At what point did I say anything about imposing anything? I never at any point claimed that people should be forced into anything. I have debated the ethics of suicide. At no point have I suggested there should be regulations of any kind. You really dont seem to be understanding my argument in the least.
You are continually advocating that people have the right to put their views on others
That is rather interesting. I never did any such thing. What I advocate is ethical behavior. I never advocated enforcing ethical behavior. You seem to be conflating my arguments with an entirely different branch of imposed ethics that I have never at any point even so much as suggested. A person has a right to do with their boy whatever they will. That doesn't make their actions with their own body ethical. I am not arguing law. I am arguing social ethics. The fact that you have attempted to misconstrue my argument into something so far from anything I said suggests you aren't really interested in rational dialogue, but rather you are attempting to associate me with a stereotype to which I do not belong. I don't know how exactly you came to the conclusion that I was imposing any standards, because it takes a grave misreading of what I have writen to reach such a conclusion. At no point did I say suicides should be jailed, detained, or in any way physically or mentally coerced. I suggested they should be shown compassion and love in an attempt to help them escape the darkness of their situation. I suggested suicide is unethical. I did not suggest at any point anyone should be coerced. I suggest you go back and reread what I have written, as at some point you seem to have misinterpreted me.
So the end justifies the means? If someone endures hardship for years of their life, and then ends up being happy in the end, that justifies the hardship..?
In the context of an individuals spiritual development, I would say yes, assuming achieving said development doesnt involve causing pain to others. Hardship is a part of what challenges us and ultimately helps us develop as human beings. Unless you are an extreme materialist, it is pretty hard to believe that a life devoid of suffering is a life with meaning.
It's not a double standard, because when dealing with your own life you can't be anything but subjective, but when dealing with other people's lives, you should strive to be as objective as possible, to respect them and their identity, and to know that you can't understand what it is exactly that they're feeling
You should strive to be objective in both situations, but it is inherintely difficult to be anything but subjective in either circumstance. I don't know how you come to thte conclusion that a person who is subjective in relation to themselves is capable of objectivity in relation to others. That is essentially paradoxical. If you really want, I can get into the reasons, but I think a cursory examination of the concept should provide all the answers necessary.
You are imposing your standards on other people with a tyrannical rule, and believing you're right because the majority agrees with you.
I am imposing my standards? How am I imposing standards anymore than you? We are debating the ethics of suicide. Neither of us at any point suggested forcing people or coercing people to reach our point of view. You are attempting to slander my argument with vitriolic attacks that have no basis in my argument. I think you should really think about what that means, the fact that you are essentially conflating an idea in order to attack my character rather than my argument. I would bet a large sum of money that you have no real idea as to my actual political or ethical leanings at large (assuming, as is probably reasonable, that you havent read my LJ to any great extent), because you are clearly associating my ideas with an entirely different world view that have no relation to my lines of reasoning.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-04-18 06:38 am (UTC)You are continually advocating that people have the right to put their views on others
That is rather interesting. I never did any such thing. What I advocate is ethical behavior. I never advocated enforcing ethical behavior. You seem to be conflating my arguments with an entirely different branch of imposed ethics that I have never at any point even so much as suggested. A person has a right to do with their boy whatever they will. That doesn't make their actions with their own body ethical. I am not arguing law. I am arguing social ethics. The fact that you have attempted to misconstrue my argument into something so far from anything I said suggests you aren't really interested in rational dialogue, but rather you are attempting to associate me with a stereotype to which I do not belong. I don't know how exactly you came to the conclusion that I was imposing any standards, because it takes a grave misreading of what I have writen to reach such a conclusion. At no point did I say suicides should be jailed, detained, or in any way physically or mentally coerced. I suggested they should be shown compassion and love in an attempt to help them escape the darkness of their situation. I suggested suicide is unethical. I did not suggest at any point anyone should be coerced. I suggest you go back and reread what I have written, as at some point you seem to have misinterpreted me.
So the end justifies the means? If someone endures hardship for years of their life, and then ends up being happy in the end, that justifies the hardship..?
In the context of an individuals spiritual development, I would say yes, assuming achieving said development doesnt involve causing pain to others. Hardship is a part of what challenges us and ultimately helps us develop as human beings. Unless you are an extreme materialist, it is pretty hard to believe that a life devoid of suffering is a life with meaning.
It's not a double standard, because when dealing with your own life you can't be anything but subjective, but when dealing with other people's lives, you should strive to be as objective as possible, to respect them and their identity, and to know that you can't understand what it is exactly that they're feeling
You should strive to be objective in both situations, but it is inherintely difficult to be anything but subjective in either circumstance. I don't know how you come to thte conclusion that a person who is subjective in relation to themselves is capable of objectivity in relation to others. That is essentially paradoxical. If you really want, I can get into the reasons, but I think a cursory examination of the concept should provide all the answers necessary.
You are imposing your standards on other people with a tyrannical rule, and believing you're right because the majority agrees with you.
I am imposing my standards? How am I imposing standards anymore than you? We are debating the ethics of suicide. Neither of us at any point suggested forcing people or coercing people to reach our point of view. You are attempting to slander my argument with vitriolic attacks that have no basis in my argument. I think you should really think about what that means, the fact that you are essentially conflating an idea in order to attack my character rather than my argument. I would bet a large sum of money that you have no real idea as to my actual political or ethical leanings at large (assuming, as is probably reasonable, that you havent read my LJ to any great extent), because you are clearly associating my ideas with an entirely different world view that have no relation to my lines of reasoning.