An Amoralist's Philosophical Standpoint

[stevil]

Great timing MaryJJD

I was just taking a shower and thinking about what I would post next and I thought Property would be the appropriate next post, I log into the Phat and what do I see but a post begging out for an explanation on Property. :-)

[b]Property[/b]
If you take away a cat's favorite toy you will find that the cat will not become angry and seek a bloody revenge against your theft. For the most part, non human animal's do not own property.

Humans however do own property. This is most likely because humans recognise the value in property, that property can provide them with food and shelter, warmth and security and even entertainment. Property can easily be tied into survival, it can also make our lives much easier and more entertaining.
Obviously property providing food, warmth and shelter is more intrinsically valuable than property providing entertainment or that which makes our lives easier.
Within society we have developed a monetary based commerce system. Property can be bought and sold, hence more expensive items also become of great value. If times are tough we can downgrade on some property e,g. sell the Ferrari and instead buy a Ford, and use the monetary difference to pay the electric bills or the food bills.
For some people some property is essential for life e.g. dialysis machine, pace-maker, wheel chair, etc.

When we lose property we are generally worse off. We have lost an item that added value to our lives, but not only that we have lost an item that we could have potentially sold if times get tough and we need money for bare essentials like food and shelter.

Because property is of such value we are often determined to accumulate property or fight for it if others want to take it from us. It is a fight for survival. If a big thug comes into your house and takes your old radio before your eyes you are likely to let them do it, (unless you have a gun or an advanced black belt in some form of martial arts). If the big thug tries to take your house or car then you are more likely to risk your life in order to stop him. You do this because you must to survive.

If people are busy guarding their stuff then they are not out and about earning a living.

I feel it is easy to see how an amoral society desires laws to protect individual's property.

We don't then go to the extent and say certain property is important for survival thus we need a law to protect this but other stuff is not required for survival thus is a free for all. In a free for all environment people will either be busy guarding their stuff or they will be likely fighting over it. This is a very disruptive and dangerous situation for everyone in society, everyone could likely be a victim. The fights could become life threatening.

So we pretty much need laws to protect all property ownership.

Some societies have arrangements of communal living where certain property is owned by the society or village or commune. As long as it is made available to society members then this can be an acceptable solution where society doesn't become motivated to oppose by force.

The problem with too much communal ownership is that society members lose incentive to accumulate wealth as it gets taken away and shared with the group, they hence lose incentive to work hard or even to work at all, if no one is earning a living then how do people survive? The problem with too much individual ownership is that some people can accumulate all the wealth and many other people can be poor to the point of starvation. Governments need to develop economic and social policy (rules) to balance this out somehow.

Edited January 26, 2012 by stevil

[Dennis Tate]

To at least some degree I believe that Rabbi Jesus/Yahushua taught that all relevant aspects of the situation that we face must be taken into consideration before a truly wise and ethical decision can be made in how best to approach a truly difficult case scenario.

His question to the Pharisees...."is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill" may be based partly on the situation faced by the Machabees as Greco-Syrian armies were attacking Jews on the weekly Sabbath. It seems to me that Rabbi Jesus was in agreement that it was lawful for the Jews to defend themselves by fighting back when attacked on the Sabbath. If this is true then this would have some serious implications for Catholics and other Christians participating in societies as soldiers or police officers. An absolute refusal to recognize the probable implications of this question could well be an example of being overly righteous or overly wise which can be an extremely dangerous way to approach morality and life itself?!

[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Ecc&c=7&t=KJV#comm/16"]Ecclesiastes 7:16[/url]
Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?




[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=3&t=KJV#comm/4"]Mark 3:4[/url] And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.


[quote]
But they answered them not, neither did they cast a stone at them, nor stopped up the secret places, [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=37#x"][37][/url] Saying: Let us all die in our innocency: and heaven and earth shall be witnesses for us, that you put us to death wrongfully. [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=38#x"][38][/url] So they gave them battle on the sabbath: and they were slain with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=39#x"][39][/url] And Mathathias and his friends heard of it, and they mourned for them exceedingly. [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=40#x"][40][/url] And every man said to his neighbour: If we shall all do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth.
[url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=41#x"][41][/url] And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places. [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=42#x"][42][/url] Then was assembled to them the congregation of [u]the Assideans[/u], the stoutest of Israel, every one that had a good will for the law. [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=43#x"][43][/url] And all they that fled from the evils, joined themselves to them, and were a support to them. [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=44#x"][44][/url] And they gathered an army, and slew the sinners in their wrath, and the wicked men in their indignation: and the rest fled to the nations for safety. [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=45&ch=2&l=45#x"][45][/url] And Mathathias and his friends went round about, and they threw down the altars:
[/quote]

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/45002.htm

Edited January 26, 2012 by Dennis Tate

[MaryJJD]

You said that if we lose something of our property, we are generally worse off, as we would or could have used that property as potential credit to sell later on if we need it. That’s assuming that what is lost is of economic value; there are many things I value in life, which do not have an economic value as such, but stealing them is still illegal and would still impact me-even if it were something that doesn’t aid my physical survival or enjoyment. Or would the laws then be changed to only make stealing things of economic-value-that-might-impact-my-survival or enjoyment illegal, and the other things, being legally able to be taken-say, after a time when they’ve devalued so much you couldn’t sell it anyway?

Assuming you are well off, with means far beyond your life’s needs-hording goods if you will for the winter, but that doesn’t describe the way of life of all the other members of society, so the survival of others is less assured based on less accrual of economic means or goods. However, if we lose something-say it’s stolen, it may be stolen precisely as someone else in society is worse off than you, and their survival is more under threat than your own right now. But its illegal, so its not ok then for that to happen, right? But the thing is we’ve formed this society with the express intentions of aiding the survival – and ideally enjoyment-of all its members: not just a surviving society, but a thriving one. As it’s for the survival of a member of your own society, with your own survival and even enjoyment currently well assured, do you then go to aid that other member in their survival? Isn’t that the way of indirectly protecting your own survival in the future since, they would in turn do the same for you when you needed it? Wouldn't the common goal of survival lend itself to movable resources in society to where it’s needed? Or is it a case, of cull the herd?

The survival instinct of an individual can be, perhaps, over the top in hoarding as well and above the means for one’s own survival and enjoyment, what would happen then? Would the State itself legislate laws to remove your excess for the betterment of the whole anyway? Even if you didn't have control over it, or would that be inappropriate?

Also, what happens if the instinct for survival is not perfect or perhaps less developed in someone, and does not foresee that certain events, or actions, or whatever, will negatively impact on your own survival? Is there a time when you trust the combined ‘mental’ powers of the State for your survival or does your own instinct on some occasions override that? Which has priority? Or does the State take away your perceived right to survival, in an effort to actually ensure you survive? Or does the majority consensus rule on what constitutes survival? Would the survival of the State, that you've agreed to join, ever clash with your own survival?

Edited January 27, 2012 by MaryJJD

[stevil]

[quote name='MaryJJD' timestamp='1327646780' post='2376079']
That’s assuming that what is lost is of economic value; there are many things I value in life, which do not have an economic value as such, but stealing them is still illegal and would still impact me-even if it were something that doesn’t aid my physical survival or enjoyment.
[/quote]
Yes, but I also stated
[quote name='Stevil']
We don't then go to the extent and say certain property is important for survival thus we need a law to protect this but other stuff is not required for survival thus is a free for all. In a free for all environment people will either be busy guarding their stuff or they will be likely fighting over it. This is a very disruptive and dangerous situation for everyone in society, everyone could likely be a victim. The fights could become life threatening.

So we pretty much need laws to protect all property ownership.
[/quote]

[quote name='MaryJJD' timestamp='1327646780' post='2376079']
the survival of others is less assured based on less accrual of economic means or goods. However, if we lose something-say it’s stolen, it may be stolen precisely as someone else in society is worse off than you, and their survival is more under threat than your own right now.
[/quote]
I think you are talking about the scenario of a person who steals from the rich, potentially that person needs to steal to survive and the rich person can afford to incur the theft.

As a society we don't want to be killing each other over property. Let's say the poor person is caught in the act by the rich person whom then pulls out a gun and shoots the intruder. The rich person may have shot the poor person because the rich person may have felt scared for their own life about this "aggressive" intruder in their house.

So we need laws against theft.

But as a society we cannot simply ignore the poor, because otherwise they will be forced to steal from the not so poor, which creates conflict and risk on our safety. We need to assist them in some way. Provide a means to get essentials like food and shelter, maybe a means to get a job so they can become self supporting. In order to have a safe society we must take care of each other.

[quote name='MaryJJD' timestamp='1327646780' post='2376079']
The survival instinct of an individual can be, perhaps, over the top in hoarding as well and above the means for one’s own survival and enjoyment, what would happen then? Would the State itself legislate laws to remove your excess for the betterment of the whole anyway? Even if you didn't have control over it, or would that be inappropriate?
[/quote]
We are getting into economic policy here, progressive tax where the rich pay heavy taxes of flat tax where everyone pays an equal share. Both approaches have merits and disadvantages. Taxing the poor can cause the poor to steal or starve, taxing the rich excessively can cause them to leave the society or lose their incentive to succeed, hence create businesses and jobs etc.

[stevil]

So to tie in my amoral stance with Euthanasia.

Does society require a law against euthanasia?
Will society become unstable and dangerous without such a law?

It seems to me that euthanasia does require some regulation, some law, to protect the cases where a person's next of kin might be motivated to euthanise in order to get their hands on inheritance etc. If the individual being euthanised isn't the one ultimately making the decision then there will likely be much conflict between their own children and friends whom may have had conflicting stance on the situation.

But if you have appropriate measures in place where the person is terminal and has expressed a desire to die, where many next of kin have been involved, Doctors involved then I seriously doubt that euthanasia of this individual will cause undue conflict.

From a personal note, if myself or my loved ones were in the position of desiring euthanasia, I would like that option open, I would certainly consider the option on myself, I would consider the option on my loved ones if that is what they desired. I understand that a Christian who strongly believes against it can themselves choose not to be euthanised.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1328546764' post='2382390']
So to tie in my amoral stance with Euthanasia.

Does society require a law against euthanasia?
Will society become unstable and dangerous without such a law?

It seems to me that euthanasia does require some regulation, some law, to protect the cases where a person's next of kin might be motivated to euthanise in order to get their hands on inheritance etc.[/quote]

Survival of the fittest. Shouldn't let the weak artificially survive. Why artificially keep society stable when we can use chaos to weed out the weak?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I wasn't there, but apparently something like this happened at my former college.

Host: "Dr. So-and-so is a distinguished professor of ethics from such-and-such university and he's here to talk about his work on putting an end to euthanasia..."
[[i]thirty minute talk...transition to Q&A[/i]]
Rando: [i]raises hand[/i]
Host: "Yes, you in the front."
Rando (completely serious): "Bro, what's with all the hate toward youth in Asia?"

[Papist]

That's an old Benny Hill skit.

[stevil]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1328564021' post='2382585']
Survival of the fittest. Shouldn't let the weak artificially survive. Why artificially keep society stable when we can use chaos to weed out the weak?
[/quote]
That's a very good question.
I presume it is because of the individuals within society.

Most people know that they aren't the most powerful person within society, so most people don't simply want to be ruled by the most powerful person, hence people will form alliances. From chaos you get order.
But then we have the problem of people whom do not belong to the most powerful group. Presumably there would be many groups and the majority of groups would not be the most powerful group. There would likely be much conflict between groups. I think a good analogy is to look at all the wars and conflict there was in Europe's history. Many groups, all fighting for dominance.
To avoid that scenario, individuals within society would prefer a coordinated and aligned society, with a governing body representing that society. An inclusive society that does not unnecessarily infringe on individuals and subcultures freedoms.
Globalisation with individuals from different cultural and religious backgrounds have forced governing bodies to ensure rules are inclusive of these various cultural and religious identities.

Globalisation is the cause for society moving towards a minimalist government with an amoral law system.


[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1328604563' post='2382930']
I wasn't there, but apparently something like this happened at my former college.

Host: "Dr. So-and-so is a distinguished professor of ethics from such-and-such university and he's here to talk about his work on putting an end to euthanasia..."
[[i]thirty minute talk...transition to Q&A[/i]]
Rando: [i]raises hand[/i]
Host: "Yes, you in the front."
Rando (completely serious): "Bro, what's with all the hate toward youth in Asia?"
[/quote]
LOL

[Amppax]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1328604563' post='2382930']
I wasn't there, but apparently something like this happened at my former college.

Host: "Dr. So-and-so is a distinguished professor of ethics from such-and-such university and he's here to talk about his work on putting an end to euthanasia..."
[[i]thirty minute talk...transition to Q&A[/i]]
Rando: [i]raises hand[/i]
Host: "Yes, you in the front."
Rando (completely serious): "Bro, what's with all the hate toward youth in Asia?"
[/quote]

just

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1328653745' post='2383228']
...To avoid that scenario, individuals within society would prefer a coordinated and aligned society, with a governing body representing that society. An inclusive society that does not unnecessarily infringe on individuals and subcultures freedoms.
Globalisation with individuals from different cultural and religious backgrounds have forced governing bodies to ensure rules are inclusive of these various cultural and religious identities.

Globalisation is the cause for society moving towards a minimalist government with an amoral law system.

LOL
[/quote]
Okay, I agree an amoral society can take stances on euthanasia. It's basically self-interest at stake. And people have a self-interest in ending their life when they want to.

I don't agree with it.....and it has numerous problems.....but the purposes of this thread do not go to into that scope of the matter. If I read the posts on here right, your simply arguing that an amorilsts can have a preference on euthanasia. And that I agree with. It's merely self-interest at work.


I don't see societies moving towards minimal governments. It seems Europe is moving towards a more socialistic government. America right now is moving to the left and it will be interesting to see if the trend continues. Governments are getting bigger and religious liberties and freedom are at stake and are becoming increasingly scrutinized and bullied in the growing secular culture.

[stevil]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329112217' post='2386205']
Okay, I agree an amoral society can take stances on euthanasia. It's basically self-interest at stake. And people have a self-interest in ending their life when they want to.
[/quote]
It is about freedom from unnecessary oppression as well as trying to understand the purpose of government. Oppression is dangerous because it can cause people to become violent in their attempts to fight against oppression.
With regards to euthanasia, people aren't likely to become aggressive against this oppression until it is too late, and by this time the victims are in no state to become violent, the close friends and family want to help their loved one, but don't want to hurt other people so aren't so focused to become violent. In the end, they sometimes assist with euthanasia anyway and then end up in jail.
So you could state that it doesn't matter which position government takes, society won't become unstable either way.
But I am also suggesting that the government's purpose should be to ensure a stable society but not go further to create unnecessary oppression.

As a people, do we really want our government making decisions for us on matters that are relatively unimportant from a stable society perspective?

If we go with the approach of minimalist government then from your own religious perspective, this should allow you to have religious freedoms. But there will always be conflict when a religion wants to put their beliefs onto others. e.g. prayer in public school, laws against euthanasia etc and in such a way, take choice away from people whom do not belong to that religion.

[Winchester]

[img]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/2/5/whywontthis128467435222991026.jpg[/img]

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1329178589' post='2386596']
It is about freedom from unnecessary oppression as well as trying to understand the purpose of government. Oppression is dangerous because it can cause people to become violent in their attempts to fight against oppression.
With regards to euthanasia, people aren't likely to become aggressive against this oppression until it is too late, and by this time the victims are in no state to become violent, the close friends and family want to help their loved one, but don't want to hurt other people so aren't so focused to become violent. In the end, they sometimes assist with euthanasia anyway and then end up in jail.
So you could state that it doesn't matter which position government takes, society won't become unstable either way.
But I am also suggesting that the government's purpose should be to ensure a stable society but not go further to create unnecessary oppression.[/quote]

Oppression is when the dignity and respect for human life is thrown in the trash can.

[quote]As a people, do we really want our government making decisions for us on matters that are relatively unimportant from a stable society perspective?[/quote]

A nation that does not respect the dignity of human life is not a stable nation.

[quote]If we go with the approach of minimalist government then from your own religious perspective, this should allow you to have religious freedoms. But there will always be conflict when a religion wants to put their beliefs onto others. e.g. prayer in public school, laws against euthanasia etc and in such a way, take choice away from people whom do not belong to that religion.
[/quote]

Your no better. At the end of the day, someone "forces" their beliefs on others. I will not let the government recognize euthanasia because it builds a culture of death that erases the dignity and respect of human life. Once a nation loses the respect for human life, there is no reason to play by the rule of "live individually and let live individually" since human life doesn't matter.

1930s and 1940s Germany said the state was responsible for control over the death of an individual. Modern society says it is an individual's say.

If we allow individuals to elect death, does that mean we still prohibit parents from terminating their disabled child's life? Or should the parent have the right over their child's life (i.e. abortion)...or even death at 2 weeks when the parents realize their child will be a bit slow at school? What if a person is insane? Can they decide? What if the person is elderly and starting to forget things, but their still "fairly" with it?

We already have a problem with teen suicide....and actually suicide in general.....should we applaud these people for realizing their burden on society and that we don't care for them?

Or should we encourage a pro-life society where every human life is worth dignity and respect?

Legal euthanasia is oppressive to the mindset of society.


[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1329181610' post='2386617']
[img]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/2/5/whywontthis128467435222991026.jpg[/img]
[/quote]




[img]http://rubmint.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/97174_funny-pictures-squirrel-gives-friend-cpr.jpg[/img]

[stevil]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329185338' post='2386664']
A nation that does not respect the dignity of human life is not a stable nation.
[/quote]
Have you got examples of how allowing euthanasia makes a society unstable?
or can you talk me through why this might cause instability to society.

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329185338' post='2386664']
Your no better. At the end of the day, someone "forces" their beliefs on others.
[/quote]
I see a big difference between my stance of not wanting a government to create a law (rule) which restricts people's legal ability to have euthanasia performed on themselves and your stance of wanting to have a law (rule) in place to stop people from having this legal ability.
It is you that wants the constraint, not for your own sake, because of course for yourself you would never take up the option, but for people like me, you don't want me to choose my own fate.

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329185338' post='2386664']
Legal euthanasia is oppressive to the mindset of society.
[/quote]
So you are stating that lack of a law, lack of a rule equates to oppression?
Do you not think that rules are constraints?
How can removing a law be oppression?