Originally posted by dottewellDottewell: " And it does leave the question: what does it mean to say I have a "right" to do it?"
Nothing that exciting, I'm afraid.
It was just to raise the question whether the number of lives I could save might be a relevant consideration.
I'm not saying I agree with you; I would still argue that I may have a right to do it. Whether it would be the correct thing to do is another matter. And it does leave the question: what does it mean to say I have a "right" to do it?
Exactly ! Maybe LJ is becoming interested now ....
BBarr: "Do you think the following two claims are inconsistent?
1) I have a right to say things to people I know they'll find offensive.
2) I ought not say things to people I know they'll find offensive.
This is an interesting ethical question, what do you think?"
I'm sure Bbarr hasn't reserved this conundrum for me. Why don't y'all answer the question ?
Originally posted by StarrmanYou have the wrong impression Starrman .... and your last question isn't very clear to me in case you start complaining why I don't answer it.
You see, I could have sworn you show a continual distaste for nearly the entire human race. Does this include fetuses?
...... but let's stay on topic .... shall we ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeDo you make a habit of staying on topic?
You have the wrong impression Starrman .... and your last question isn't very clear to me in case you start complaining why I don't answer it.
...... but let's stay on topic .... shall we ?
Okay, since you started this thread, perhaps you'd care to explain your own views. Answer these:
1) Why is damaging yourself evil?
2) Why is using words to offend people evil?
3) Why do you think the actions above should not be rights?
4) Why should these things not be commited in the name of either self-autonomy or freedom?
Originally posted by StarrmanYou like to run the show don't you ?
Do you make a habit of staying on topic?
Okay, since you started this thread, perhaps you'd care to explain your own views. Answer these:
1) Why is damaging yourself evil?
2) Why is using words to offend people evil?
3) Why do you think the actions above should not be rights?
4) Why should these things not be commited in the name of either self-autonomy or freedom?
Originally posted by ivanhoeLol, your ability for self-denial and hypocrisy of action is unbelievable! You really don't see that I'm doing exactly what you do normally, do you? Wow.
You like to run the show don't you ?
Just a few minutes ago, you posed bbarr's question to the entire thread when he had posed it to you and your answer was verging on minimalist. You didn't try and tie it in to your original post in any way. You're not having a conversation here, you're trying to chair a meeting.
Originally posted by StarrmanYou are an intelligent provocateur, aren't you ?
Lol, your ability for self-denial and hypocrisy of action is unbelievable! You really don't see that I'm doing exactly what you do normally, do you? Wow.
Just a few minutes ago, you posed bbarr's question to the entire thread when he had posed it to you and your answer was verging on minimalist. You didn't try and tie it in to your original post in any way. You're not having a conversation here, you're trying to chair a meeting.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeHuman FREEDOM, as the West takes it, is something that makes the individual the most important thing in existence. Every person considers his ‘rights’ over others and forgets his ‘duty’ to his fellow human beings, and himself. The good thing though is that quite a few of the ‘duties’ are protected by the law.
Reading the forums I can't help noticing that certain debaters hold the position that one has the right to do evil. One has a "right" to damage oneself and one has a right to damage others.
.... and all this in the name of human "autonomy" and human "freedom".
Do you agree with those debaters or do you hold a different position ?
Islam on the other hand preaches its followers to take these duties to heart…no law should require them to keep their noise low so that the neighbors are not disturbed, and no law requires them to make sure that a poor neighbor is fed and he doesn’t have to sleep with an empty stomach etc.
According to the Islamic teachings, on the day of Judgment (if he so chooses) God will forgive people if they made mistakes and did not do their duty towards Him. However, he will not forgive those who did not do their duty towards their fellow beings until the suffering human forgives the transgressor.
I believe that no one has the ‘right’ to damage others/ take lives or hurt feelings of other people. And God does not give humans the ‘right’ to damage themselves since the human body is a trusted upon us by God. Suicide, addiction are a part of killing oneself which is considered a transgression of our duty towards ourselves.
“Surely, Allah loves not transgressors.” (Holy Quran 2:191)
However, Islam does not have anything against organ donation since it is done to serve humanity…though you are not allowed to sell organs (as is done in some countries).
Again, its up to individuals to practice the word of God, you can not generalize with human beings since they are all different.
Originally posted by TidesOfChangeHow the hell do you know what 'God' intends? All you rely on is the testimony of a man who lived some 1500 years ago as to his belief in a revalation from 'God'; a delusion which has been shared by many from the OT 'prophets' to Ludovic Muggleton in the 17th century to Smith the Morman in the 19th. Such persons would stand a good chance of being detained under Section 22 of the Mental Health Act if they were to appear in this Country today.
Human FREEDOM, as the West takes it, is something that makes the individual the most important thing in existence. Every person considers his ‘rights’ over others and forgets his ‘duty’ to his fellow human beings, and himself. The good thing though is that quite a few of the ‘duties’ are protected by the law.
Islam on the other hand preaches its fo ...[text shortened]... done to serve humanity…though you are not allowed to sell organs (as is done in some countries).
Originally posted by Nargagunado you believe in God at all? if not, do you believe in logic? or in science? cause they all lead to the same conclusions...you just have to think instead of trying to argue for the sake of argument.
How the hell do you know what 'God' intends? All you rely on is the testimony of a man who lived some 1500 years ago as to his belief in a revalation from 'God'; a delusion which has been shared by many from the OT 'prophets' to Ludovic Muggleton in the 17th century to Smith the Morman in the 19th. Such persons would stand a good chance of being detained under Section 22 of the Mental Health Act if they were to appear in this Country today.
Originally posted by TidesOfChangeHow, pray tell, do logic and science lead to the same conclusions as a belief in god?
do you believe in God at all? if not, do you believe in logic? or in science? cause they all lead to the same conclusions...you just have to think instead of trying to argue for the sake of argument.
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeInteresting question .. strangely worded.
Reading the forums I can't help noticing that certain debaters hold the position that one has the right to do evil. One has a "right" to damage oneself and one has a right to damage others.
.... and all this in the name of human "autonomy" and human "freedom".
Do you agree with those debaters or do you hold a different position ?
Of course a person has the right to do whatever he/she chooses.
It's the human condition.. we not only get to choose,, we MUST choose.
I have to ask.. is the real question "Is it right to do evil?" because that's a whole different question IMHO. That question requires that one believe their is such a thing as Right/Wrong. Many think "it's relative"
If that is the 'question behind the question' one first must answer the 'Stang question" .. Does evil even exist?
You'll get a good debate on that one. It's the old argument of the Theists v Agnostic/Atheist.
You'll see a lot of this opinion .. and I quote Ringtailhunter
.......................................................................................
It is only evil if the majority of people deem it so.
.........................................................................
These will argue that their is no Absolute Truth (God, Allah, Budda, whatever) .. it's all relative.
Or.. you'll get this from the nihilists .. and I quote Kalsen
.............................................................................................
The concept of right is fundamentally flawed. One cannot objectively resolve one or more contentions into a set of rights.
Hence, the time you spent writing in this thread could have been better utilised pleasuring your wife/girlfriend/yourself/goat/all of the above.
..............................................................................
Nothing much matters but how I feel right now. I deny any responsibilty for anything because I can.
The most interesting responce so far IMO was the one by bbar .. and I quote
............................................................
Do you think the following two claims are inconsistent?
1) I have a right to say things to people I know they'll find offensive.
2) I ought not say things to people I know they'll find offensive.
This is an interesting ethical question, what do you think?
.............................................................................
I don't find the claims inconsistent at all.
I have to go with.. 1. true, and ... 2. true
The origional poster ivanhoe blew the questions off with an "it depends .." answer .. sure sign of a man who's out on the limb.
The 2 questions are not vague at all, very direct, yet the morally confused will have a hard time answering them with the same clarity.
Either you embrace your gift (and responsibilty) of the freedom to choose .. or you dance around intellectually in an effort to avoid responsibilty for your own actions.
It's easy to do .. and a lot more fun in the Here and Now
Originally posted by jammerI'll have to ask you a question.
Interesting question .. strangely worded.
Of course a person has the right to do whatever he/she chooses.
It's the human condition.. we not only get to choose,, we MUST choose.
I have to ask.. is the real question "Is it right to do evil?" because that's a whole different question IMHO.
If that is the 'question behind the question' one first must answ ...[text shortened]... . or you dance around in an effort to avoid responsibilty for your own actions
Is the notion of "evil" something we can only find in religious moral systems or is the term "evil" a universal term meant to coin what is morally unacceptable?
Is evildoing and wrongdoing the same ?
I get the impression the secular people consider "evil" to be a religious term. Is this observation of mine correct ?