Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

clark · 2002-07-10 10:17:40

*How can I be a "poorer person" for my views?

It is an opinion Cindy, much like the opinions you express about me from time to time. Yhe opinion is based off of my very subjective value system. I consider you a "poorer person" becuase you do not acknolwedge that all life has an equal amout of worth, irregardless of actions, or my personal view.

Your attitude, by not recognizing that all life is equal, that the value of Hitler's life is exactly equal to the value of Mother Theresa's life , allows for you to "evaluate" the worth of life. A such, you make the value of life subjective and arbitrary- the value is based on what we personaly believe. This is exactly the same thinking of the Natzi's, KKK, South African Colonialists, Southern Plantation owners prior to 1865 in the US, etc. They all held that the value, or worth of humanlife was subjective, that it could change depending on the circumstances. That is why I consider you a poorer person Cindy, you have the history of the world at your finger tips, and a mind that is able to appreciate the lessons learned- but you fail to accept the one truth that has driven people to better themselves- all human life is of equal value becuase the value of human life is inherent. To accept otherwise is to allow us to descend down that slippery slope so many other oppresors and individual maniacs have taken humanity.

clark · 2002-07-10 10:56:27

Let me apolgize formaly Cindy, I don't want you to take offense to anything I have said, or will say. It is not my intention to make you feel bad- sometimes there is a bit of communication failure due to the limitations to my ability to write, and the lack of spoken word to add the emphasis or tone to make the neccessary point. I'm sorry if I have offended you, and this apolgy applies to anyone else.

This statement is made by you, a man who believes all is subjective. How can you make this judgment of me, when you speak of "inherent value" in the next breath?

Becuase I have said that all values are subjective when evaluating an action, I also made it to point out that acknowledgin this fact does not negate my ability or desire to make judgements. It only serves to remind me that I am not God and that even my opinions are not abolute (but they should be )

Don't my opinions have equal and inherent values to yours?

Yes, they do- that is, no value what so ever. However, I still hold my arguments make more sense then yours.

If all is subjective, as you insist, then your opinions and viewpoints are no better than mine -- so how, then, can you consider me a "poorer person" for my views?

becuase it allows for the type of rationalization of behavior that you oppose (Nazi)- as I explained in the previous post. Everyone who has oppresed another people thought human life's value was not absolute- and we saw and live now with many of the results.

What's the difference between saying someone is a "poorer person" for their views and saying Hitler's life was less valuable than that of Mother Theresa's?

You are a poorer person for your opinion becuase it neccessarily reduces the value of your own life. The value of my life, and others, according to my opinion, is absolute- always, thus making my life worth more than yours in comparison (based on the differing views, no actual difference exsists)

But yet you've said more than once at this message board that there are no absolutes.

You are kind of taking me out of context- I was discussing morality and ethics- viewpoints, beliefs- the interpertation of action. Even my view that all life has the same worth does not invalidate my argument that nothing has value- if all life has the same value, then it in effect has no value either- it is the same across the board. I hold that all life has value, that all human life is equal in value- that's not stating what the value IS, it is merely pointing out the obvious conclusion of Voltaire and enlightenment. You will lose this one Cindy.

Frankly, I do think you are a poorer person for not understanding -- or not wanting to understand, whatever the case may be -- the difference between Settler Williams the Burn Victim [Individual Choice] versus a group of people who will throw their lives away because they've been conditioned, brainwashed, and propagandized to do so [Group Think].

No Cindy, I do understand, and I am willing to ACCEPT that a difference does exsist. What you fail to grasp is that this understanding, this acceptance is the result of rationalization based on our personal value system- my or your personal acceptance does not imbue it with any actual difference- becuase there is none- the difference is in our mind. If we had a different value system, we could very well view the actions of the Settler as "bad" and the actions of the uneducated as "good". That's my point. We cannot apply a value arbitrarily to an action. We cannot legitametly apply a value to human life- to do so is to imply that it can be objectively evaluated for it's worth- and that is impossible.

*I've never claimed there are absolutes -- you are the one who keeps using that word.

Yes, you have- by invoking the name of Voltaire and arguing that objective values for action exsist.

*You've gotten direct replies to your questions. You simply don't want to accept my answers as being my answers because you disagree with them.

Is the value of human life absolute?
If the value of human life is not absolute, what is the value?
How is the value of human life determined objectively?
Who determines the value of human life?
If human life has no inherent value, where does it derive it's value?
Why must we respect the value of another human life?

TioRay · 2002-07-11 23:23:36

Clark,

for a guy that supports the forceful removal of children from their parents in your other posts I find your currant stance a novel twist.

You need to understand that societies have quite happily existed in the past where suicide was acceptable and I'm quite sure society will be able to handle it in the future on any planet...the sun still keeps rising buddy, the human race just goes on.

It may make you squeamish but guess what, I don't really care.....If I want the right to suicide and I want that right protected in the law of the land, then so be it.,,either way...it won't stop me and is certainly unofficially supported here in Australia...you can even order suicide kits...and no Clark...one in every 4 kids arn't buying one...suprised buddy?

Tell me Clark....do you really think you or anyone else should have a say if I want to die?....what if tomorrow I might have changed my mind...So what?....if I want to die now then I want to die now....end of story.

But what if I was depressed at the time?......I would hardly be in a great mood would I?....hehehehe....but really....I would still want the choice...bring it on.

Your above arguments seem to be based on one thing...it just feels wrong to you....heheheh.....your dribble about life being sacred....you can stick that up your you know what.

You are welcome to spend the remaining 15 years of your life in a nursing home eating the stools of the person next to you....yummy.

Me....I'm eating sacred beef burgers and buying a whole family worth of sacred leather couches...and when I finally have had enough....I'm coming over to the Bubble you live in and die by puking my guts out on your lawn....but don't worry.....you can have me arrested then ok.

TioRay · 2002-07-11 23:35:15

Ohh...and just one more thing Clark

Do you even know how all the dribble about life being sacred even started....its called EVOLUTION!!!......there is no evil in killing....its just a survival trait of the species....but if it makes you feel warm inside....be comforted in knowing that your genes will live 15 years longer than me in a Nursing home bed covered in bed sours...and once again the human species will continue.

Palomar · 2002-07-12 09:47:02

Your attitude, by not recognizing that all life is equal, that the value of Hitler's life is exactly equal to the value of Mother Theresa's life , allows for you to "evaluate" the worth of life. A such, you make the value of life subjective and arbitrary- the value is based on what we personaly believe. This is exactly the same thinking of the Natzi's, KKK, South African Colonialists, Southern Plantation owners prior to 1865 in the US, etc. They all held that the value, or worth of humanlife was subjective, that it could change depending on the circumstances.

*No, you misunderstand me.

Hitler, the KKK, South African Colonists, etc., make collective judgments against groups of people: "This group of people has darker skin than me, and bigger lips, so they must all be inferior." It's a **collectivist** judgment placed against them by another group of **collectivists**.

What I'm referring to is judging the value of a person's life INDIVIDUALLY. I don't damn the entire German population just because of Hitler. Hitler's life was less valuable because he made it so, by his actions, the decisions he made, and what he chose to do with his life: Destruction. Jeffrey Dahmer is another example: I don't damn all white males in Wisconsin and think their lives are of less value because of one white male in Wisconsin who was a cannabilistic serial killer.

You are using the example of collectivist boneheads who damn entire groups of people based on mere prejudice. You are speaking on a collective basis.

I am using examples of persons who chose to cheapen and degrade [lessen the value of ]their own lives by their own actions. I'm speaking on an individualistic basis.

That's the difference.

You can try to tell me all you want that Hitler's life was just as equal in value to that of Fred Rogers of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" children's show fame, but I'll disagree.

According to your logic, laws should be passed prohibiting employers from ever being able to fire/expel/dismiss people because no one individual is ever any better or any worse than any other individual. And perhaps we should have our public school system throw out the grading system -- no distinctions should be made between the smart kids, the kids of average intelligence who work really hard for those As and Bs, and the lazy slackers who don't care if they flunk out totally because, according to you, no one individual is any better or any worse than any other individual. And by all means, let's abolish the prison system and let out every convict -- federal or otherwise. Let's let the murderers, child molesters, rapists, robbers, etc., back out onto the street; after all, according to you, everyone has the same value and is no better or worse than anybody else! This is the world you would have us living in, and this is where your "logic" would lead. Your argument is just plain foolish, Clark.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-07-12 11:32:47

I presume the first [and subsequent] manned Mars missions will include cyanide capsules or a similar option for quick and painless suicide in the event of something terribly tragic occurring?

To return to Cindy's original question,

Pills? Who needs pills. With all the atmospheric processing power of a Mars Direct mission, if suicide were the only option, I would choose carbon monoxide. Stripping an oxygen atom from Martian CO2 - and making sufficient CO - would seem easy enough to do.

First, a shot of brandy or other smuggled drink, then a totally indulgent bath/shower with any remaining fresh water reserves, then add sufficient CO to the air supply, then play Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" on a headset and go to sleep, in peace.

Cyanide? Why bother?

And, IMHO, bringing suicide pills sends the wrong message to all Terra. Some things are best left unsaid. If suicide becomes appropriate stick with the Mars Direct philosophy and manufacture your means in situ

Palomar · 2002-07-12 16:52:38

And, IMHO, bringing suicide pills sends the wrong message to all Terra. Some things are best left unsaid.

*Geez, I guess so. Not being sarcastic here, but I'm surprised the topic generated certain kinds of reactions. ???

I guess I take some of my opinions for granted; I suppose all of us have this tendency to some degree or other. ::shrugs::

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-15 11:09:46

TioRay, your comments are little more than childish rants with little or no worth in regards to this discussion. You react in an infantile manner to a discussion you apparently have little ability to understand. I'm sure you will respond with more gibberish, as that seems to be your modus operandi. Twit.

*No, you misunderstand me.
Hitler, the KKK, South African Colonists, etc., make collective judgments against groups of people: "This group of people has darker skin than me, and bigger lips, so they must all be inferior." It's a **collectivist** judgment placed against them by another group of **collectivists**.

No, I completely understand you. What I continue to try and point out is that applying a value system to action is to apply a collectivist judgement to action itself. Instead of categorizing people according to physical appearnce, you now categorize them based on behavior. Hitler, Dahmer, Stalin- all of these men get lumped together when you apply YOUR value system to evaluate their individual actions. You do the same thing they did, but now you have rationalized it as acceptable (the same way they did) by arguing that your reasons (your value system) are legitimate. Hitler's reasons were legitimate to him Cindy, just like yours.

I am not sugessting that your value system is "bad", just that the act of using your value system is the same as someone deciding that skin color denotes a certain value. What you are doing is stating that all people who murder others in a certain manner are bad- that is a collectivist judgement Cindy- as such, when you utilize this form of argument to establish the moral superiority in your judgement you by neccessity valorize the very people whom you detest- you sacntify Hitler's behavior becuase you rationalize the fundamental philosphy that legitimizes the idea that one personal value system can be imposed on another individual.

When you decalre that someone is "bad" or "good" based on their actions, you are forcing your personal value system onto them. That is wrong the same way murder is wrong- murder is the act one person forcing their will onto another to thereby end it- forcing another to do something against their will is wrong just as forciable rape is wrong- they are both the same thing. What Hitler did and others like him did was impose their personal value system on others. That is what you do when you apply values of good and bad to others actions- you by neccessity are declaring that your personal value system can extend beyond yourself and govern another- which is wrong by YOUR personal standard of "would you want the same thing done to you?"

Would you want someone else to force you to submit to their value system? Do you want to live by what the Muslisms believe? The Mormons? The Aethists? Many of the actions that we both may take can be construed as "good" or "bad" by any number of people- who is right? You feel confident in your ability to discern what is good and bad, however, by arguing for your ability, you neccessarily argue for everyone's ability- which means that everyone else is just as capable, or just as incapable as YOU. You decide. If everyone is just as capable, what right do you or I to decide for them what is right or wrong, good or bad? Hitler and the rest had a view that only those who looked a certain way could truly know- you contend that only those who ACT a certain way can truly know- in both instances we see the SAME fundamental act of rationalizing collective judgements- you, like the South Africa appartheid, have simply found a "reason" that is pragmatic enough to work for your value system. South Plantation owners never saw themselves as "evil" for owning slaves, any more than you see the "evil" in your rational approach to legitimizing the forced acceptance of your value system.

What I'm referring to is judging the value of a person's life INDIVIDUALLY.

How do you look at the individuals if you have already judged their behavior? The only way to judge an individual is to judge them based on their own value system- not yours. You are judging individuals based on a collective judgement of behaviors and applying that towards the individual- it is in no way objective or meaningful. One nation's war Hero is anothers War Criminal.

Hitler's life was less valuable because he made it so, by his actions, the decisions he made, and what he chose to do with his life: Destruction.

It was made less valuable to you- his life though has an inherent value equal to anyone else- to suggest otherwie is to reduce the inherent value of your own, and everyone else's life. I am arguing for the sacntity of life- that all life is equal in value. As such, no person has a right to violate the life, or self, of another. Not Hitler, and not you. Just becuase one individual disregards others individual rights does not somehow negate the actual value of their life- it only allows others to defend their selves- that is their right to protect the sanctity of self. However, you only have the right to defend yourself to as much as is neccessary to secure the sanctity of self. You may only kill another life when it forces you to such action (how that is determined is where everyone diverges). The beauty of this line of thinking is that it cannot be used by "hitler" people. It holds as it center that our rights extend no further than self- the imposition of a value system can extend no further than self. You have no right to tell me what is good or bad any more than I have a right to tell you. You have no right to impose your personal view, be it God or what are the requirements for "human life and rights" any more than I do.

You are using the example of collectivist boneheads who damn entire groups of people based on mere prejudice.

But you damn entire groups of people based on their behavior and your personal prejuidces against that behavior- I understand the sentiment, but do you see the simmilarity?

You can try to tell me all you want that Hitler's life was just as equal in value to that of Fred Rogers of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" children's show fame, but I'll disagree.

You never answer these questions Cindy... If the value of life is indeterminant, who decides the value? Why them? How is the value derived? If a life can be worth less than another, how can a life be worth more? How does one add value BACK to a life? Either life is equal in value or it is not, if it is not, what is the value? If my life has more value, do I have more rights? Why should we respect anyone's life if their individual value is unknown?

Without the equality of value of life, there can be no inherent rights. We derive our fundamental rights from the idea that we are all equal, so our rights must be equal- if we are not equal, then are rights by logic are not neccessarily equal- we have no foundation upon which to establish equality for anyone.

ccording to your logic, laws should be passed prohibiting employers from ever being able to fire/expel/dismiss people because no one individual is ever any better or any worse than any other individual.

NO! I have repeatadly told you that acknowledging the way in which we view the world does not negate the act. I am not saying that we should live in a world devoid of value, or a world in which inappropriate action is not prevented or punished- I am suggesting a basic philosphy of restraint- that we limit such intervention to the bare minimum predicated on a fundamental respect of all value systems. Believe what you want, as morally reprehensible as it may be, but never force that value system onto another- if such an act occurs, then it is legitimate to use whatever force is neccessary to return to the status quo of sanctity of self.

Palomar · 2002-07-15 19:29:03

ME: No, you misunderstand me. Hitler, the KKK, South African Colonists, etc., make collective judgments against groups of people: "This group of people has darker skin than me, and bigger lips, so they must all be inferior." It's a **collectivist** judgment placed against them by another group of **collectivists**.

CLARK: Hitler's reasons were legitimate to him Cindy, just like yours.

*Taken in the subjectivist fashion in which you phrase your sentence -- true. But my reasons won't lead to the deaths of 11 million people [give or take a few hundred thousand].

CLARK: I am not sugessting that your value system is "bad", just that the act of using your value system is the same as someone deciding that skin color denotes a certain value.

*So a person should have NO value judgments? Is that humanly possible? If my car happens to break down on an isolated stretch of road, I should be no more nervous if a car load of old ladies in ankle-length dresses pull up than I should be if a car load of young men wearing gang-style bandanas, tattoos, body piercings, and leather pulls up? I'd rather have the little old ladies pull up to ask if I need help, thanks!

CLARK: What you are doing is stating that all people who murder others in a certain manner are bad

*I didn't say all people who murder are bad. Murder can be committed as an act of defending one's self, i.e. a crook pulls a gun on you and threatens to shoot -- you pull out a gun and shoot the crook first. You will have indeed murdered the perpetrator who started the situation, but it isn't bad. Someone else is attempting -- and initiated --perpetrating physical harm on you; this then gives you the right to respond back with equal force, even to the point of killing them. It's the same right as a woman fighting and struggling with a rapist. The only other option is allowing yourself to be murdered. The good is self-preservation, the bad is letting yourself get drilled full of lead by a criminal.

CLARK: - that is a collectivist judgement Cindy- as such, when you utilize this form of argument to establish the moral superiority in your judgement you by neccessity valorize the very people whom you detest- you sacntify Hitler's behavior becuase you rationalize the fundamental philosphy that legitimizes the idea that one personal value system can be imposed on another individual.

*You have some very strange logic, my dear. I've ::never:: sought to impose my value system onto anyone else. You and I have touched on this before -- I said then and I say now, that I have no right to try and force someone to agree with me or believe as I do. However, I am entitled to my opinions and to express them.

CLARK: When you decalre that someone is "bad" or "good" based on their actions, you are forcing your personal value system onto them. T

*It is? When you go to the grocery store, do you pick ripe and healthy looking fruit, or are you searching through the refuse bins in back seeking out rotted fruit? If you seek ripe and healthy fruit, are you imposing a personal value system onto the grocery store, its managers, etc.? Possessing a value system is ::not:: forcing it onto anyone else. And is it humanly possible to NOT have a value system?

CLARK: that is wrong the same way murder is wrong- murder is the act one person forcing their will onto another to thereby end it- forcing another to do something against their will is wrong just as forciable rape is wrong- they are both the same thing. What Hitler did and others like him did was impose their personal value system on others. That is what you do when you apply values of good and bad to others actions- you by neccessity are declaring that your personal value system can extend beyond yourself and govern another- which is wrong by YOUR personal standard of "would you want the same thing done to you?"

*I do not understand your "logic." I'm not forcing my value system onto anybody, anymore than my having long hair is "forcing" other people to have a certain hairstyle or not.

CLARK: Would you want someone else to force you to submit to their value system? Do you want to live by what the Muslisms believe? The Mormons? The Aethists? Many of the actions that we both may take can be construed as "good" or "bad" by any number of people- who is right?

*Again, I'm not forcing, nor am I seeking to force, anyone to agree with or submit to my value system. Actually, it's really not a question of WHO is right, considering the high level of subjectiveness in humans: Rather, it's WHAT comes about as a result of actions, i.e. consequences and what time/history bears out as a result. Consequences, time, and history are the true judges in these matters -- I've pointed out my reasoning in this regard more than once, yet you keep ignoring it.

CLARK: One nation's war Hero is anothers War Criminal.

*Interesting. Most of today's German nationals despise Hitler. One nation's Hero can soon become tomorrow's Criminal or Despised One. Time and consequences, Clark.

ME: Hitler's life was less valuable because he made it so, by his actions, the decisions he made, and what he chose to do with his life: Destruction.

CLARK: It was made less valuable to you

*And to millions of Jews around the world...

CLARK: You have no right to tell me what is good or bad any more than I have a right to tell you.

*I have no right to express my opinions? :0

CLARK: You have no right to impose your personal view, be it God or what are the requirements for "human life and rights" any more than I do.

*Again -- I'm not imposing. I have my opinions, I have the right to express those opinions -- take them or leave them.

ME: You are using the example of collectivist boneheads who damn entire groups of people based on mere prejudice.

CLARK: But you damn entire groups of people based on their behavior and your personal prejuidces against that behavior- I understand the sentiment, but do you see the simmilarity?

*No, I do not damn "entire groups of people." That's prejudice. Break down the word, Clark: Pre [before] judice [judge]; judge before knowing, in other words. I'm not a collectivist. I speak individually, on the basis of individual merit [or lack thereof], actions, behaviors, etc.

ME: You can try to tell me all you want that Hitler's life was just as equal in value to that of Fred Rogers of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" children's show fame, but I'll disagree.

CLARK: You never answer these questions Cindy... If the value of life is indeterminant, who decides the value?

*I never said the value of life is indeterminant...don't put words in my mouth. Who decides the value? You mean objectively? Probably no person can. Time and consequences will, however.

ME: According to your logic, laws should be passed prohibiting employers from ever being able to fire/expel/dismiss people because no one individual is ever any better or any worse than any other individual.

CLARK: NO!

*I like your spirit!

CLARK: I have repeatadly told you that acknowledging the way in which we view the world does not negate the act. I am not saying that we should live in a world devoid of value, or a world in which inappropriate action is not prevented or punished- I am suggesting a basic philosphy of restraint- that we limit such intervention to the bare minimum predicated on a fundamental respect of all value systems. Believe what you want, as morally reprehensible as it may be, but never force that value system onto another- if such an act occurs, then it is legitimate to use whatever force is neccessary to return to the status quo of sanctity of self

*For the ::zillionth:: time, I'm not imposing my value system onto others! But, wouldn't be strange, if that's exactly what you are trying to do to me?

Clark, in a post some time back, you quoted some of Jean Jacques Rousseau's political philosophy; either "The Social Contract" or "The Origins of Inequality;" I can't remember which. You should get to know -- a more indepth and overall working knowledge -- of a philosopher's entire body of work before quoting him. Did you know that Jean Jacques Rousseau ADVOCATED atheists, agnostics, and those who would fall away from the State Faith be executed?

I've made my points, darling. I think I've been very clear and consistent; I don't know how much clearer I can be. I think you do understand my point of view, and perhaps [yes, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt] you feel I am deeply in error and are attempting to assist me to see errors in my thinking out of concern or goodness of heart. You and I are not going to see eye-to-eye on this matter, Clark, and some of your lines of reasoning baffle me. You keep repeating that I should not "impose" my value system onto others, when in fact I do not -- why do you keep repeating this word to me? In an attempt to try and get me to believe I'm making impositions onto others, forcing them somehow?

I think if you really believe I'm a person who would try to force others to see things as I do, or impose myself onto others in a fascist fashion, you wouldn't bother with me.

I don't impose, I don't force. I've simply come to develop a value system over the years, based on hard-earned experience, observation, thinking, studying various scholars and philosophers, reading history, etc., etc., etc.

This line of conversation has gotten tiresome. Let's rest it, please.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-16 07:45:14

Let me clarify please,

I believe I may be ahead of myself in this discussion.

The imposition of values occurs when we rationalize the PROCESS of using our subjective value systems as a means to regulate the action of an individual.

Hitler, et. al. used their subjective value systems to evaluate the worth of human life by whatever personal criteria they felt was appropriate. This is exactly the same thing you do as an individual- you evaluate the relative worth of an individual based on their behaviors and what those behaviors mean to you. The only difference between what you are doing and what Hitler the individual is doing is that your value system is derived based on action, Hitler's was based on physical apperance.

Now, when we take the individuals and put them in a group, things start to change. The individuals become a group- the group then forms "group values" with which to regulate behavior between the members of the group within, and people outside the group. The group values are based on some equation of the individual values, whose expression is determined by how the group functions (democracy, monarchy, etc.). The end result (usually) is the imposition of a group value system- which is based on the individual subjective value systems of some of the members of the group- onto all members.

That is the "force" you take part in with accepting the rationality of your argument. You argue that what Hitlewr did, what Pol Pot did, that it was fundamentaly correct and legitiamate becuase it is the application of group value systems that are derived the same way all group values are derived. The logic that allows this argument is this: a group of individuals has the right to impose their personal value system on all individuals. That's what they did- that's what every society does.

I am suggesting something different.

You have your opinion, true, you give your point of view, I do not fault you for that. As an individual you impose nothing on anyone. Yet when you become part of a group, that all changes. Your complacency in the group, your acceptance that the imposition of someone else's value system onto another is acceptable, makes you part of the system that violates the individuals.

Real world example: Your right to die.

Right now, we do not have a right to die at a time of our own choosing and our own devise. Why?
Becuase there are those with a value system that deem this action "bad". As such, a conglomeration of individuals imposes their personal value system onto everyone else dissallowing this action. Here we have an individual who may wish to die, but a value system not their own is imposed upon them to dictate their action. Is this just? Your previous arguments would suggest no- however, your argument that we can legitimately apply our personal value systems to other individuals ends up supporting an unjust act.

This is why I suggest a different approach- one that states that all life is inherently equal, irregardless of action. That the imposition of value systems may only go as far as maintaing the sactity of self. That is, only allow laws and rules that prevent OTHERS from violating the sactity of self.

It changes the role of Society, instead of Society exsisting to ENSURE your life and liberty; Society would simply exsist to PREVENT OTHERS from endangering your life and liberty.

It is a small but significant philosphical difference- it operates from the idea that our life and liberty exsists independant of anything else- that it is inherent and unmutable. It moves us away from the thinking that Society GIVES us something- Society should only exsist to protect us from one another.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-07-10 10:17:40

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#27 2002-07-10 10:56:27

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#28 2002-07-11 23:23:36

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#29 2002-07-11 23:35:15

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#30 2002-07-12 09:47:02

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#31 2002-07-12 11:32:47

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#32 2002-07-12 16:52:38

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#33 2002-07-15 11:09:46

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#34 2002-07-15 19:29:03

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

#35 2002-07-16 07:45:14

Re: Unpleasantries - Macabre business --

Board footer