- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Patent absurdities

Posted by: borg ( Anarcy, Inc., Cyberspace ) on April 26, 1999 at 13:34:35:

In Reply to: banana splits posted by Copenhagen on April 22, 1999 at 14:56:25:


: I think on the face of it, your life is in the hands of the legislators to do as they please. Laws by their very nature regulate the actions that we are able to take. I am certainly NOT free to take my own life, given that it is against the law.

Nonsense. You ARE free to take your own life. How will
you be prosecuted for doing so?

:It is only within the boundaries that are crearted by the law that we have scope for autonomous action.

If you mean jurisdictional boundaries, I agree.

"Of the 36 ways to get out of trouble, the best is--to leave"
--old Chinese proverb


: But if somehting is property it follows that one may deal with it in an economic sense. Hence if i was to sell myself to you i would no longer be the owner on myself...(but as i have said this is not possible).

: : : The moral basis against setting aflame arises due to an innate value that morality attatches to human life (being good in itself).

: : And your life belongs to.....you.

: Certainly you are free do do as you wish, within the boundaries of the law.

How The Law has become so sacred! It maintains a religious
quality with so many and yet it is quite easy to avoid and
has been for thousands of years.

:Perhaps i could concede that life 'belongs' to a person, but that is a far cry from calling the life of a person the 'property' of that person.

Why the semantics? You either believe you are free or not,
and act accordingly.

: : : Social utility involves the notion of what is best for the majority, a sort of moral calulus. That is all, it requires no further reference to notions of property to act as a justification

Bald assertion.

Would the majority will to execute a minority and/or confiscate the
latter's property not require "justification"...even to the
smallest minority, the minority of one.

: : Hence it is not a proper means to applying morality, because in some circumstances it can deny a person their right to life.

: Well, the principle of utility that Mill annointed was the famous 'harm principle': You are free to do as you wish as long as it does not harm others...i suspect that denying someone a right to life would constitute 'harm'.

Why the waffle? No "suspecting" about it. It *is* harm.

McSpotlight: Historical note; during the past history of the UK, attempted suicide (i.e. failed) has been punishable by either death or by life imprisonment...

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup