Kilkis wrote:1 Everybody has the right to whatever sexual activity they wish provided it is with the consent of the other person. So no, I do not believe it would be right to impose chemical castration on somebody else but yes, I should be able to impose it on myself if I so chose.
I may be wrong, but I think that's not compaible with what the quoted Biblical maxim.
"Do unto others as you would have done to yourself."
What if someone else has a view that they would be happy for this to be done to themselves, and so to others?
I may be wrong, but I think you have in this particular example avoided this quandry by defining a more narrow view than that specified by that maxim - namely, you have a catagory of things where you would be happy to have it done to yourself *but not to others*.
2 I don't think anybody thinks abortion is a good thing
I may be wrong, but I think it is critical women control when or if they have children. If a woman does not want a child, then it is no one elses business to force it upon her by denying her the option not to. (We're back to consent being a key consideration here).
A fetus sufficiently young is a blob of cells. It certainly is the case no life has been lost, unless we are religious and reach for the concept of soul. No harm has been done, and a very great harm - an unwanted child - has been avoided.
I suspect you agree with all of this, and what you mean is something more like it's undesireable that an abortion had to happen. However, I would draw back to the idea that it's blob of cells. No harm has been done.
, including the people who seek one. Some women seek abortion because they are desperate and as a society we have no control over that. As a society the only thing we can control is how they obtain that abortion; legally in sterile conditions under medical supervision or illegally in non sterile conditions with no medical supervision. I would support the former. I also think that individual medical practitioners should be free to refuse to perform an abortion on religious/ethical grounds but that they should have to refer the patient to someone else.
Something just occurred to me.
The Biblical maxim, it seems prescriptive and instructive - it seems to say *you must do this*.
It's not "do unto other as you would have done to yourself, if the others agree to it".
It's "*do* unto others as you would have done to yourself". There's no optionality.
We seem in our modern culture to be adding that optionality in, perhaps with a thought something like "ah well obviously they meant this really" (because it would be unthinkable to us, with our actual views and culture, to go along with a prescriptive and instructive maxim).
3 Cars are designed and built by expert engineers.
Are you suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure?
I've seen a lot of dodgy motors out there
More seriously, as an aside, speaking as a software engineer, there -are- no expert software engineers. It's impossible to get software right. I don't drive, and I'm very glad I do not drive, because I think cars are now inherently unsafe in novel ways entirely unlike and far more unpredictable in cause and effect than mechanical failures. (Those recent Lyme scooter problems, where a number of people died or are now parapleagic - if you're going full speed downhill and you hit a bump, the breaks lock on full, and you go flying at maximum possible speed) This is also true for anything using software to operate, such as aeroplanes, ships and PCs.
As a purchaser I am not an expert engineer so I rely on the car industry to sell me a car that is safe. The car industry exists to make a profit. The safety motivation and the profit motivation may not always be aligned. I think governments should impose regulation on the car industry so that the car industry does not impose on me a car that is dangerous.
The Government -can- impose. If you do not follow their laws, they use violence, and you are fined and/or go to jail. The car industry -cannot- impose. It cannot make you buy a car, or punish you for not doing so. You are free to read reviews and buy or not buy.
Over a long period of time the safety of cars and the fuel efficiency of cars has improved astronomically all driven by regulation.
I may be wrong, but I profoundly disagree. Cars have improved because of competition, and advances in technology.
If we think about regulation driven cars, think about the Trabant.
Indeed, I cannot think of a single industry which is run by State which works well. No one, in the whole of human history.
4 If someone breaks into your house they are the ones that are breaking my rule.
It may be they are anarchists, and genuinely believe we should be like this. They would have it done to themselves, just as they do it to others, and would argue it must be so, or they are being unjust by imposing upon others that which they do not wish imposed upon themselves.
Their action is clearly adversely affecting you so they should not have the right to carry out that action. Exactly what steps should be taken if they do carry out such an act is open to debate but it should be defined in law so people do not make arbitrary decisions.
I may be wrong, but I think this very unrealistic.
Like is too complicated, the law too slow, and it is also fundamentally improper and dangerous for so much of our freedom to be taken over and controlled by others, those who pass law.
What happens when the law-makers are no good, as in the majority of countries around the world?
What we really mean then by defining such things in law, is to say we place our lives to a great extent in the hands of others, whom we trust not to do us harm, or to be incompetent.
Do we really have such hopes of politicians? in fact, should we even think to think in this direction, rather than to live our own lives?
5 I don't understand your comment on "forbidding relationships between men and women".
If actions which leads to adverse outcomes are forbidden, and we take this to means actions which *may* lead to adverse outcomes are forbidden, then I asked if relationships between men and women should be forbidden, since these can often lead to adverse outcomes (bitter breakups, children caught in angry divorces, etc).
All the relationships between men and women that I know began as consensual so you cannot describe that as one person adversely affecting another.
I agree, *but this is different to what you wrote*. What you wrote said nothing about consent (neither does the Biblical maxim). You said and only said "adverse outcomes".
I may be wrong, but I think what you actually think is not properly described by what you've written.
Consent is critical, but the question is, in what ways? what is it you mean to say? and if you quantify it, are these consequences of it which currently are not obvious?
For one thing, consent is only meaningful when we are well-informed - the two go hand-in-hand, because we can give consent when we are being defrauded. So we mean to say "consensual and well-informed", always.
So given that, where does it take you with how you would describe how you think things right or wrong? does it become "do nothing adverse to others, unless it is with their well-informed consent"?
I see two problems here.
1. What if we do things which are not adverse ("have a million pounds"), but are not *wished* for, which is to say, there is no consent?
This seems to imply we can do nothing to others, without their well-informed consent.
2. We agree already we are permitted to be adverse to others in self-defence. There is then this single exceptional clause.
This seems to bring us to "everything you do with others must be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence".
This however does not permit regulation - which is a problem, since many believe, a priori, in regulation, which is to say, the imposition of things they agree with upon others. A way has to be found to justify this.
Regulation always requires imposition - non-voluntary contracts, and the only justification I evver see are by appealing to a "greater good" - which is always a greater good in the eyes of the people who are doing the imposition, and brings us back to chemical castration : the people who impose decide something is right or wrong, and impose it upon others.
In fact, with chemical castraton, you have said that you would not have it done to others. However, you would have car regulation done to others. Why one and not the other? on what basis is good and bad being decided? and here it seems from your description of consequences to be utilitarian. An examination of the outcomes, and a judging on undefined criteria of that which are good and that which are bad. The problem is this is still simply and only the arbitrary view of the group who are imposing their will upon others. There is no consent from those who are imposed upon. This is in fact inescapable. It is inherent in regulation, regardless of the subject of regulation. We must then have an ethic which allows us to impose upon others. The problem here is that everyone can have this view, and then you end up with groups of people struggling to impose their will on each other (Cons/Labour/central Government), and now we're describing most of human history.
The only solution to this is not to impose contracts on others.