4 edits
Originally posted by Dissident DanI agree. We see that the way we look at reality in comparison with the way an alcoholic or junk looks at reality can differ. Claims made about reality can be true or false. How are we going to make clear to the alcoholic or the junk that he sees things in an incorrect (untrue) way , that he is in denial, indeed that he is harming himself ?
No. I would expect that the drugs would have a net negative effect.
The alcoholic or junk needs counselling, meaning that, during the first stage of this counselling, he has to ackowledge the seriousness and the truth about his situation. Going through this proces can be very lengthy and painful indeed.
The next stage of the counselling exists in teaching the alcoholic how to deal with his problems, including the denial problem, how to solve them or how to live with them, manage them.
After that we hope that his views concerning his situation will be more in line with reality and above all we hope that he will cope with his problems without returning to the bottle or needle. In fact we are teaching the alcoholic or junk to regain his freedom.
Everybody who has experienced such a situation knows how extremely difficult and painfull such a process of healing can be.
-------------------------------------------------
Now, freedom is often defined as "You can do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others."
Acting morally is sometimes also defined in such a way "You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others".
In this case the alcoholic/junk is clearly harming himself.
We often hear people say that drinking alcohol excessively or using harmful drugs is for the person in question to decide and that this has nothing to do with morality at all. The person has a right to act the way he does and we do not have a right "to impose our morals upon this person".
Seen from the alcoholic/junk viewpoint he can ask himself "Am I acting in a morally correct way if I drink excessively or if I use harmful drugs".
What would your answer be if you were the cured alcoholic or junk ?
-------------------------------------------------
By the way, everybody is invited to answer this question, not only our friend Dissident Dan !
Originally posted by ivanhoeHuh, I never had reason to figure otherwise.... I always figured if you go around and around the wheel, It doesn't matter how short a stint you take.
I didn't know that aborted children could reïncarnate according to reïncarnation belief ... never too old to learn, I guess.
Have a good one too, Phlabby ....
Now I will also add! I do NOT like if women use abortion as a means of birth control. I think education from an early age is the key to this. I'm not even sure it would be a lack of morals, but I guess ignorance is no excuse if a woman wants to 'get around' and feels it is fine because she can just terminate the baby.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitPhlab: " I do NOT like if women use abortion as a means of birth control. "
Huh, I never had reason to figure otherwise.... I always figured if you go around and around the wheel, It doesn't matter how short a stint you take.
Now I will also add! I do NOT like if women use abortion as a means of birth control. I think education from an early age is the key to this. I'm not even sure it would be a lack of morals, but I gue ...[text shortened]... oman wants to 'get around' and feels it is fine because she can just terminate the baby.
P-
Thanks Phlabby, I appreciate that. It indicates that you show respect to the new-formed human being and that it is not just a 100% right for the woman to abort in every situation. Unborn human beings also have rights. In this way you also show respect towards the women involved because if they go around and think of abortion as a way of birth control they will eventually loose part of their self respect.
It is wise to keep in mind how many loving relations come to an end, are being destroyed, after an abortion has been performed. In my opinion this is one of the reasons of the exceptionally high and still increasing divorce rate in our societies. Anybody who has experienced a divorce will tell you it was and still is quite an ordeal for them and in particular for the children involved. It is time that these things are investigated in an honest unbiased scientific way.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy interpretaion of this problem coming from my idea's set out earlier is that it would be consider accetable (at bare minimum, I'd go as far as to say noble) to attempt to help said alcohlic/junky (as I do agree it is a very negative situation) but it is not acceptable (nor in fact possible in this case I think) to force some one to change their ways against their will, so long as they are not harming others.
Now, freedom is often defined as "You can do whatever you want as long as it does not harm others."
Acting morally is sometimes also defined in such a way "You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others".
In t ...[text shortened]... t would your answer be if you were the cured alcoholic or junk ?
Many drug addicts resort to crime to fuel their habit at which point it the best solution (in my opinion) is to attempt to help them change their lifestyle rather than just "bang em up". But if they are just getting high in their own houses and not bothering any one else they should be allowed to, as far as I'm concerned. I would not do it but I don't see this as a logical reason to stop any one esle.
With out meaning to sound "preachy" bare in mind this is meant to be a general discusion of morals and freedom as oppsed to the specifics of drug use/ abortion. If we are to argue the specifics though I feel a subject such as drug use makes a better example, as abortion has a thread already and the major discussion there deals with deep issues of "life" as opposed to being more about issues surounding general society and peoples freedom with in it.
Originally posted by Simonm
My interpretaion of this problem coming from my idea's set out earlier is that it would be consider accetable (at bare minimum, I'd go as far as to say noble) to attempt to help said alcohlic/junky (as I do agree it is a very negative situation) but it is not acceptable (nor in fact possible in this case I think) to force some one to change their ways agai ...[text shortened]... as opposed to being more about issues surounding general society and peoples freedom with in it.
The point I have presented has something to do with how you would treat yourself, the relation with yourself.
"Am I acting in a morally correct way if I drink excessively or if I use harmful drugs".
Let's refrase the question in a more general way, as requested 😉 :
"Am I acting morally correct if I'm harming myself seriously"
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis goes back to the original point about there being as many moral viewpoints as there are people. I believe I am right in saying that many religions say that the body belongs to God (or something like that) and that we have no right to harm it. Thus suicide and self abuse would be considered morally wrong.
The point I have presented has something to do with how you would treat yourself, the relation with yourself.
"Am I acting in a morally correct way if I drink excessively or if I use harmful drugs".
Let's refrase the question in a more general way, as requested 😉 :
"Am I acting morally correct if I'm harming myself seriously"
My view is that your body and mind are yours to do with what you will. However, in the UK we have the NHS, and so any harm one causes to oneself can, in fact, have an effect on others as they will, in part, be paying for any treatment you require as a result of your self abuse, making it morally wrong.
So I guess the only answer is, it depends.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeLet us check the dictionary?
A debater wrote in some thread "It is a noble goal, balancing morality and freedom, ... "
It would be an interesting subject to discuss this "balancing" morality and freedom.
Is freedom and acting morally contradictory or what ?
...[text shortened]... of the highest form of freedom ?
What are your thoughts ?
.
Freedom: Being free
Free: Able to act at will, not compelled or restrained; not subjet (to); independent; provided wihouth charge; generous, lavish, not in use; (of a person) not busy; not fixed or joined.
Ethics: moral principle
Morality: Good moral conduct; moral goodness or badness
Moral: Concerned with right and wrong conduct; based on a sense of right and wrong (of support or a vitory) pyschological rather than practical. (in noun form: lesson to be obtained from a story or event).
I've taken the liberty to highlight what I think the essence is of both words to back up what I'm about to say.
Freedom is that you can do what you want. It's your animal instinct. It's your id (or es) to use Freudian terms.
Ethics is the borders which we are given within which we are deemed to function. It's the law. It's socialisation. It's the super-ego (uber ich) to get back to Freud.
Morality is the Ego. Is the balancing of the two.
Freedom and ethics are therefor counter weights and the balance of the two is basically how we function.
Too much ethics and everyone becomes the same, everything is grey and there is no freedom.
Too much freedom? Well, watch the film: 'Apocolypse now' to get a good idea of what absolute freedom can do! Absolute freedom means absolutely no ethics. "That which the inner self so wishes can be done."
Ethics are nothing more than a set of rules layed upon us. This in itself isn't as negative as it sounds. Ethics are not by definition good or bad. It's just a set of rules that we play along to.
Freedom on the other hand can be built into the set of rules to a certain extent. When freedom no longer is surrounded by Ethics, you basically resort to the law of: Survival of the fittest.
--------
I have to admit I've not delved into this whole morality vs freedom thing before just now and I equally have to admit it's quite scary material.
If there are no ethics, only absolute freedom, then there is no counter-weight for that freedom? That would mean that there is no balance and that would mean no morality?
I'm gonna have to ponder this.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo long as my actions harm only myself, it is entirely moral.
"Am I acting morally correct if I'm harming myself seriously"
The point about health costs is a valid one I think. Are you harming other by making them pay for your medical needs (through insurance or your countries public health system)? I think you are to a very small extent. However I think this is fairly indirrect and I believe any society should gladly offer health assitance to any one in need regardless of how they got there.
Originally posted by shavixmirShavixmir: "Ethics are nothing more than a set of rules layed upon us. This in itself isn't as negative as it sounds. Ethics are not by definition good or bad. It's just a set of rules that we play along to."
Let us check the dictionary?
Freedom: Being free
Free: [b]Able to act at will, not compelled or restrained; not subjet (to); independent; provided wihouth charge; generous, lavish, not in use; (of a person) not busy; not fixed or joined.
Ethics: moral principle
Morality: Good moral conduct; moral goodness or badness
Moral: Concerned with ri ...[text shortened]... there is no balance and that would mean no morality?
I'm gonna have to ponder this.
[/b]
"It's just a set of rules that we play along to"
In an earlier post I made a comparison with the Traffic Rules (TR).
Are ethics just a set of rules that we play along to, just like TR ?
Originally posted by jimmyb270
This goes back to the original point about there being as many moral viewpoints as there are people. I believe I am right in saying that many religions say that the body belongs to God (or something like that) and that we have no right to harm it. Thus suicide and self abuse would be considered morally wrong.
My view is that your body and mind are yours ...[text shortened]... esult of your self abuse, making it morally wrong.
So I guess the only answer is, it depends.
What would you do to yourself in order to "celebrate" your freedom? I mean would you decide to take drugs because you are free to do so or drink yourself under the table two times a week, or even more, because you like it and because you are a free man with the right to do what he wants ? What would YOU do in the perspective of YOUR OWN morals?
In more general terms: "Do we have a responsibility towards ourselves"? (according to YOUR own morals.)
.
Originally posted by SimonmSimonm: "However I think this is fairly indirrect and I believe any society should gladly offer health assitance to any one in need regardless of how they got there."
So long as my actions harm only myself, it is entirely moral.
The point about health costs is a valid one I think. Are you harming other by making them pay for your medical needs (through insurance or your countries public health system)? I think you are to a very small extent. However I think this is fairly indirrect and I believe any society should gladly offer health assitance to any one in need regardless of how they got there.
Why is that ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo parituclar reason really, just something an enlightened society should do in my opinion.... One day it might be you who does something stupid or reckless so it's best to make sure the service is there for all...
Simonm: "However I think this is fairly indirrect and I believe any society should gladly offer health assitance to any one in need regardless of how they got there."
Why is that ?