Cases have already been brought up saying that christmas plays for children at school carnivals or whatever are violating someones "freedom from religion" no matter how voluntary it is. Now, on the other hand, the people who want the play could easily say their freedoms to do their little plays are being infringed. Now, if you subscribe to the extreme view that the Constitution separates people from religion as many people think, you have just shown how laws MUST infringe on someones idea of freedom in certain cases. there's no way around it. Person A's feelings of freedom are in direct contradiction to Person B's feelings of freedom. Is anyones views more valid then the other? No. Are they both based on their feelings of morality? Yes. Is any human more of a human then any other human? No. Clearly a contradiction. So this shows how laws and societies must be defined based on the will of the majority. Why force ourselves to live with something we don't want to live with.

As for counterproductivity, at some point you will reach a level of freedom where a society starts breaking down. People will soon insist that they deserve a freedom from set working hours or a freedom from being fired or a freedom from paying taxes or a freedom from worrying about the environment or a freedom from raising their own children. Obviously no society has ever come very close to this but its applicable to point out in this kind of discussion.

The good thing though is that there are many societies on Earth that mostly have basic foundations in their laws. What most people tend to do is push and pull those laws slightly into their favors. Now, if someone feels the laws have been taken too far out of their own moral views and desires for freedom, they most likely will have the choice of going to another society where the foundation of laws is more to their liking or where the 'push' 'pull' of the laws is more in their favor.

 

[Archon]

Peoples morality ranges from, as I've said before, 15th century medieval Christianity morals that dictate women not show any skin and that cursing should be a jailable offense down to modern day ultra-liberal morals where anything and everything should be allowed and encouraged besides maybe a couple of things like murder. Since everyones morals are pretty much spread inbetween the 2 extremes, a democracies job should be to set up a system of laws that are objectionable to the least # of people. The ironic part is that if you did subscribe to the laws wanted by the extreme 'do anything and everything' view, you actually are creating a dictatorship ruled by the immoral. I say its a dictatorship because since most people don't want that, your inevitably letting a few people rule over the many.

Wait, are you saying that if a few people impose absolute freedom on the majority, they're actually being dictators? This doesn't seem logical. The only objection we have to dictatorship is that it inevitably leads to the loss of rights. This isn't the case here.

Of course, you then run into the problem of defining what "freedom" is along with the debate of whether an extremely free society is actually counterproductive and harmful. One persons freedom might be a restriction to another person.

That's the point, in some sense. If we allow a group of people to impose their beliefs (i.e. their "freedom") on others, then the others are being restricted. But if you allow a reasonable amount of freedom to all (that is, keep only laws that aren't based on the morals of a narrow set of people), then nobody is restricted, right?

Say for example, the misnomer of separation of church and state. Cases have already been brought up saying that christmas plays for children at school carnivals or whatever are violating someones "freedom from religion" no matter how voluntary it is. Now, on the other hand, the people who want the play could easily say their freedoms to do their little plays are being infringed.

I agree that these things are often taken to extremes. However, a religious school play is not the same as one's right to choose to die with dignity or one's right to have an abortion. After all, if you don't believe in God, then you shouldn't have to wait until "God" decides that it's your time to go, just to satisfy a bunch of Christians who you've never met and who don't know anything about you.

Now, if you subscribe to the extreme view that the Constitution separates people from religion as many people think, you have just shown how laws MUST infringe on someones idea of freedom in certain cases. Theres no way around it. Person A's feelings of freedom are in direct contradiction to Person B's feelings of freedom. Is anyones views more valid then the other? No. Are they both based on their feelings of morality? Yes. Is any human more of a human then any other human? No. Clearly a contradiction. So this shows how laws and societies must be defined based on the will of the majority. Why force ourselves to live with something we don't want to live with.

That laws must infringe on certain peoples' freedom is self-evident. That's their purpose. They prevent you from doing things that are detrimental to society as a whole or that interfere with others' rights.

You say that no person's freedom is more important than any other person's. Then, you go on to say that we should restrict some people's freedom because there are less of them. This seems logical, but consider this: why do you need to restrict anyone's freedom (within reason) at all? By allowing abortion, for instance, you aren't restricting the freedom of pro-life people. They still have the choice between getting an abortion or not. You're expanding the freedom of those who support abortion, since they now have the freedom to get an abortion or not, while before, they didn't.

As for counterproductivity, at some point you will reach a level of freedom where a society starts breaking down. People will soon insist that they deserve a freedom from set working hours or a freedom from being fired or a freedom from paying taxes or a freedom from worrying about the environment or a freedom from raising their own children. Obviously no society has ever come very close to this but its applicable to point out in this kind of discussion.

This is an extreme example that won't follow from giving people the right to medically-assisted suicide, for instance. No more than will communism follow from imposing limits on the length of the work day. As far as your example goes, however, I agree with you.

The good thing though is that there are many societies on Earth that mostly have basic foundations in their laws. What most people tend to do is push and pull those laws slightly into their favors. Now, if someone feels the laws have been taken too far out of their own moral views and desires for freedom, they most likely will have the choice of going to another society where the foundation of laws is more to their liking or where the 'push' 'pull' of the laws is more in their favor.

You mean like proponents of Democracy in Iran could just escape the country and forget about their attempts to bring representational government to their country? Of course people could leave the U.S. if they disagree with the laws. But this is contrary to the spirit of Democracy. They shouldn't have to leave the country because of such a petty disagreement: this is why democracy provides the minority with certain protections.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wait, are you saying that if a few people impose absolute freedom on the majority, they're actually being dictators? This doesn't seem logical. The only objection we have to dictatorship is that it inevitably leads to the loss of rights. This isn't the case here.

What do you mean this "isnt the case". I thought we're talking about the all-encompassing idea of voting personal morality.

That's the point, in some sense. If we allow a group of people to impose their beliefs (i.e. their "freedom") on others, then the others are being restricted. But if you allow a reasonable amount of freedom to all (that is, keep only laws that aren't based on the morals of a narrow set of people), then nobody is restricted, right?

Some might feel restricted! Someone, as in most situations in life, is always left unsatisfied but the main goal in a society is to keep as many people satisfied to the highest degree. Obviously, not everyone is going to be satisfied but its a give and take situation that we all readily agree with when we decide to live in a society.

I agree that these things are often taken to extremes. However, a religious school play is not the same as one's right to choose to die with dignity or one's right to have an abortion. After all, if you don't believe in God, then you shouldn't have to wait until "God" decides that it's your time to go, just to satisfy a bunch of Christians who you've never met and who don't know anything about you.

Again, I am talking about the all-encompassing idea. Your missing the point. If you live in a society, you should accept their laws or try to get them changed. Of course, since this is an all-encompassing idea, there are bound to be cases where it just doesn't work that way. You can argue for abortion and euthanasia all you wan't but I am simply stating my opinion on the idea of this thread, not the case that it brought up. Hell if you want to kill yourself, go kill yourself. I find it odd that people actually fail in their attempts to kill themselves (no large buildings where they live?) so why not just go and end your own life on your death bed if the idea comes up.

That laws must infringe on certain peoples' freedom is self-evident. That's their purpose. They prevent you from doing things that are detrimental to society as a whole or that interfere with others' rights.

You say that no person's freedom is more important than any other person's. Then, you go on to say that we should restrict some people's freedom because there are less of them. This seems logical, but consider this: why do you need to restrict anyone's freedom (within reason) at all? By allowing abortion, for instance, you aren't restricting the freedom of pro-life people. They still have the choice between getting an abortion or not. You're expanding the freedom of those who support abortion, since they now have the freedom to get an abortion or not, while before, they didn't.

Morality. Some people certainly don't want to live in a society where people are allowed to kill children at will. Its the same as people not wanting to expose their kids to such awesomely sweet games as Grand Theft Auto. Your restricting childrens freedom to do what they want but we all readily accept this. Freedom can mean restriction you know. If we want to live with the freedom to breathe clean untained air, a lot of corporations will be restricted. The people who live and breathe that air don't work or know the companies or care about that companies profits and the companies don't really care what the people want other then what their marketing staff tells them (and usually for example, wal-mart cares little about how their patrons feel about say, deforestation). Same situation and obviously, laws have touched on it. If you don't like it, there are societies who feel different and if the idea is important enough to you, you can indeed change societies.

This is an extreme example that won't follow from giving people the right to medically-assisted suicide, for instance. No more than will communism follow from imposing limits on the length of the work day. As far as your example goes, however, I agree with you.

And it was not meant to. This again, is a reply to the general idea of personal morals and laws.

You mean like proponents of Democracy in Iran could just escape the country and forget about their attempts to bring representational government to their country? Of course people could leave the U.S. if they disagree with the laws. But this is contrary to the spirit of Democracy. They shouldn't have to leave the country because of such a petty disagreement: this is why democracy provides the minority with certain protections.

I don't think you actually read what I said or didn't understand what i mean. The "push and pull" is what most people do in societies where the laws have some problems. By push and pull, i mean you go out and protest or write congressmen or support candidates that believe in what you believe in. This is democracies finest quality. And one misconception about the minority having protections is that it is the majorities will for them to have these protections. The reason the minority has protections is simply because the majority decided they should. At any point, the majority can take those rights away and there is, as far as anyone can tell, nothing the minority can readily do about it. I mean with all jokes and ideology aside, what could say, christians do if they became the minority and the US Congress amended the Constitution to say that all religious practice is banned completely. There the minority... laws arent set-in-stone laws like say, the laws of physics. We CANT decide that protons are no longer positively charged but we CAN decide the Constitution of the United States can ban all religious practice, public or private. What can you do? nothing, its the majority, they run the society no matter how you slice it. You can protest and lobby of course but if you can't get it changed that way... that's it, nothing you can do really. Only thing left to do is for the idea of society breaking down as a civil war breaks out.

As far as restrictive dictatorships such as Iran go... if the dictatorship represents a minority... or hell, even a majority that prevents border-crossings at all cost... that's where societal breakdowns are common and justifiable. The ideal society allows people to come and leave as they please and if this is not applicable to a society, you obviously run the risk of a civil war. This has been evident throughout history. Restrictive societies that do not allow free-movement don't normally go through very long periods where intranational affairs are calm and peaceful.

 

[loseyourname]

That individual rights ought to be protected is also a moral stance, no?

Philosophical rigor is generally not practiced in political discussions. The vast majority of the time, when people say they don't want other's "personal" morals being imposed on them by law, they really just mean that they don't want a given set of religious values influencing legislation.

 

[rachmaninoff]

And one misconception about the minority having protections is that it is the majorities will for them to have these protections. The reason the minority has protections is simply because the majority decided they should. At any point, the majority can take those rights away and there is, as far as anyone can tell, nothing the minority can readily do about it. I mean with all jokes and ideology aside, what could say, christians do if they became the minority and the US Congress amended the Constitution to say that all religious practice is banned completely. There the minority... laws arent set-in-stone laws like say, the laws of physics. We CANT decide that protons are no longer positively charged but we CAN decide the Constitution of the United States can ban all religious practice, public or private. What can you do? nothing, its the majority, they run the society no matter how you slice it.

As far as the US goes, this is extremely untrue. The minority has rights and protections because they're guaranteed in a constitution. It is contradictory to imagine that the majority 'allows' them these freedoms - on the contrary, a mob-rule democracy would see the majority completely squish the minority at every opportunity. The judicial branch is what upholds the consitution - definitely not the congressional majority. Congress could try to ban religion or create a Theocracy, they could try to get a supermajority in favor of it, they're still powerless against the courts. Stack the courts with people like Roberts... think it'll make any difference? Roberts won't uphold a "make-Chrisitanity-mandatory" bill, it's absurd. No judge will. No judge will let a 'ban on religion' occur either. I'd bet my shoes on it.

This is extremely basic civics by the way, they teach this in 5th grade textbooks.

One persons freedom might be a restriction to another person. Say for example, the misnomer of separation of church and state. Cases have already been brought up saying that christmas plays for children

A non-example. Things like banning Christmas plays are highly contraversial, and are not a legitimate example of what 'separation of church and state' means. It's not a misnomer - there are extremely legitimate issues and tests of it right now, as in the "teaching creationism in the guise of 'intelligent design'". It takes on new dimensions of meaning if you expand your narrow worldview to consider states where there is no state/church separation - most of the Arabian peninsula, Iran, etc.

Now, if you subscribe to the extreme view that the Constitution separates people from religion as many people think,

It doesn't. It separates the state from religion. It explicitly prohibits congress from restricting, endorsing, or infringing upon religious worship (up to the point where it infringes on common law).
The result of this is, among other things, people can separate themselves from religion if they choose to.

If we want to live with the freedom to breathe clean untained air, a lot of corporations will be restricted. The people who live and breathe that air don't work or know the companies or care about that companies profits and the companies don't really care what the people want other then what their marketing staff tells them

So different peoples' rights can infringe on each other... well done! We've known that since the time of ancient Sumer! That's what the judicial branches are for - to resolve these kinds of disputes. We have legal precedents that determine things like, XYZ's pesticide factory has every right to exist, but they most dispose of their waste properly, and if they dump cyanides in the Mississippi river, they lose their operating licenses. So here's the question - what should the legal standards be for the rights of terminally ill cancer patients to die painlessly vs. the rights of evangelicals to ensure the whole world obeys their religious precepts?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

What is the right thing to do in this situation? Suppose you borrowed your friend's gun to do some hunting or something. Since you're a firm believer in repecting other people's property, you want to give it back to that person and you bring it to their house, but you notice that that person is feeling pretty down in the dumps. Your friend has made a point that he/she really wants the gun back. What do you do?

 

[rachmaninoff]

What is the right thing to do in this situation? Suppose you borrowed your friend's gun to do some hunting or something. Since you're a firm believer in repecting other people's property, you want to give it back to that person and you bring it to their house, but you notice that that person is feeling pretty down in the dumps. Your friend has made a point that he/she really wants the gun back. What do you do?

You mean, if I strongly suspect them to be suicidal? I certainly wouldn't given them their gun then, for obvious reasons. The fact that he/she owns it really makes no difference. And how is this relevant to this discussion about assisted suicide? There is no comparison between terminally ill people with painful, degnerative disease, and otherwise healthy, clinically depressed suicidal people. Idiotic comparison, really.

 

[Entropy]

The minority has rights and protections because they're guaranteed in a constitution.

Only because the majority chooses to enforce the constitution.

 

[Skyhunter]

That individual rights ought to be protected is also a moral stance, no?

I would define that as a value, it is however values that make up a persons moral code.

 

[Archon]

What do you mean this "isnt the case". I thought we're talking about the all-encompassing idea of voting personal morality.

I mean that there is no loss of rights if we give some reasonable amount of moral freedom to everyone.

Some might feel restricted! Someone, as in most situations in life, is always left unsatisfied but the main goal in a society is to keep as many people satisfied to the highest degree. Obviously, not everyone is going to be satisfied but its a give and take situation that we all readily agree with when we decide to live in a society.

Restricted and unsatisfied are two different things. The Christian Right will be unsatisfied if medically-assisted suicide and abortion are legalized and kept legal, respectively. They won't be restricted. The deathly ill and women, respectively, will be restricted if these two things aren't legal.

Again, I am talking about the all-encompassing idea. Your missing the point. If you live in a society, you should accept their laws or try to get them changed. Of course, since this is an all-encompassing idea, there are bound to be cases where it just doesn't work that way. You can argue for abortion and euthanasia all you wan't but I am simply stating my opinion on the idea of this thread, not the case that it brought up. Hell if you want to kill yourself, go kill yourself. I find it odd that people actually fail in their attempts to kill themselves (no large buildings where they live?) so why not just go and end your own life on your death bed if the idea comes up.

The problem emerges when we have laws that aren't necessary to protect people, but only exist to satisfy the often narrow moral ideals of a subset of the entire population.

You said yourself that there are no absolutes in this matter. Why contradict yourself here? The fact is, these laws can be separated into two categories:
1) Those that are necessary to the continuity of society
2) Those that serve only to satisfy the morals of certain people
The latter don't make sense when the alternative is to give everyone the freedom to act on moral issues as they wish.

As for death: the key word in what I was saying is "dignity." Jumping off of a building is not dignified, according to many people. Nor can most of those who really want assisted suicide do it themselves: they are incapacitated, restricted to a bed, slowly wasting away.

Morality. Some people certainly don't want to live in a society where people are allowed to kill children at will. Its the same as people not wanting to expose their kids to such awesomely sweet games as Grand Theft Auto. Your restricting childrens freedom to do what they want but we all readily accept this. Freedom can mean restriction you know. If we want to live with the freedom to breathe clean untained air, a lot of corporations will be restricted. The people who live and breathe that air don't work or know the companies or care about that companies profits and the companies don't really care what the people want other then what their marketing staff tells them (and usually for example, wal-mart cares little about how their patrons feel about say, deforestation). Same situation and obviously, laws have touched on it. If you don't like it, there are societies who feel different and if the idea is important enough to you, you can indeed change societies.

Are you just ignoring everything I've said? I agree that some laws are necessary, including many of those based on morality (murder, for instance). Your second point doesn't really apply. I'm not talking about what one could call "inalienable" rights (in your case, a good quality of life). I'm talking about the rights to do things that are not really harmful. The Christian Right (for instance) finds abortion and assisted suicide objectionable on grounds of morality. This is what I mean. How will it effect you or anyone else in a negative sense if people who are terminally ill are allowed to choose their time of death, so they can be surrounded by family at the end?

I don't think you actually read what I said or didn't understand what i mean. The "push and pull" is what most people do in societies where the laws have some problems. By push and pull, i mean you go out and protest or write congressmen or support candidates that believe in what you believe in. This is democracies finest quality. And one misconception about the minority having protections is that it is the majorities will for them to have these protections. The reason the minority has protections is simply because the majority decided they should. At any point, the majority can take those rights away and there is, as far as anyone can tell, nothing the minority can readily do about it.

The minority has these protections because they're written into the bloody Constitution, not because the majority grants them. This is why, for instance, we have the system of checks and balances: no single branch of government is allowed to become too powerful because of the possibility that a single party will take over and restrict the rights of the minority so as to create a one-party state.

I mean with all jokes and ideology aside, what could say, christians do if they became the minority and the US Congress amended the Constitution to say that all religious practice is banned completely.There the minority... laws arent set-in-stone laws like say, the laws of physics. We CANT decide that protons are no longer positively charged but we CAN decide the Constitution of the United States can ban all religious practice, public or private. What can you do? nothing, its the majority, they run the society no matter how you slice it. You can protest and lobby of course but if you can't get it changed that way... that's it, nothing you can do really. Only thing left to do is for the idea of society breaking down as a civil war breaks out.

This couldn't happen any more than the Christian majority today can make Christianity mandatory. In any case, it's a different issue entirely. I'm not proposing that we impose anything on anyone. I advocate exactly the opposite: that we "unimpose" regulations based on narrow moral codes.

As far as restrictive dictatorships such as Iran go... if the dictatorship represents a minority... or hell, even a majority that prevents border-crossings at all cost... that's where societal breakdowns are common and justifiable. The ideal society allows people to come and leave as they please and if this is not applicable to a society, you obviously run the risk of a civil war. This has been evident throughout history. Restrictive societies that do not allow free-movement don't normally go through very long periods where intranational affairs are calm and peaceful.

I was making an analogy in an attempt to show that what you said about people leaving the country when they are dissatisfied is not something that should be necessary or encouraged.

 

[Archon]

Only because the majority chooses to enforce the constitution.

Sure, but this discussion is about democratic-type governments. Of course the majority or the guy with the biggest gun could potentially destroy a democracy and impose a dictatorship of some sort, but then none of what we're talking about applies anymore. Anyway, that's why we have such things as checks and balances: if the minority controls at least one branch of government, it becomes difficult or impossible to impose dictatorship.

In other words, the majority isn't supposed to control all three branches of government.

 

[Skyhunter]

As I stated previously in the thread on separation of church and state: An individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin. If we look at individual rights in the purest sense, as long as an individual is not causing harm to another individual than they have the right to do as they choose.

I agree with this assertion. No one has perfect morals, so therefore they should not try and impose them on others through political means

Suicide is illegal in the U.S., and the validity of this law has been questioned. You really can't stop someone from taking their own life, and afterward you certainly can't punish the person. However, someone who assists and remains alive, here is the real situation to look at.

These scenarios usually are in cases of terminal illness, and often prolonged suffering. We feel it humane to end the suffering of an animal, but we struggle with doing so in regard to our own kind. Terri Schiavo is a recent and good example. The feeding tube was removed, and IMO it was the thing to do, because most of us would have wanted the same thing done if it had been us. Though I feel slow death by starvation was not right--maybe lethal injection?

The example I paraphrased belonged to the person who called the radio show. It was meant only as an example of an argument in support of a moral vote being a vote against personal freedom. (Since I was in a hurry and needed a quick argument...sorry.. )

I would prefer to keep the thread on topic if possible. I promise to be more thoughtful in the future.

 

[honestrosewater]

Philosophical rigor is generally not practiced in political discussions. The vast majority of the time, when people say they don't want other's "personal" morals being imposed on them by law, they really just mean that they don't want a given set of religious values influencing legislation.

Thanks, I was catching on to that.
If someone hasn't already mentioned this, it has been established that individual rights are not absolute, or

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins​

as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. put it.

I'm kind of interested in how many people, when the question before them is what laws we should have, use the laws we currently do have as their argument (as if the question has already been settled in their favor), in order to avoid admitting that they're taking as much of a personal moral stance as others.

 

[Skyhunter]

Perhaps. But the protection of individual rights is well accepted as a vital part of any "enlightened" system of government. Some things are just obvious: if you don't want to country to fall into a state of death and destruction, you have to outlaw murder. The belief that humans shouldn't kill each other is a moral belief, but one essential to the stability and success of modern society. In truth, every law is moral, in the sense that laws define what is right and what is wrong.

Anyway, I don't think many people would object to having their individual rights protected. But laws based on very specific moral codes, like that of Christianity, are unacceptable to a large number of people.

If ones personal morals are that "might makes right", then murder would not be morally wrong, according to their personal morality. An extreme example of why voting ones morals is a vote against personal freedom. I can't think a better way than murder to deprive someone of their personal freedom.

 

[Skyhunter]

The concept of morals would be meaningless if everyone got to decide what constituted "moral".

The definition of personal morals is what a "person" decides is moral.

 

[Archon]

If ones personal morals are that "might makes right", then murder would not be morally wrong, according to their personal morality. An extreme example of why voting ones morals is a vote against personal freedom. I can't think a better way than murder to deprive someone of their personal freedom.

I think part of the reason why laws making murder (for instance) illegal are reasonable and valid is that the morals upon which they are based are shared by such an overwhelming percentage of the population. Very few people believe that outlawing murder is the wrong policy. But a great many more people believe that outlawing such things as abortion is wrong. In general, people will overwhelmingly support laws which contribute to the stability of society, while a large portion of the population will object to laws which, from their point of view, do nothing but limit and restrict society.

 

[Skyhunter]

Well this is a rather impossible thread to give a yes/no reply to.

Peoples morality ranges from, as I've said before, 15th century medieval Christianity morals that dictate women not show any skin and that cursing should be a jailable offense down to modern day ultra-liberal morals where anything and everything should be allowed and encouraged besides maybe a couple of things like murder. Since everyones morals are pretty much spread inbetween the 2 extremes, a democracies job should be to set up a system of laws that are objectionable to the least # of people. The ironic part is that if you did subscribe to the laws wanted by the extreme 'do anything and everything' view, you actually are creating a dictatorship ruled by the immoral. I say its a dictatorship because since most people don't want that, your inevitably letting a few people rule over the many.

Of course, you then run into the problem of defining what "freedom" is along with the debate of whether an extremely free society is actually counterproductive and harmful. One persons freedom might be a restriction to another person. Say for example, the misnomer of separation of church and state. Cases have already been brought up saying that christmas plays for children at school carnivals or whatever are violating someones "freedom from religion" no matter how voluntary it is. Now, on the other hand, the people who want the play could easily say their freedoms to do their little plays are being infringed. Now, if you subscribe to the extreme view that the Constitution separates people from religion as many people think, you have just shown how laws MUST infringe on someones idea of freedom in certain cases. Theres no way around it. Person A's feelings of freedom are in direct contradiction to Person B's feelings of freedom. Is anyones views more valid then the other? No. Are they both based on their feelings of morality? Yes. Is any human more of a human then any other human? No. Clearly a contradiction. So this shows how laws and societies must be defined based on the will of the majority. Why force ourselves to live with something we don't want to live with.

As for counterproductivity, at some point you will reach a level of freedom where a society starts breaking down. People will soon insist that they deserve a freedom from set working hours or a freedom from being fired or a freedom from paying taxes or a freedom from worrying about the environment or a freedom from raising their own children. Obviously no society has ever come very close to this but its applicable to point out in this kind of discussion.

The good thing though is that there are many societies on Earth that mostly have basic foundations in their laws. What most people tend to do is push and pull those laws slightly into their favors. Now, if someone feels the laws have been taken too far out of their own moral views and desires for freedom, they most likely will have the choice of going to another society where the foundation of laws is more to their liking or where the 'push' 'pull' of the laws is more in their favor.

I don't want to define morality. That debate has been and probably will go, on forever.

I am more interested in knowing whether or not you think that if you vote based on your personal morals if you are voting against your personal rights?

And hear your argument supporting your position.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

You mean, if I strongly suspect them to be suicidal? I certainly wouldn't given them their gun then, for obvious reasons. The fact that he/she owns it really makes no difference. And how is this relevant to this discussion about assisted suicide? There is no comparison between terminally ill people with painful, degnerative disease, and otherwise healthy, clinically depressed suicidal people. Idiotic comparison, really.

my bad, you're right about that. I thought this was about clinically depressed suicidal people.

Here's my life experiance:

My grandmother had congestive heart failure among other things, and was in and out of the hostipal for a long time. She was on life support for about a week when my grandpa (with support from the family) decided that she can't live like that so he asked to pull the plug. I was in a weird mental state during all of this, kind of like overpowered by the weight of the situation to the point where I just didn't know how to react. I was beside myself, and I don't think I would've ever been able to make the decision to take her off life support or not. I want to say that it was the right choice because she wasn't totally responding to other people and she was relying on life support so it didn't seem like she was going to pull through. So I would say that it's okay to pull the plug for cases where the person in question can't even really respond to the other people and outside world, and can't live without life support.

As far as terminally ill patients in a state of constant physical pain who can respond to other people and voice their desire to die, I can see it both ways and I would rather not decide. This is a very diffacult delima. If I had to make a desicion, I would sympathize with the patient, because that person knows how much physical pain they feel and not their friends and family. It's kind of rude to say "buck up and deal with the pain, we want you around regardless of what you think". Then again, I'm a very sensitive person, which makes me look very insensitive at times.

As far as clinically depressed people, I would say heck no!

Oh yeah, as far as the main question at hand... I would say that my answers to the situations above is how I would vote, and they are alligned with my morals. I would want everyone to react to me the way I would react to the above situations. If I said I wanted to die because I was terminally ill and in constant physical pain, I would mean it, but I would try my darndest to deal with it as long as I could until I reached that point. Something in me says that I will never say something like that though no matter what happens, but then again, I've never felt anywhere near the kind of pain that it would take, and it's not just the amount of it, but also if there is no hope of ever relieving it. That would be the deciding factor for me, I'd deal with it for as long as I could, but I dont' know if I'd ever make the choice to die. This would also apply to mental pain and anguish over the loss of a part of my body or paralysis, but it wouldn't be as bad in that case for me, because I would still have hope (with stem cells and prosthetics) to overcome the mental part, but if I had no way of zoning out physical pain (even with drugs), that's a different story and I can't say what I would choose, but I would like my choice to be respected in that case.

If I were clinically depressed and suicidal, then I wouldn't want others to respect my choice to die. I've been depressed before and it sucks, and I've had suicidal thoughts, but they were never serious and they were only for the reason to making the people I know feel sorry for me (how rude I was to think that! How even more rude I would be to do that). Most people who are suicidal just don't believe they will ever feel better, but they will at some point, garunteed (I believe).

If I was in the situation my grandma was in, I'd want the same thing done to me that was done to her. She put up a good fight, but things just wouldn't have gotten better for her if she stayed on life support.

I got the feeling that I'm wasting my time writing all of this. I don't think I'm providing good conversation about what you really want to talk about.

I just don't think that when a person votes for their personal morals (which are freely chosen), that they contradict their own freedom. I don't really get the connection there. Why would you not be free when you vote? Why would you vote for something that contradicts your freedom?

 

[Skyhunter]

Philosophical rigor is generally not practiced in political discussions. The vast majority of the time, when people say they don't want other's "personal" morals being imposed on them by law, they really just mean that they don't want a given set of religious values influencing legislation.

You are right this may not be the correct forum because it is a philosophical question.

That said, I posted it here because I specifically wanted the input of politically active/interested people on voting principles.

I don't consider personal morals to necessarily be religious morals.

 

[Skyhunter]

Thanks, I was catching on to that.
If someone hasn't already mentioned this, it has been established that individual rights are not absolute, or

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins​

as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. put it.

I'm kind of interested in how many people, when the question before them is what laws we should have, use the laws we currently do have as their argument (as if the question has already been settled in their favor), in order to avoid admitting that they're taking as much of a personal moral stance as others.

Is there any difference between a fist and a law in the case of personal freedom?

I would argue that in order to have unlimited personal freedom, personal freedom must be universal, and therefore any act that infringes upon personal freedom would be an act against personal freedom.

 

[Archon]

Is there any difference between a fist and a law in the case of personal freedom?

I would argue that in order to have unlimited personal freedom, personal freedom must be universal, and therefore any act that infringes upon personal freedom would be an act against personal freedom.

I really think that the key word here is "personal" freedom. One has to make a distinction between freedoms (like suicide) that allow individuals to do what they wish without harming or restricting others, and freedoms (like murder) that result in harm to others. The former are "good" freedoms that should be allowed, while the latter are "bad" freedoms that must be dealt with in law. In my opinion, anything that falls into the first category shouldn't be restricted by laws.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think part of the reason why laws making murder (for instance) illegal are reasonable and valid is that the morals upon which they are based are shared by such an overwhelming percentage of the population. Very few people believe that outlawing murder is the wrong policy. But a great many more people believe that outlawing such things as abortion is wrong. In general, people will overwhelmingly support laws which contribute to the stability of society, while a large portion of the population will object to laws which, from their point of view, do nothing but limit and restrict society.

I could apply the principle of universal personal freedom as the guiding principle in most cases. Abortion is different, because there are to lives that are intrinsically tied together. Not being a woman I lack experiential knowledge, and therefore would feel inadequately qualified to impose my beliefs on them, even if I believed they were murdering their child.

I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion, and most of the people I know who call themselves pro-life, are in favor of the death penalty and support the Iraq war...