Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (3986)	1/22/2003 4:28:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

We are humans. As such we have a role in the world that allows us to struggle with issues of decency, honor, and the nobility of our human nature; while simultaneously answering to issues of injustice, tragedy, and despotism. This may be the point of our departing. You seem, if I understand you correctly, to say that this role is mandatory. That it is our obligation, our responsibility, which we are not entitled to evade or avoid. Correct? I would answer that it is an optional role we can take on or not if we choose. Now, if we choose not to, society does not have to admit us to its rights and benefits. But we have a right not to take on parts -- or all -- of that role as long as we are willing to accept the consequences. Suicide is the ultimate decision to reject all of those roles Which is why I believe it is the right of any person. By denying the right to suicide, you seem to me necessarily to be denying a person's right to reject that role. You seem to be saying that the role is mandatory. Which raises the question, how did this role come to be? And here we have to consider issues of the creation of man. If you believe that God created man, then you can legitimately claim (though you can't prove) that in creating man God laid that role on him, and that it is, like original sin, an original role that we have no right to reject. If, on the other hand, you accept Darwinism, or if you accept the existence of one or more Gods but do not believe that they created man with this role as his necessary heritage, then where did the roles arise from? Did the dust which was created in the big bang have this role, and if so where did it come from? If not, it must have arisen somewhere along the path of evolution. How, and from what source? Is it entirely a human construct? If so, humans created it and humans can uncreate it. And in different societies of man it could have developed quite differently, so that this role might be that adopted by Western society, but a very different role might be (indeed, I would argue is) adopted by Eastern society, and a very different one by Bushman society, by Aboriginal society, by Native North American society, etc. Which means that if I simply move to one of those other places, if their role allows suicide, suddenly it's okay for me to commit my suicide. So in laying out your role creations you shouldn't say "we are humans" as though that settled the issue, but rather "we are humans who are in this particular one of the various constructs of human society and within this construct we have a role in our society (not the world, please) that mandates that we . . . "

To: one_less who wrote (3986)	1/22/2003 4:37:30 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

That is, when one of our members is offended by the presense or actions of another, or by the whole of humanity, and vica versa. Every law that I can think of addresses this point. First, there many forms of offense that are not addressed by law. Second, there are many laws that do not address offense of one member of society by another. I am thinking, for example, of the building codes that prohibit me from building a straw bale house on my property even where it is completely hidden from everyone else and I am the only person who is going to live there. These houses are proveably safe, but in most jurisdictions the building lobby prevents their being built because they are cheap and don't require builders. There are many other laws that are only marginally, if at all, related to "one of our members is offended by the presense or actions of another, or by the whole of humanity." It's a law that you can't run for President until you're 35 years old. Who would be offended by somebody running for President who was 34? Just don't vote for them! Who is offended if I want somebody who isn't licensed as a barber to cut my hair for me? And on and on. I agree with you that our major substantive laws--against murder, theft, rape, etc.--are of that kind. But we have gone far, far, far beyond that. In, I believe, error, but who in the government cares what I think?