dan964
what
Most would argue that these two things are not the same, the latter involves harm to another person, while the former does not. And that is how they would resolve this "apparent inconsistency"
Last edited:
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Marriage equality (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Kolmias
- Start date
nerdasdasd
Dont.msg.me.about.english
The comparison is unreasonable as the circumstances surrounding the two are very different.
The guys are not applying apply the same logic to everything, they are looking at every case separately.
dan964
what
I guess the point of his comparison, albeit poor, which I kind of agree with (but not how he puts it): is to say that just because some person has some strong desire, does not mean it should be carried out...
Lets consider this:
1. The fulfilment of desire, especially by hedonists/humanists, tends to be seen as good as a goal. i.e. the phrase "get what you want"
2. Some then continue to argue, that it is kind of irrelevant how it happens (although this is not what is happening here), kind of like "ends justify the means".
This thinking of "ends justify the means" is what pops up in both these issues, both have "noble" ends, represented by their slogans (depending on how you perceive each issue), the former is """marriage equality""" and the second is """dying with dignity""". Obviously on both these issues, I don't think these ends cut it. With the first, I don't think it is achieved/achievable** or possibly paradoxical*, and the second is definitely paradoxical. Obviously most people look at each individually, by looking at the means, but by picking what is similarly held.
(Note most people think that equality & dignity are good things hence...)
I don't think that DrSoccerball is picking apart anyone's logic really well. (Mainly because his questions need to be reiterated/rephrased to make sense for most). While it is true that each case is unique and different, their is still an underpinning framework...
(*unless you redefine the terms differently, which is what most people do; **by factoring in the disparities)
Last edited:
nerdasdasd
Dont.msg.me.about.english
First part. I would disagree with you. It depends on the desire and circumstances which sourround it + the result of letting that desire happen.
I agree with you on the second part. The second is definitely paradoxical. It's not noble to live a life as a potato or suffering terminal cancer, yet it's also not noble if you can't furfill your life purpose /goals... BUT ... you can't furfill your life purpose if you are stuck in the hospital / whatnot.
Paradoxica
-insert title here-
Nobody here understands Consequentialism. That is all I can draw from these posts.
nerdasdasd
Dont.msg.me.about.english
Please enlighten everyone.
dan964
what
Well then you actually agree well at least with the bit you quoted. It was more so a concession, then yes it really depends. Obviously on these topics, we would disagree on the specifics. The bit in bold, I actually agree with, the difference comes when you factor in the effects and consequences of both these issues for instance.
For euthanasia (since this is the easier one since it generally finds more agreement), it is not compelling the argument for one to die with dignity for instance (I am not sure if that is an actual slogan, but it tends to be the gist of the argument).
For same sex marriage, a lot of people don't think about the implications for instance, on education, assisted-reproduction including surrogancy (which is what leads onto the whole discussion about children and family etc. etc.) and also with freedom (religious, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience). While others think only about the negatives...
Last edited:
dan964
what
Consequentialism = ends justify the means. If there is some end worth achieving than it justifies the means. I reject such thinking to some degree of course, but others don't. It tends to be argument that does not matter with how a particular result is achieved to some degree, i.e. it finds irrelevant the morality of the actions the lead to a desirable result/value (such as equality). Or more consisely, in practical forms, the morality is determined by the end it achieves for e.g. a person's life is seen as valued if they are of use (in the most crude forms)
Most however consider all factors and implications. I don't think anyone is a pure/consistent consequential, if you take its theoretical definition, practically it looks different.
nerdasdasd
Dont.msg.me.about.english
Some thing I agree with you. Some things I don't.
Education (has no relevance), assisted reproduction (couples that are hetero might have problems and use the technology anyway.
Freedom is the big one and it is also a tricky one. At the moment, those against SSM it are being silenced / attacked (to some extent). On facebook, here and pretty much on TV, names are given to anti SSM people and they are smeared.
That leads to the question!
In the name of progressiveness, does freedom of speech get eroded for those who do not agree with the majority?
Paradoxica
-insert title here-
To analyse this question, take a look at Racial Integrity, and their corresponding free speech. You can't silence them, but you can ignore them and push on regardless.
Flop21
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 2,810
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2015
It is a whole other topic. And what are you talking about calling people monsters? No one practices euthanasia in Australia, it's illegal. And if you want to talk about that, then maybe you should think about if one of your loved ones were dying, in extreme pain, can no longer recognise you all the time, would you really stand there and go "yes I want you to keep suffering until you die naturally".
Queenroot
I complete the Squar3
Yeah it's messed up but it was consented to and therefore it's okay
dan964
what
Ironically though, you posted this thread, remember?
http://community.boredofstudies.org...ools-coalition-sexual-politics-classroom.html
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,657
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
Let's put that to one side first. Of course death is a blessing, I agree with you and can give reasons why it is a blessing upon request but you can't just kill someone if they start suffering... If people with atheistic views believe that there is nothing after you die they would naturally want to live as long as they possibly can. It's apart of human nature to want to live eternally. This may sound harsh and judging by the tone of your comment I think you're insinuating something along these lines happened to someone you knew?
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,657
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
Let's say a person named John loves killing. He can't get enough of it and craves the action. Another person let's say Jill wants to die because she doesn't feel as though she wants to live. If John kills Jill is this considered murder? It's not affecting me, It's making both John and Jill happy so why should I care?
Paradoxica
-insert title here-
I don't want to live forever. Where do you get the idea that Atheists want to live forever?
nerdasdasd
Dont.msg.me.about.english
Last edited:
nerdasdasd
Dont.msg.me.about.english
That is hardly an realistic nor probable situation. People don't hand suicidal people to killers and it doesn't help argue your case
Find a better and closer case to reality
