How far would you go to respect someone else's beliefs?

[wimms]

question boils down to whether you respect your beliefs first, or respect others beliefs first. When conflict occurs, you are to decide whether you are piece of crap not worth your own slightest respect, or you act as your heart tells.

As to your friends, to me it seems that the only thing they stick to is that they themselves do not seek for help. But any external help or event they'd accept as act of god. If you save them, you represent the will of god. So, seems you don't even have a conflict. Your friend might even be relieved and thankful to god afterward.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by wimms
question boils down to whether you respect your beliefs first, or respect others beliefs first. When conflict occurs, you are to decide whether you are piece of crap not worth your own slightest respect, or you act as your heart tells.

Which brings us back to the roll-reversal question I asked earlier; if you fell incapacitated in the workplace, possibly experiencing a heart attack, would they call an ambulance for you?

You see, reciprocity is one of the quickest and easiest tests of fairness. Whenever I'm faced with a question of what is fair or unfair, I try to reverse the rolls. It can't allways be done, but nearly allways, and this case is no different. If you were on the floor, having a heart attack, would you want your co-workers to act according to their own beliefs, or yours? In addition to asking what you want them to do, you should also ask yourself what you think they would do, and what you think they should do.

Then, apply the same principles to yourself. If a coworker collapses, you might decide that, since you are the one forced to make the decission, it is your beliefs that matter, not theirs. If this is your decission, are you not telling them that you should be treated in a simillar fashion? If they would not call an ambulance for you, then they are showing that disregard for the beliefs of others is a part of their belief system, and you would then be acting in accordance with that belief by violating their beliefs.

All of which makes it sound far more complicated than it is. Short-and-simple version; what would they do in your shoes?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Putting aside for now the moral relativism vs moral absolutism arguement, since moral absolutism is at the very least not clearly defined, most people will choose to respect other people's beliefs even if they don't agree. So how far does this go?

For me, this is really simple. If what someone believes does not cause serious harm others, then I say live and let live.

But when someone's belief is about to cause immediate, life-threatening harm, then I have to ignore their beliefs and follow my own conscience. If they tried to interfere, I'd tell them, " you do what you think is right, and I will do what I think is right." And if I had to fight them in such an intense situation to do what what I saw as right, I'd do it . . . may the best man/woman win!

 

[jammieg]

In theory the individual should have the right to do or say or think whatever they want provided it's all on them and it is their life; disregard personal freedom of the individual to choose their own beliefs and bad habits and what they can't say and they start loosing their personal freedom.
In theory I would not call the ambulance, but in practice feelings would probably overwhelm judgemnet for the better depending on such things as our relationship, their age, their reasons for their beliefs, and the conviction of their beliefs. This situation is grilling because there is no opportunity to discuss it with them once it happens, the decision seems to be all on you and most people are going to act on instinctual feelings at that point unless it is clearly discussed before.
What about the children of the parents, should they also be able to choose to refuse medical attention, should a 5 year old be able to say, "I want to die of pnuemonia", and we respect that belief? This is probably a major question for law, and would guess where a line will be drawn by the majority.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by LURCH
Which brings us back to the roll-reversal question I asked earlier; if you fell incapacitated in the workplace, possibly experiencing a heart attack, would they call an ambulance for you?

I must have missed that before. Thats a really good question.

Since they don't believe in medical treatment, would they call the ambulance for me? I'm really not sure.

 

[Another God]

I would respect their beliefs if they wanted to receive no assistance. I have no reason to do otherwise. It's their life, their choice.

Assisted suicide: As far as I am concerned, I'm all for it. If someone genuinly wants to die, then I really think that it is their choice. Unfortunately, our law doesn't (mostly because it can't) accommodate that situation, and so it is illegal. As such, I will not do it, because of the personal ramifications. If Law was not a factor though, I'd assist where it was wanted.

As for friends with stupid beliefs: If I had a close friend who believed in such a thing, then I would...um... make up my mind on the situation. In such instances, the actions you take have very little to do with what you believe and what they believe, and more to do with what you want, and how much you respect the wishes of your friend. If you couldn't bear to live without your friend, then chances are, you would act. If you could live without them, and you knew it was the very core of their being that they must not be assisted, then you will probably respect their wishes.

Most of these types of decisions rests on this sort of rational. "How will my actions affect the way I feel?"

 

[Lyuokdea]

Unquestionably for somebody who is a legal adult, they have an undeniable right to refuse medical treatment for any reason. It is there body, if they want to allow nature to kill them without human interference they have that right. Although many of the arguments brought up against this particular religious belief make a whole lot more sense than the religious belief itself. That is not anybody's call but the person whose life is at sake

Now, the issue gets somewhat more complicated if it is a child whose life is at risk. Most children believe the same thing their parents do and most feel that if they die as a child of a preventable illness that it is god's will. Now, I believe in situations where the child seriously believes in refusing medical care, and is passed a certain age, (I would say that 18 is too late, basically, children can make up their minds before they are that old) then they should also be allowed to refuse medical care. But for those who are not old enough yet to make that choice, I think medical care should intervene, because the person whose life is at stake, has no standing on the issue.

The only thing I would hope is that those who have this belief also respect my believes enough that if I collapse someday in front of them, they will call an ambulance for me.