The Consistent Ethic of Life

Paradoxum said:

Cos I'm special.

No, but they use the government to control others by the power of government. I would have no problem with them trying to convince others. My problem is with the old and sick being treated worse than animals, and being forced to needless suffer against their will. They give the ownership of other peoples lives to the government. I consider that at least unjust, and sometimes disgusting.



I don't necessarily consider myself leftist. I'm more concerned with social freedoms than economic justice. If you mean me.

I don't mind your disagreement. If I support the right to die you can call me a murderer is you want. But if you try to prevent that by the power of law, I will call that specific moral of yours 'evil'.

I don't call most other legal disagreements 'evil'. If you were against the legalisation of drugs I wouldn't consider that evil. If you are against same sex-marriage, I don't consider that evil.



.

Click to expand...

Again, what government do they rule over?

They have as much power as a government lets them, the same with any other lobbyist group. so your arguement still doesnt stand on any foundations to call them any more evil than lets say secularists who think its immoral for religion to have "to much say in politics".

"Freedom" is subjective, its just as immoral, using your arguement, having "equality" laws that restrict someones "right to be racist", if they dont want another race lets say in their business, really that should be there choice, as its them who have to run the business and finance it, while the member of another race can go somewhere else, its not his life or business, there for the "racists" rights are actually more restricted than the "victims" rights.

the above example is just to show that laws are defined "morals" of the majority, its got nothing to do with being fair, I for one think its wrong for someone to judge on race, however the above example stands.

What I am getting at is "freedom" is subjective and its not fair to call them evil, because Liberals have no problem with enforcing their way of life, which you might not admit to, but they do.

All Englands Skies said:

Again, what government do they rule over?

Click to expand...

What government do who rule over?

They have as much power as a government lets them, the same with any other lobbyist group. so your arguement still doesnt stand on any foundations to call them any more evil than lets say secularists who think its immoral for religion to have "to much say in politics".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are doing on about, or why that is a good comparison. I say it is evil because it unnecessarily forces the old and sick to die in suffering against their will. The law unnecessarily takes away a fundemental choice over ones own life, and in doing so treats people worse than animals.

"Freedom" is subjective, its just as immoral, using your arguement, having "equality" laws that restrict someones "right to be racist", if they dont want another race lets say in their business, really that should be there choice, as its them who have to run the business and finance it, while the member of another race can go somewhere else, its not his life or business, there for the "racists" rights are actually more restricted than the "victims" rights.

Click to expand...

It doesn't show it is just as immoral. It could be immoral but not evil. It could be unjust, yet good in some sense.

Maybe people should be free to discriminate like that. I would be willing to hear both legal sides of the argument... because I don't want to force my morals on people unnecessarily.

the above example is just to show that laws are defined "morals" of the majority, its got nothing to do with being fair, I for one think its wrong for someone to judge on race, however the above example stands.

Click to expand...

It doesn't show that. The laws of such equality could be based on legal rather than moral reasons.

What I am getting at is "freedom" is subjective and its not fair to call them evil, because Liberals have no problem with enforcing their way of life, which you might not admit to, but they do.

Click to expand...

Well you are right that freedom can have different meanings. The aim would be to try to come to some sort of reasonable definition of liberty. And don't say that isn't possible unless you have read essays on the topic.

It depends what you mean by liberals. Political or moral liberals. Do you consider me, personally, to be trying to do that?

In the case of same-sex marriage you might see it that way. It is difficult because religion shouldn't define marriage for the government, but neither should moral liberals necessarily. Perhaps marriage shouldn't be within the domain of the government. That way both the conservatives and liberals can feel safe.

The government might still have to have civil unions though, for the legal help it gives to families.

Usethepen said:

The consistent ethic of life, first seen in the 1980's, the ideology opposes abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, economic injustice, and euthanasia. Adherents are opposed, at the very least, to unjust war, while some adherents also profess pacifism.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I strive to be consistent in cases that involve the taking or harming of another life, and am pro life, anti death penalty, opposed to unjust war and in support of economic justice. However, I have a harder time with opposition to assisted suicide, as it seems right to me that those suffering and terminally ill should be able to determine their own end.

Usethepen said:

Why don't all blue states abolish the death penalty?

Click to expand...

Because those who oppose it have not won the argument.

Usethepen said:

Or they don't want to spend their political capital on that issue.

Weed legalization is much less depressing.

Click to expand...

Cannabis is legal in two states, hardly all of the "blue states" lining up behind ending the most senseless arm of the drug war.

I have come out in support of it but not exactly how all the adherents are. When it comes to economic injustice many of them will push government programs. However I believe private charity is much more effective. Some people argue it leads to compromise on the abortion issue because if there is a candidate that is for all the tenants except one and that one is abortion you would still vote for them. So I guess I would put a higher value on abortion due to the number and innocence factor.

Glas Ridire said:

I am pro-legalized abortion and anti-capital punishment, so the "consistent" bit I can't get with.

Click to expand...

This view I find vary hypocritical/ It values innocent life over guilty life. The reason I have problems with the death penalty is the same reason I oppose abortion, there is a risk an innocent person will be executed.

HermanNeutics13 said:

This view I find vary hypocritical/ It values innocent life over guilty life. The reason I have problems with the death penalty is the same reason I oppose abortion, there is a risk an innocent person will be executed.

Click to expand...

Hypocritical is the wrong word here.

I espouse a consistent life ethic. I am open to supporting capital punishment in theory, however it is clearly impractical in practice. I also support the hospice movement, which, while not euthanistic in theory, will treat physical pain to the point of death. I have only been thinking about this for a couple of years now and am open to persuasion. Actually, I try to always be open to persuasion, but for me it is easier to becoming reflexive than stay reflective.

Nah, personally don't support those view points.

I agree with DaisyDay's stance that quality of life is what matters and not quantity. That's a perfect way of putting it.

I am pro assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and access to abortion. I have issues with the death penalty, which I don't feel like going into right now.

Usethepen said:

The consistent ethic of life, first seen in the 1980's, the ideology opposes abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, economic injustice, and euthanasia. Adherents are opposed, at the very least, to unjust war, while some adherents also profess pacifism.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I haven't observed all these positions held by a single candidate.

TheOtherHockeyMom said:

I strive to be consistent in cases that involve the taking or harming of another life, and am pro life, anti death penalty, opposed to unjust war and in support of economic justice. However, I have a harder time with opposition to assisted suicide, as it seems right to me that those suffering and terminally ill should be able to determine their own end.

Click to expand...

True. It's hardly proper for younger, healthy people to project their own fear of death, and impose legislation, onto those who want relief.

Necrothread.

DaisyDay said:

Necrothread.

Click to expand...

Oh crud, wow this IS an old one. Had no idea, haha.

Usethepen said:

ALS is caused by hits to the head, over and over again.
Yet boxing and football are not stopped.

Click to expand...

Stephen Hawkings played football?

Wouldn't stopping boxing and football be against
The Consistent Ethic of Life?

DaisyDay said:

Necrothread.

Click to expand...

I was going to say. I had not seen All Englands Skies around for a while.