Kevin's Watch

interesting avatar .. but I do accept the supposition that a persons belief makes that belief correct just because they believe it so.

I think you make a valid and interesting point about allegations of "objective thought" .. but I do not see that the exact alternative view you support can possibly ever stand scrutiny.

The view I refer to is the view that subjective opinion is always right .. how can this be so?? Just because I believe the world flat does this make it so??

Because I believe I have a right to extinguish life .. does this make any acts of homicide I commit rights?

Subjective thought is just that .. subjective thought. It may be true that there exists no purely objective view ever .. but there are objective standards and objective measures.

Mills harm principle and philosophers before him who initiated Harm notions .. lay a sound measure by which philosophical rights and wrongs can be measured.

Is it her choice to make if she isnt making that choice? Is it a choice in the first place or a cultural/religious expectation? These distinctions are very subtle and mayhap a scholarly analysis can ascertain true volition in the midst of social, cultural and ritual pressures.

Why is there a rabid movement in India against such archaeic and phillistine & parachial patriarchal practices and beliefs? Members of the same culture crying out against the wrong that is Sati.

When I say we need to weigh carefully the harm principle .. indications of rights are more evident in doing so. Do we have the right to harm others?? Do we? That is easy .. No we do not! Do we have the right to harm ourselves?? This is the tricky one isnt it. I say as the law says .. we do not have the right to harm ourselves where we cause actual bodily harm to ourselves.

In doing so we violate an inherent law .. a universal law .. our right to life.

By virtue of birth .. we gain life .. Life is a purpose of reproduction and birth .. We violate that purpose we violate the greater purpose of our existence. So too if we violate anothers right to life ..

A woman choosing to extinguish her existence with her departed spouse .. is an illogical response to the death of that spouse imo. It serves no purpose.

An objective measure weighs actions against that which is humane or inhumane. Objectivity is logical and rational and most often reasonable.

Subjective thought is emotional and often illogical .. it is a personal view .. It may stand up to cross examination for personal choices and acts of harms against oneself but only to some degree but it does not ever stand up to cross examinations where there have been harms comitted against others.

Law generally takes the objective principle and views from there the rights or wrongs committed.

Whoa, nice reply. I'm gonna have to struggle to sift out what I don't agree with

Skyweir wrote:The view I refer to is the view that subjective opinion is always right .. how can this be so?? Just because I believe the world flat does this make it so??

I never specifically said that the subjective opinion is always right. I said that I think that perhaps all opinions are subjective. (Although, in a sense, if all opinions are subjective, then the "right" ones must be subjective too.)

Skyweir wrote:Because I believe I have a right to extinguish life .. does this make any acts of homicide I commit rights?

No, certainly not.

Skyweir wrote:but there are objective standards and objective measures.

But if these standards are derived at from subjective opinions, how objective can they be?

Skyweir wrote:Is it her choice to make if she isnt making that choice? Is it a choice in the first place or a cultural/religious expectation?

As long as the possibility exists that she may choose otherwise, then it is a choice. The motives behind her choice are an entirely different question.

Skyweir wrote:Do we have the right to harm others?? Do we? That is easy .. No we do not!

No question there, I agree completely.

Skyweir wrote:Do we have the right to harm ourselves?? This is the tricky one isnt it. I say as the law says .. we do not have the right to harm ourselves where we cause actual bodily harm to ourselves.

Here though, I have to strongly disagree. My body, and my brain, belong exclusivley to me. Do I have the right to destroy my car? Yes, it is my property. My body and mind are my property as well. I can do as I choose with them. Hurting yourself isn't sinful, only stupid.

Skyweir wrote:Life is a purpose of reproduction and birth .. We violate that purpose we violate the greater purpose of our existence. So too if we violate anothers right to life ..

Here you are combining what might be considered two seperate issues. The purpose of "Life", and the purpose of "Existence". The purpose of "Existence" might indeed be to reproduce.

I contend that the purpose of Life, however, is to Strive.

That is all, and entirely subject to a given definition of striving. This definition must, to all intents and purposes, be considered subjective, and thus up to each individual to interpret for their own purposes. If we have a right to live, we must have the right to die as we choose. Otherwise we make a mockery of the concept of "Rights".

Skyweir wrote:A woman choosing to extinguish her existence with her departed spouse .. is an illogical response to the death of that spouse imo. It serves no purpose.

As you say, illogical in your opinion. It may make perfect sense to her. It is, after all, HER life. Do we have the right to tell people what the purpose of their lives is? Or how best to achieve it? Whose Life? Their Life. Not my Life, not your Life

Skyweir wrote:but it does not ever stand up to cross examinations where there have been harms comitted against others.

I agree here too. Nobody has the right to commit (unneccessary) harm to others. I qualify that, because again, harm is open to subjective interpretation. If we take it literally, it could become illegal to divorce your spouse, because they are, after all, harmed by it.

When in doubt, we must accept that a person has the right to determine for themselves what is acceptable. Our intervention, however well-meaning, and to whatever effect, can never stem from a complete understanding of their situation and circumstances, which only the person involved can fully comprehend.

On this basis, we must always act as though each person is the best judge of what is good for them, even in cases where it might not be so.

The potential for harm from taking the position of "We know what is best for YOU", is far greater than that possible from "YOU know what is best for YOU". At worst, the only person likely to come to harm from that stance is the person making the choice in the first place.

We cannot presume.

Be Safe
--Avatar

Brinn wrote:

Ninq wrote:Brinn, you should be a politician.

I'd like to figure out some way that I could take that as a compliment but man, that's difficult.

Thanks Ninq...I guess.

CJr is right, as always . You're welcome!

I said it before and I'll say it again, you're very friendly and understanding on this forum. I feel spoilt.

mmm .. Av too much to address in a pice meal fashion!! Good post!!

However I can not concur with your rationale!

There are objective standards and laws even .. and as for taking our own lives or harming ourselves being rights think on this:

We are genetically constructed for life. Thus the purpose of our genetic constructs is life. To knowingly terminate that life is to breach our fundamental programming and functon.

Its a tuff call to know how much right we have to harm ourselves. The law does not allow for harms that constitute actual bodily harm. I recall a case re: masochism where it was determined that actual bodily harms was not a reasonable choice.

Those who choose actual bodily harm are suffering from psychiatric instability or there is a question of sanity - which as we know voids volition/choice.

Why is this indicative of instability? bEcause it goes against our genetic imperative which is survival .. the most primal of all imperatives .. common to all humanity.

I will be back .. I must go now .. but I have more to comment on.

Universal laws exist and by definition are an objective mean .. I will come back to discuss this and more.

Skyweir wrote:Universal laws exist and by definition are an objective mean

The fact that there are laws of physics, reproduction, space-time, or anything else, do not make human laws. For example:

Skyweir wrote:Why is this indicative of instability? bEcause it goes against our genetic imperative which is survival .. the most primal of all imperatives .. common to all humanity.

This is fine. At least for lions, trees, and most living things. They are all born, and live for the continuation of the species. Stay alive as long as possible, so that you can reproduce as much as possible. Some things, like ants, aren't even concerned with their own individual lives. They'll sacrifice themselves by the thousands in the attempt to keep their queen alive, so that the species can continue.

But I will not accept that this is the purpose of humans. Yes, we are biologically driven to survive and reproduce, but individuals certainly have meaning of their own. And this meaning might go against the biological imperative. Or do you think Gandhi and Bobby Sands were insane?

Anyway, sheesh! You two are going to fast for me!! Fortunately, Avatar (btw, are you also familiar with Malaclypse Redring?) is saying much of what I would say. For example:

Avatar wrote:

Skyweir wrote:Do we have the right to harm ourselves?? This is the tricky one isnt it. I say as the law says .. we do not have the right to harm ourselves where we cause actual bodily harm to ourselves.

Here though, I have to strongly disagree. My body, and my brain, belong exclusivley to me. Do I have the right to destroy my car? Yes, it is my property. My body and mind are my property as well. I can do as I choose with them. Hurting yourself isn't sinful, only stupid.

I'll argue the "stupid" part, but I agree that, to put it in stronger terms, anyone telling me I'm not allowed to kill myself can mind their own damned business. Is the greater good forcing me to remain alive? Is locking someone in a padded cell, and keeping watch 24/7 so they don't figure out a way to die, an objective good? If I was suicidal before, how would that kind of treatment make me feel?? Of course, you could keep me heavily sedated for the rest of my life. But I'm not sure who is being served by that.

I suppose we're making progress in ways that help us see if someone is suicidal because of some chemical imbalance, and we'll possibly get better at this. I'm not opposed from stopping someone from suicide, and seeing if we can change their life. I think antidepressants are miraculous for some people. But what if not every suicidal person is suicidal for such a reason?

Skyweir wrote:but there are objective standards and objective measures.

After all this time, I still disagree. But at least I'm getting an idea of how you think these objective principles were arrived at.


Regarding Mill's Harm Principle, I hadn't heard of it until just now. I guess this is it?:

...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

I strongly disagree with what this quote is saying. (I don't know if it takes on any kind of different meaning when viewed with his larger body of work.) This quote does not merely say that a community may prevent an individual from physically harming others, or taking another's possessions. It is vague enough to allow taking the individual's possessions if it helps the community. It can easily be interpreted so that those in charge can silence someone who speaks out for change in their society.

I do not agree that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I agree with Rand. The fruits of my mind, my ingenuity, my sweat and blood, are mine. The "common good" does not have any claim to them. I am free to share the results of my labors with any, all, or none. But if you tell me I must share them, you will have to take them from me at the point of a gun. And then we will know what kind of society we are living in.

For the most part, humans are gregarious. And if the vast majority of people need to live among others in order to be as happy as they can be, I don't see that we can help but lose some individual rights. But that should be kept at the bare minimum. Things have gone WAY beyond that.

And what of those who do NOT want to live among others? I was born into this culture, I didn't choose it. Can I be exempt from its laws? Probably not. My best bet would probably be to become a hermit. Although I'd likely be shot or arrested for tresspassing, eh?

Fist I am a little confused .. you claim the genetic imperative is ok for lions, trees and most living things .. but not for humankind? But I am not discussing the genetic imperative of ants .. they have a different genetic make-up than we do

We are driven by this primal imperative to survive .. consistent with our genetic purpose to LIVE. That is not to assert that we have no other purpose apart from that fundamental imperative. We each seek an individualistic purpose and fulfill it as we so desire. We may have a diverse range of purposes beyond our genetic construct.

And indeed I believe we do. Hence the great human minds that lead us to making the most of life and living.

Avatar I can see that you may view your body as property and as such your freedom to act as you will seems a right of passage to you. But reality and the social compact prevents and limits those actions. If we were an Island .. maybe we could act in whatever manner we please but very few of us are not part of a social collective.

I was thinking about what you said earlier about subjective thought .. and in many ways you describe the actual definition of anarchy. Each having freedom to act in whatever manner we so choose. Please do not confuse my meaning with contemporary notions of anarchy .. but the loose oft debated academic definitions.

Fist you speak of suicide .. as your right .. On some level I agree with you but on so many others it raises so many questions. Again .. to defy ones genetic imperative indicates imbalance and instabilty. The only exception is for me in such cases where the genetic construct is dealt with pain more severe than pain necessary to surivval .. or in other words terminal suffering/illness.

There is no answer that sits above the indiviidual .. all justice is weighed in greys .. not black and whites.

There may be definitive responses but there may also be circumstantial elements that affect those definitive responses. And there may be a lack of definition totally. A sound answer must be flexible and able to encorporate a diverse range of scenarios.

But as far as possible there should be some identifiable consistency.

As for the suicide arguement again .. suicidal tendancies are indicative of mental/psychiatric imbalance generally speaking. Thus such choices .. such allegations of volition are flawed. The suicidal require psychiatric help.

I dont think sticking someone suicidal in a padded cell is the kind of help that is needed .. it is a far cry from what is needed.

The Harm principle limits our actions by consideration towards harm to others .. and even harm to self. I do not think Mill explores the harm to self part much .. but other philosophers have. I forget his predecessors name .. but he was integral to the British/Commonwealth jurisprudential movement.

His name will eventually come to me ..

Anyway .. I also DISAGREE. I do not believe in Mill's .. greater good principle!! ie: the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few .. I also do not support the .. "ends justifies the means" perspective either.

I think the means and the end must always be justiable. And a positive outcome at the expense of a compromised means is not justifiable .. because of the very fact that it is compromised.

anyway .. enuff of that ...

I only take Mill's 'harm principle' .. as a sound mean. You know that even the decried Nuremburg Laws .. decried because of their retrospective nature, decried because of their origins in Natural/Universal Law .. seek an objective standard ..

Our law today hinges on objective means .. ie: the reasonable person. What the reasonable person would do .. not what the individual did do .. The subjective view is taken only to mitigate and in some cases balance the objective where that is necessary.

Fist because we are gregarious by nature and because we do belong to a social network .. and engage with one another within a social compact .. we do surrender some freedoms inevitably. Within any social group .. to have no rules .. and only subjective standards leads to chaos .. and anarchy.

Anarchy no matter how feared as a concept .. isnt actually as outrageous as it may seem. It may be that you both seek an anarchical society .. to one burdened with rules and order and limited freedoms.

But there is no true definition of anarchy .. and very few agree on what terms an anarchical society would function effectively.

Interesting.

Thanks

Let me address Skyweir first, then I'll comment on Fist's post.

Skyweir wrote:We are genetically constructed for life. Thus the purpose of our genetic constructs is life. To knowingly terminate that life is to breach our fundamental programming and functon.

To say that our only purpose is to fulfill our genetic programming reduces humanity to little more than automatons. If we concede that such "programming" exists, and perhaps on a genetic level it does, then to limit ourselves to the parameters of that "program" is to negate the efforts of humanity through the ages.

We are so much more than "wetware". Perhaps our purpose is to exceed the whatever limits we percieve, which ties in nicely with my concept that the purpose of Life is to strive.

Skyweir wrote:Its a tuff call to know how much right we have to harm ourselves. The law does not allow for harms that constitute actual bodily harm...Those who choose actual bodily harm are suffering from psychiatric instability or there is a question of sanity - which as we know voids volition/choice.

Does it void our rights then? As Fist says, who is served by denying us our right to die? Are we made happier? or "cured", if we posit insanity? I doubt it. In cases like, for example, Euthanasia, it is not the subject who is served, but their family when this most basic of rights is denied.

If the State may forbid you from killing yourself, we are nothing more than the property of that State. If this is true, we have reinstated a slavery which is all the more terrible for being so insidious.

Skyweir wrote:Why is this indicative of instability? bEcause it goes against our genetic imperative which is survival .. the most primal of all imperatives .. common to all humanity.

The imperative for survival is common to all humanity.

Except the people who want to die. It could even be argued that this is natures way of removing their "instability" from the gene pool. That imperative is amazingly strong in most people, and not usually questioned. People are tough, and extremely difficult to kill, because of that imperative.

But if that imperative was the be all and end all of life, no-one would ever want to commit suicide. The very fact that it can be over-ridden by our emotions or intellect suggests that it is not the "official" purpose of Life.

Skyweir wrote:Universal laws exist and by definition are an objective mean .. I will come back to discuss this and more.

I look forward to it. Btw, I see now that you've posted while I was typing, I'll reply to the new post seperately.

Fist and Faith-- Excellent post from you too. Naturally I agree.
Regarding the Harm Principle though, while I agree that it is vague, and too much is left to interpretation, I cannot see how it supports SkyWeir's position. (Although as you say, perhaps in relation to the greater body)

He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

This seems to be saying exactly what I think in terms of there is no right to compell an individual to anything, unless what he is doing is literally harming others.

I also fully agree with Rand. The common good is not necessarily my problem. I may, (and do) choose to contribute to it in some ways, but that is purely through choice.

Anyway, excellent post, I could say more but I want to see the new one first .

Peace
--Avatar

Skyweir wrote:Avatar I can see that you may view your body as property and as such your freedom to act as you will seems a right of passage to you. But reality and the social compact prevents and limits those actions. If we were an Island .. maybe we could act in whatever manner we please but very few of us are not part of a social collective.

Not sure what you mean by right(rite?) of passage. I view it as a fundamental right and one extended to everybody. How does reality limit my right of determination over my own body? How does the social compact do so? Does the use I put my own body(mind) to affect anyone else? (unless I'm going around killing people)

Skyweir wrote:I was thinking about what you said earlier about subjective thought .. and in many ways you describe the actual definition of anarchy. Each having freedom to act in whatever manner we so choose. Please do not confuse my meaning with contemporary notions of anarchy .. but the loose oft debated academic definitions.

In a sense, you're right. I'm a Rational Anarchist, as I've mentioned elsewhere. Before you get going, let me qualify: Rational Anarchy simply means everybody being willing to take responsibilty for their actions. That's all. It means that governance should be an expression of the wills of individuals, not masses. It means that only each person knows what is best for them.

Skyweir wrote:The only exception is for me in such cases where the genetic construct is dealt with pain more severe than pain necessary to surivval .. or in other words terminal suffering/illness...As for the suicide arguement again .. suicidal tendancies are indicative of mental/psychiatric imbalance generally speaking. Thus such choices .. such allegations of volition are flawed. The suicidal require psychiatric help.

So you accept that there might be reason for wanting to die? What difference is there if the pain is emotional/psychological instead? And while I agree that psychiatric help may be in order, what is your response if, after counselling, the patient is still adamant that they want to die.

Skyweir wrote:But as far as possible there should be some identifiable consistency.

Why? Surely it's better to judge all cases on the relative merit of individual circumstances? If one insists on consistency, we run the risk of handing out "solutions" that do not fit the situation.

Skyweir wrote:The Harm principle limits our actions by consideration towards harm to others .. and even harm to self.

From what I see, it says nothing about harm to self. It directly says that it doesn't matter what you do to yourself, regardless of what others think, as long as it isn't harming anyone else.

Skyweir wrote: I also do not support the .. "ends justifies the means" perspective either.

I agree with this. If we achieve our end by unjust means, it merely opens the door to future injustice.

Skyweir wrote:Our law today hinges on objective means .. ie: the reasonable person. What the reasonable person would do .. not what the individual did do .. The subjective view is taken only to mitigate and in some cases balance the objective where that is necessary.

But the "reasonable" person's perspective is completely subjective. It's an assumption of what someone reasonable would say/do. As I mentioned somewhere, courts in my country found it perfectly reasonable that the majority of inhabitants were 2nd class citizens. That was based on what they thought was reasonable. "Reasonable" has nothing to do with fair or just or right.

Skyweir wrote:Anarchy no matter how feared as a concept .. isnt actually as outrageous as it may seem. It may be that you both seek an anarchical society .. to one burdened with rules and order and limited freedoms...But there is no true definition of anarchy .. and very few agree on what terms an anarchical society would function effectively.

I agree here too.

Skyweir wrote:Interesting.

Very

--Avatar

uggh I will have to come back and take in all the rest .. but i just hate it when i am misquoted!

I did not suggest that that is our ONLY purpose!! I even qualified that to ensure that interpretation could not be made.

Ofcourse we have other purposes but that is our prime imperative! Life .. our genetic make up determines "life".

I think Sky was right there Av. You both have good points however.

And I think you misunderstood her as well.... heh. Pies.

Ninquelote wrote:CJr is right, as always

I'll try not to let that go to my head

Fair enough, I'll certainly concede that I took your statement out of context, and I apologise for misquoting you. You definitley did qualify the remark.

But in that context, you seem to say that it is the over-riding purpose of life. If you agree that there are other purposes, how can one be greater than any others? If it is greater, then all others are secondary, and thus insignificant for the purposes of this discussion.

Once again, sorry for the misinterpretation. I look forward to continuing this.

Take it Easy
--Avatar

Avatar wrote:

Skyweir wrote:Do we have the right to harm ourselves?? This is the tricky one isnt it. I say as the law says .. we do not have the right to harm ourselves where we cause actual bodily harm to ourselves.

Here though, I have to strongly disagree. My body, and my brain, belong exclusivley to me. Do I have the right to destroy my car? Yes, it is my property. My body and mind are my property as well. I can do as I choose with them. Hurting yourself isn't sinful, only stupid.

I must say I agree here. I have little to add, except to quote Arthur Schopenhauer on the subject, who articulates it better than I ever could:

They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.

Interesting discussion! I, too, am too lazy to read the whole thread , but I've read the last 3 pages or so. A few points:

* It is perhaps not fair to compare destroying a car to killing oneself. This is one of those arguments that sounds good theoretically but falls apart in the real world. If you destroy your car, you have to take the bus; in other words, the only person hurt is you. If you kill yourself, however, lots of other people are hurt: your parents, your spouse, your kids, your friends, your coworkers, etc. Suicide is an incredibly selfish act, and the person contemplating it usually knows this, even though they don't consciously call it that ("I'll kill myself, and *then* they'll be sorry..."). This is probably not the reason why many societies prohibit suicide, but IMHO it's a good reason for continuing the prohibition in ours.

* Av, my definition of the purpose of life has always been to learn and grow. "Strive" is good, but it sounds, y'know, sweaty. Given the chance between striving and learning, I'd rather sit under a tree and read a book! Seriously, I understand the distinction you and Fist are making between survival (for which the purpose is procreation) and life (for which the purpose has been under debate for millennia).

* It's virtually impossible for any of us to be completely objective about anything. We all bring our own personal/cultural/family/what-have-you biases into any situation. I can't personally think of any way to justify female genital mutilation, Sky, any more than you can -- but circumcision is practiced routinely on baby boys in the West and if I'd had a boy, he probably would've been circumcised. I'm not saying that male circumcision is good and female circumcision is bad; I'm also not saying that either is desirable or hygenic or insert-your-argument-in-favor-here. I'm attempting to recognize that for someone from a third culture, circumcision of *any* sex might seem barbaric -- might seel "evil", if you will.

Now then, here's something that occurred to me the other day. As a card-carrying bleeding-heart liberal, I've always tried to explain Evil rather than condemn it: he's misunderstood, her actions made sense to her at the time, it's a chemical imbalance, etc. But then it occurred to me: If there's no Evil, can there be Good? If we can explain away bad stuff, is it fair to smile benignly on good stuff?

Is it even fair to set up the Good v. Evil dichotomy? If there's no evil, then what's the opposite of good? Not-good? Bad? Inexplicable? "You just don't understand"?

Any thoughts?

Brilliant post aliantha!! I didnt even consider the impact harming ones self has on 3rd parties!! So harming one's self isnt entirely an exclusive harm at all. mmm .. interesting!!

As for FMG .. and male circumscision (however it is spelt ) these 2 practices are very diametrically different but both arguably as barbaric as the other. The purpose behind removing the penile sheath is allegedly hygene .. While there are disparate studies it is still unclear whether male sexual performance or enjoyment is affected by circumsicion. The purpose behind FGM .. which is not identical to male circumscicion is not hygene. Depending on the type of FMG determines whether the female will experience orgasm following FMG or whether she may experience sexual intercourse without pain and actually enjoy sexual intercourse. Which ofcourse is the allegedly cultural/religious purpose behind FMG.

There are 3 types of FMG there is infubulation and also excision and sunna. Infibulation consists of the removal of the entire clitoris, the whole of the labia minora and up to 2/3 of the labia majora. The sides of the vulva are sewn or held together by long thorns. A small opening the size of the tip of a matchstick is left for the passage of menstrual blood and urine.

Excision is a clitoridectomy and sometimes the removal of the labia minora;

Sunna is the only type that can truthfully be called circumcision. It is a subtotal clitoridectomy (Female..., 1714).

To put this in perspective, infibulation would be like cutting off a man's penis completely, cutting the testicles to the groin, and making a hole in them to have the semen siphoned out (McCarthy, 14). But still, it can get worse. The instruments that can be used to perform the operation are usually crude and dirty. They can include kitchen knives, razor blades, scissors, broken glass, and in some regions, the teeth of the midwife. Because of this, there are many dangers threatening the victim. The most immediate danger is exsanguination: there is no record of how many girls bleed to death because of this operation (Female..., 1715). Other physical consequences include infection, gangrene, abscesses, infertility, painful sex, difficulty in childbirth, and possibly death (Men's..., 34). No matter how much we learn, the pain will still be the same as when the first female circumcision was performed in the fifth century, B.C. (McCarthy, 14).

www.freeessays.cc/db/39/pko202.shtml
FMG is a barbaric ritual.

As for our purpose Av .. do we share a universal understanding of our purpose with all humanity? No .. each person you ask will state a different subjective purpose. As for me I think there is no one purpose for my unique existence .. I exist for innumerable reasons added upon each year I live. I have a biological purpose, a spiritual purpose and a social purpose which I seek out subjectively myself as many do. And probably a myriad of other purposes I will discover along my jouirney here.

Humankinds genetic imperative is "life" .. Observing from a distant point .. from the moment of conception .. we are genetically driven to live. Not all fulfill that purpose of "life" because of a variety of reasons. Most however do. From that point on primal dictates drive us instinctively to "life" and survival. The survival instinct is acutely elementary in humankind.

In all things there must be balance .. so this is not to suggest that there are not those who do not follow that genetic imperative. Objecitvely speaking however humankind are genetic constructs for "life" .. "to live" "to be".

imo ofcourse

From then on .. humans pursue their individual purposes and as social animals within the matrix of the social compact.

Honestly, there's little reason for me to say anything. Avatar is expressing all of my thoughts. (And credit where credit's due, you express my thoughts much more eloquently than I do.)

aliantha wrote:* Av, my definition of the purpose of life has always been to learn and grow. "Strive" is good, but it sounds, y'know, sweaty.

aliantha wrote:but circumcision is practiced routinely on baby boys in the West and if I'd had a boy, he probably would've been circumcised.

Mine is not. Since I was an infant, I don't remember it happening to me. Still, I couldn't bear the thought of it happening to him. (And if anyone else is struggling with the question - thinking it's a terrible thing to do to a baby boy, but worried that not having it done might lead to infections throughout life - he has been perfectly fine.)

aliantha wrote:Now then, here's something that occurred to me the other day. As a card-carrying bleeding-heart liberal, I've always tried to explain Evil rather than condemn it: he's misunderstood, her actions made sense to her at the time, it's a chemical imbalance, etc. But then it occurred to me: If there's no Evil, can there be Good? If we can explain away bad stuff, is it fair to smile benignly on good stuff?

Is it even fair to set up the Good v. Evil dichotomy? If there's no evil, then what's the opposite of good? Not-good? Bad? Inexplicable? "You just don't understand"?

Any thoughts?

No, if there is no Evil, there is no Good. The question is, is there Good and Evil, or just good and evil. Meaning, is there a Force of Evil and a Force of Good; or just people doing things that each of us, in our individual, subjective ways, consider wrong/evil? Put another way, are there forces that make us, or at least influence us to, do certain things or make certain choices; or does each person reinvent good and evil? I, obviously, throw in with the latter.


Regarding the pain suicide causes the survivors... To put it sorta bluntly, tough luck. We must all find happiness within ourselves. That's the only place we can be sure to find it. If we base our happiness on the actions of others, we're in deep trouble.

OK, I know, it's not that easy. I don't pretend that I could sit happily with the knowledge that one of my children just committed suicide. I'd be devestated beyond human understanding. There's no way to take that pain away, and I don't pretend otherwise. However, if one of my children was in such emotional, long term pain, something that could not be changed (I know a woman who made several attempts over many years) despite all I would surely do, I would rather suffer the pain of his/her suicide, knowing that s/he is now out of pain, than have him/her remain alive with the intense pain, enduring it for years and decades just for my benefit.

thats ok if you truly do not care to be a part of the social compact .. But being a part of a social contract means an inescapable element of responsibility.

An element not canvassed deeply by anarchism imo.

I empathise for the suicidal in all .. but it isnt an act that has no impact on others .. The mere fact that an attitude of "tuff" is uttered indicates that it is a selfish act.

An act taken without consideration of the consequences of that act. Suicide is always going to be a difficult one to debate as it is so intrinsically emotive and clearly controversial.

Fist wrote:No, if there is no Evil, there is no Good. The question is, is there Good and Evil, or just good and evil. Meaning, is there a Force of Evil and a Force of Good; or just people doing things that each of us, in our individual, subjective ways, consider wrong/evil? Put another way, are there forces that make us, or at least influence us to, do certain things or make certain choices; or does each person reinvent good and evil? I, obviously, throw in with the latter.

Wow .. this is an interesting proposition .. but I dont like the interpretation that there are forces that make us act in certain ways. Influence us maybe .. education influences our actions .. as we grow in understanding of the world and our relationship to it ..

And on that .. I throw in the other way .. I think there are ultimate rights and wrongs .. goods and evils .. universal rights and wrongs even. And here we begin the circular arguement again LOL

I do respect your views Fist .. Av claims to be a rational anarchist .. do you align yourself with a particular political philosophy? I think these terms are ever only loose descriptions of our world views. I dont describe myself in these terms cos to be honest I take bits I like from any given theory and encorporate it into my own given world view.

And as my thought processes are still evolving I actually enjoy canvassing other thoughts and takes.

I think that the suicide arguement may be more difficult to address per .. self-harm but the FMG I think is that bit easier and clearer. Especially when you consider that most women who are involved in these rituals have little to no education and are swept away in an agenda driven ritual that has no basis in their given culture or religious espousements.

Its imho .. akin to the practices, tortures and rituals of the dark ages .. when unenlightened masses were involved in horrendous obscenites and acts of inhumanity.

FMG is an act of inhumane dimensions .. suicide is self-perpetrated harm usually .. where as those who endure FMG are perpetrated against .. So even in that they are distinguished from one another.

Anyway .. nice debating these issues. I have enjoyed the spectrum of views presented for consideration.

Always a pleasure!!

Thanks for the compliment Fist

Fist and Faith wrote:Regarding the pain suicide causes the survivors... To put it sorta bluntly, tough luck. We must all find happiness within ourselves. That's the only place we can be sure to find it. If we base our happiness on the actions of others, we're in deep trouble.

OK, I know, it's not that easy. I don't pretend that I could sit happily with the knowledge that one of my children just committed suicide. I'd be devestated beyond human understanding. There's no way to take that pain away, and I don't pretend otherwise. However, if one of my children was in such emotional, long term pain, something that could not be changed (I know a woman who made several attempts over many years) despite all I would surely do, I would rather suffer the pain of his/her suicide, knowing that s/he is now out of pain, than have him/her remain alive with the intense pain, enduring it for years and decades just for my benefit.

You pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Prohibiting someone from killing themselves because of the emotional pain it would cause the family is supremely selfish. It implies that it is better for an individual to suffer, rather than cause distress to their family.

And why does it cause this distress? Perhaps because of the way in which our culture deals with death. The following is a quote from something else I once wrote:

Why can’t the decision to die lie in the hands of the person whose life it is? If only they could explain, prepare family and friends, and then it wouldn’t be such a trauma.

If they could, after due counselling, and still convinced of the rightness of their choice, visit the family Doctor for a prescription, then take gracious leave of family and friends, in an atmosphere of peace, how could trauma attend? It’s pro-active euthanasia, with the requirement being not terminal illness, but terminal life...

...The only mainstream culture which accepts suicide as a solution to a seemingly otherwise insurmountable problem is the Japanese. To them it is perfectly understandable that life can hold no meaning to a person, and that the person would then choose to die. No stigma is attached.

It is that stigma that turns it into a traumatic experience.

Skyweir--If everyone's purpose may be different, then how can killing ourselves deny life's purpose? Perhaps the suicide has already fulfilled their purpose, and see's no further point to life. Or cannot conceive of a purpose important enough to keep them alive? If all purposes are subjective, no single purpose can be placed above any other.

aliantha-- Sweaty?! Reading a book is striving to improve yourself. You know what I mean.

As Fist says, without evil, there is no way we can say "this is good". But it's subjective. I think only a consideration of a combination of the motive and the result can determine whether "Evil" is being committed.

Skyweir wrote:thats ok if you truly do not care to be a part of the social compact .. But being a part of a social contract means an inescapable element of responsibility.

Responsibility to who? and why? I don't consider others to be responsible to me, why should I be responsible to them?

Skyweir wrote:I dont describe myself in these terms cos to be honest I take bits I like from any given theory and encorporate it into my own given world view

.

Why not make up a name for your own world view?

Skyweir wrote:...but the FMG I think is that bit easier and clearer.

I don't think anyone's arguing with you here. I certainly agree the FGM is cruel, unfounded and barbaric. It falls directly into the category of harming others unnecessarily.

Skyweir wrote:Anyway .. nice debating these issues. I have enjoyed the spectrum of views presented for consideration.
Always a pleasure!!

Likewise

Take it easy folks
--Avatar

Avatar wrote:

Skyweir wrote:thats ok if you truly do not care to be a part of the social compact .. But being a part of a social contract means an inescapable element of responsibility.

Responsibility to who? and why? I don't consider others to be responsible to me, why should I be responsible to them?

Thats precisely my point .. This model you espouse neglects responsibility. The very fact that we are members of a social existence predicates the element of responsibility. We owe a social duty to one another. You ask why should you be responsible to "them" .. stating others are not responsible to you. However on some level we "share" responsibility .. We have a duty of care to those we co-exist with .. in a variety of levels. You say why should I care? Why should you care if you kill yourself and leave a small child fatherless .. why should you care?

Why should we care about the consequences of any of our actions where those actions affect others??

In my mind it is appropriate and responsible to care .. to consider others in the choices we make. It is not a base instinct .. base instincts dictate we shouldnt care .. our survival is worth more than the survival of others. Is this to only operate on the most primal level? Are we not humans who aspire to greater than this. Are we not more than the sum total of our physical genetic makeup??

This is how we can move beyond our most basic programming .. to discover we are more than our genetic makeup.

Our most instinctive and primary purpose is to life .. and yet we must exceed that purpose to live as fully as we are able within the confines of that makeup. Better our selves .. strive .. to make the most of that life we have. God knows it is short enough.

I have never suggested that we are only the sum total of our genetic makeup and limited by that makeup. That does not accord with my own world view and my own notions of my purpose in life.

I believe that we are genetically constructed for life .. in whatever form that may take.

Skyweir wrote:I dont describe myself in these terms cos to be honest I take bits I like from any given theory and encorporate it into my own given world view

.

Why not make up a name for your own world view? I have LOL Given World View

Skyweir wrote:...but the FMG I think is that bit easier and clearer.

I don't think anyone's arguing with you here. [/quote] WEll if I am not mistaken you were

av wrote: I certainly agree the FGM is cruel, unfounded and barbaric. It falls directly into the category of harming others unnecessarily.

Brilliant .. I was of the opinion that you were arguing that it is not a 'wrong' as it is up to the individual and therefore .. could not be a wrong. You know the whole self-harm thing.

Skyweir wrote:Anyway .. nice debating these issues. I have enjoyed the spectrum of views presented for consideration.
Always a pleasure!!

Likewise

Take it easy folks
--Avatar[/quote]

you too av