Society fails
Dauth
05 Oct 2008
Dr. Strangelove, on 6 Oct 2008, 0:26, said:
Z_mann, on 5 Oct 2008, 20:57, said:
On this I disagree strongly. There are always problems within someone's life - that's pretty much a given. Now, when there exists within an individual inability to accept those problems, to attempt to overtake them, then depression is bred. It's a temporary state of mind - and suicide is the exponential end result. Depressed individuals need to be taught this, and the commitment lies on those around them - family and friends first, and then all of society in the end.
So now it's somehow my responsibility to stop other people from jumping off bridges?
It's his right to stop them?
Can you hear that sound? It's the countless millions who have died for freedom slowly revolving in their graves.
Z_mann
06 Oct 2008
If moral is law, then yes. If you abide by christian ethics that is, since it clearly states that if you do not participate in preventing evil or wrong, you commit a sin - you do a wrong yourself. If you abide by a more liberal standard, you are still obliged not to urge a suicidal individual into death. If you do not try to talk him/her out of it, there is a good chance he will do it. So either help, or try not to screw up - just walk away. Or call the police.
You know, when you view the problem from a global point of reference, it pretty much IS everybody's responsibility. But that doesn't mean you take all of it - just a fraction. That doesn't mean you should devote your entire life to stopping suicides. That is clearly impossible. What it does mean, however, is that reading this thread will not cause you to not care at all. To produce a view like: 'Well, that's never ever ever ever gonna happen to me nor anyone important, right? They're all a bunch of losers, can I go back to watching TV now?' Instead, recognize this as wrong, and when the right time comes, apply your knowledge.
P.S. I know there are flaws in the argument, but it's late, I still haven't finished 'Elementary Electronics' and I have to get up at 6, so... Be considerate.
You know, when you view the problem from a global point of reference, it pretty much IS everybody's responsibility. But that doesn't mean you take all of it - just a fraction. That doesn't mean you should devote your entire life to stopping suicides. That is clearly impossible. What it does mean, however, is that reading this thread will not cause you to not care at all. To produce a view like: 'Well, that's never ever ever ever gonna happen to me nor anyone important, right? They're all a bunch of losers, can I go back to watching TV now?' Instead, recognize this as wrong, and when the right time comes, apply your knowledge.
P.S. I know there are flaws in the argument, but it's late, I still haven't finished 'Elementary Electronics' and I have to get up at 6, so... Be considerate.
Dauth
06 Oct 2008
I'd advise you don't quote morals from a religion that shuns homosexuals. Then I might not laugh quite so much at the concept.
I am an atheist who took my moral standard from my childhood (Methodist church until 8, mainly parental guidance), I am obliged to no one. As no one is obliged to me. Only through friendships to obligations to help become necessary. Everything else is my choice.
What is it with religion and denying freedom? Has no one countered the idea of someone making a choice?
I am an atheist who took my moral standard from my childhood (Methodist church until 8, mainly parental guidance), I am obliged to no one. As no one is obliged to me. Only through friendships to obligations to help become necessary. Everything else is my choice.
What is it with religion and denying freedom? Has no one countered the idea of someone making a choice?
Z_mann
06 Oct 2008
I'm sorry, but you cant defeat my statement with that argument. I gave you a valid example of what is labeled in philosophy as 'christian' ethics - it's not completely connected to religion, it can be accepted apart from it. Therefore you are judging a part of the argument that does not exist.
Morale is before choice making - it is involved in the process. If you do not try and prevent, or assist in prevention of death, you are a part responsible for it, simply because responsibility is a product of choice. Now if you do not wish to feel responsible, that is understandable and acceptable. I was a direct cause to may things that hurt my friends, my family and myself, and I chose not to feel responsible. That doesn't mean someone else will agree on that, they also have both choice and morals.
/personal - offtopic
Do you remember something about a linear integral of a closed contour (line) being equal zero? At least, sometimes it's zero and sometimes it's the length of the contour. if you do, can i ask you something of it via PM?
Morale is before choice making - it is involved in the process. If you do not try and prevent, or assist in prevention of death, you are a part responsible for it, simply because responsibility is a product of choice. Now if you do not wish to feel responsible, that is understandable and acceptable. I was a direct cause to may things that hurt my friends, my family and myself, and I chose not to feel responsible. That doesn't mean someone else will agree on that, they also have both choice and morals.
/personal - offtopic
Do you remember something about a linear integral of a closed contour (line) being equal zero? At least, sometimes it's zero and sometimes it's the length of the contour. if you do, can i ask you something of it via PM?
Chyros
06 Oct 2008
Dauth, on 6 Oct 2008, 22:10, said:
I'd advise you don't quote morals from a religion that shuns homosexuals. Then I might not laugh quite so much at the concept.
I am an atheist who took my moral standard from my childhood (Methodist church until 8, mainly parental guidance), I am obliged to no one. As no one is obliged to me. Only through friendships to obligations to help become necessary. Everything else is my choice.
What is it with religion and denying freedom? Has no one countered the idea of someone making a choice?
I am an atheist who took my moral standard from my childhood (Methodist church until 8, mainly parental guidance), I am obliged to no one. As no one is obliged to me. Only through friendships to obligations to help become necessary. Everything else is my choice.
What is it with religion and denying freedom? Has no one countered the idea of someone making a choice?
Dr. Strangelove
07 Oct 2008
Z_mann, on 6 Oct 2008, 20:46, said:
If moral is law, then yes. If you abide by christian ethics that is, since it clearly states that if you do not participate in preventing evil or wrong, you commit a sin - you do a wrong yourself. If you abide by a more liberal standard, you are still obliged not to urge a suicidal individual into death. If you do not try to talk him/her out of it, there is a good chance he will do it. So either help, or try not to screw up - just walk away. Or call the police.
Don't tell me what to do if you haven't even made up your own mind.
Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 07 October 2008 - 04:30.
RaiDK
07 Oct 2008
Locky please, this subject's rather gotten off the rails, and not in a good way.
