|
|
#61
12-28-2006, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
There's a word to describe the situation where a lack of action can be considered a criminal act. The word is slavery.
Is a refusal to give a hungry man a meal the equivalent of taking a hungry man's meal away from him? The notion that a lack of action is the same as an action is absurd and flies in the face of the entire notion of political liberty. 
|
|
#62
12-28-2006, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
The entire notion of political liberty is a scam.
|
|
#63
12-28-2006, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "govt. is expected to help because we expect it to perform the duties we installed it for. [/ QUOTE ] This fellow does a lot better job at this than I could ever do. Whatever he says "I second". leaponthis [/ QUOTE ] We installed gov't for this purpose? What country are you from? Maybe I should remember that not all posters here are from the U.S. The U.S. gov't was not established for this purpose. The U.S. gov't was established for the purpose of protecting our liberty.
|
|
#64
12-28-2006, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
I think the babies have the right to live, and society has the duty to provide for the babies.
That is, the government if the rest of society doesnt take care of the babies. This measured by contemporary ethical standards of a Western country. The answer might be different for African countries, or Eskimoos, where there is a much bigger burden on society by non-productive society members. So, if the number of babies born with no arms or legs ( and that are not otherwise productive/beneficial for society ) would increase to 10% or 90%, we, or our government STILL have to take care of them. However, if our society can no longer support such high numbers of inproductive society members, something needs to change, for the ultimate goal of survival of mankind. It could be that our ethical standards would have to change by then.
|
|
#65
12-28-2006, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the US has a population of 300 million and the wealth it now owns, should a baby born with no arms and no legs, (with no chance of being fixed), but otherwise healthy, be kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. Government inaction is itself an action. Allowing him to die is the same as killing him.
|
|
#66
12-28-2006, 03:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
[ QUOTE ]
There's a word to describe the situation where a lack of action can be considered a criminal act. The word is slavery. Is a refusal to give a hungry man a meal the equivalent of taking a hungry man's meal away from him? The notion that a lack of action is the same as an action is absurd and flies in the face of the entire notion of political liberty. [/ QUOTE ] Read closely and gain wisdom. There is a difference between "refraining from doing something" and "lack of action". I trust in your intellectual capacity to figure out what that difference consists of.
|
|
#67
12-28-2006, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "govt. is expected to help because we expect it to perform the duties we installed it for. [/ QUOTE ] This fellow does a lot better job at this than I could ever do. Whatever he says "I second". leaponthis [/ QUOTE ] We installed gov't for this purpose? What country are you from? [/ QUOTE ] Germany [ QUOTE ] Maybe I should remember that not all posters here are from the U.S. The U.S. gov't was not established for this purpose. The U.S. gov't was established for the purpose of protecting our liberty. [/ QUOTE ] Right. Established in a time where it was a given that men are created in the image of God and that every human being has value in itself without any absurd notion of "purpose" or "worth" or whatever. Given that, the conclusion about the initial question would have been much more definitely pro-baby-support than you probably would like hear...
|
|
#68
12-28-2006, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
[ QUOTE ]
There's a word to describe the situation where a lack of action can be considered a criminal act. The word is slavery. [/ QUOTE ] I might be missing the context here. Government inaction is different than individual inaction. If you want to use the analogy, the government should be a slave to the people, yes.
|
|
#69
12-28-2006, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There's a word to describe the situation where a lack of action can be considered a criminal act. The word is slavery. Is a refusal to give a hungry man a meal the equivalent of taking a hungry man's meal away from him? The notion that a lack of action is the same as an action is absurd and flies in the face of the entire notion of political liberty. [/ QUOTE ] Read closely and gain wisdom. There is a difference between "refraining from doing something" and "lack of action". I trust in your intellectual capacity to figure out what that difference consists of. [/ QUOTE ] If you read my posts closely, you would see that I never said that "lack of action" could not be immoral or unethical. I think it is obviously immoral for anyone to allow the baby to die if he could help. I also think it is immoral for me to force another person to care for the baby against his will, even if the result is the baby's death. Again, if there were only a few such babies, there is no issue, private charity would voluntarily care for them. If these babies were 10% of the population, and we were all forced to collectively care for them, this would be mass slavery, more slavery than ever existed in the U.S. Slavery is immoral. Refusing to enslave a nation is not immoral, even if some deaths occur due to this refusal.
|
|
#70
12-28-2006, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Politics-Ethics Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "govt. is expected to help because we expect it to perform the duties we installed it for. [/ QUOTE ] This fellow does a lot better job at this than I could ever do. Whatever he says "I second". leaponthis [/ QUOTE ] We installed gov't for this purpose? What country are you from? [/ QUOTE ] Germany [ QUOTE ] Maybe I should remember that not all posters here are from the U.S. The U.S. gov't was not established for this purpose. The U.S. gov't was established for the purpose of protecting our liberty. [/ QUOTE ] Right. Established in a time where it was a given that men are created in the image of God and that every human being has value in itself without any absurd notion of "purpose" or "worth" or whatever. Given that, the conclusion about the initial question would have been much more definitely pro-baby-support than you probably would like hear... [/ QUOTE ] I am not anti-baby-support. And you're right, the founders of the U.S. gov't would have been pro-baby support. But they would NEVER, NEVER even consider the notion that the gov't should be involved in the matter. People (in the U.S. at least) just didn't think that way back then. They didn't view gov't as caretaker of the people, Mommy of the people, or Daddy of the people.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
