Brittany's Choice

[MajGenl.Meade]

BSG - you're not going to... please tell me no... arrange an ftf with rubato?

[oldr_n_wsr]

While I respect her right to kill herself in these circumstances, I do think that picking the date ahead of time makes it seem more like "suicide
with extenuating circumstances".

[rubato]

Not very apt or thoughtful comparisons.
yrs,
rubato

That wasn't the issue. "my body - my choice" or is that a statement subject to modification by other factors?

So the answer to the very apt comparative question is: "Yes, the statement 'my body - my choice' is subject to modification by other factors"

Acceptable modifications are utilitarian ones (such as 'cost to society'). All other modifications are unacceptable. I think that's a correct statement. If not, someone please advise.

I also wish to re-emphasize my opinion that 'people in this position should have the option of not making a public mess (jumping off roofs, etc.) or awful failure (missed gunshots, etc.)' The option would be the certain, private and safe means of making this decision and not blowing half one's face off and living as a vegetable.

Thanks for playing rubato

You examples were inapt and you would have more dignity to have admitted it rather than winging further. The modifications in this case were Liberal ones not Utilitarian ones. The involve the entitlement of the society as a whole to regulate an activity but not solely based on 'the greatest good for the greatest number' but based on protecting the rights of individuals whether or not they are the majority. The greatest number might be better off if bar hours were not regulated and if it were a minority who would then be negatively impacted they could suck eggs. Disallowing certain forms of cigarette advertising is done because cigarette advertising is deceptive even it only a minority are eventually persuaded by it. Seat belt legislation is justified because of other choices society has made, the choice not to allow people to die and their children to die without medical care which is a common expense. A Utilitarian would say "what gives the greatest net benefit? providing no care and not regulating seatbelts or providing care and regulating seatbelts?." If it is a Utilitarian choice it is not between regulating and not regulating seatbelts it is between providing and not providing HC.

She has the right to end her own life because society has no right to stop her.

Go back and read "On Liberty".


I do not "play" rubato I "am" rubato. And this time I schooled you.

yrs,
rubato


http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html

Chapter IV: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual

WHAT, then, is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? Where does the authority of society begin? How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society? 1
Each will receive its proper share, if each has that which more particularly concerns it. To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society. 2
Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences. ... "

[MajGenl.Meade]

I do not "play" rubato I "am" rubato. And this time I schooled you.
yrs,
rubato

Touche, el Douche!


Back at ya:

'winging'? Erm....no

whinge verb \ˈhwinj, ˈwinj\
: to complain in an annoying way
whinged, whing·ing or whinge·ing

You're just trying (and failing) to score selfie-points, aren't you? Once again, I'll patiently point out to you my agreement, right from the start, that "(s)he has the right to end her own life" but only as long as it does not place a burden on society - such as happens when people jump off buildings and cause clean-up expenses.

I disagree with your reasoning as to what and what is not for the greatest good of society. Cigarette advertising (and other restrictions on tobacco) is regulated because society has determined that smoking is harmful to society - health care costs are a cost to all of us and so, reportedly, is second hand smoke. Plus people and places do not smell nearly as badly. Such steps were not taken from any concern for individuals or to protect a minority - except for interfering busybody types. Hmm, you've a point - liberals all right.

Seat belt legislation is justified because of other choices society has made, the choice not to allow people to die and their children to die without medical care which is a common expense

. Exactly - a common expense. There would be no such legislation if the greater number did not wish to be protected against the actions of the lesser. While it may be arguable that a higher utilitarian view would be to let the individuals receive no healthcare (and thus remove that cost), the counter claim would surely include the costs of clean-up which are aggravated by bodies being scattered over the landscape.

More strongly, your argument has the logical extension of removing all "cost to society" actions on the basis of utilitarian philosophy (which of course is one of the greatest failings of the idea in the first place). However, society has determined that it does not want to live with the "cost to society" in non-economic terms that utilitarianism inevitably must produce.

Thanks for discussing, rubato.

[Lord Jim]

Example #10,437 why one should never, ever, EVER hook up their Irony Meter to a rubato post:

You examples were inapt and you would have more dignity to have admitted it rather than winging further.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh he was just winging it. Maybe he didn't mean "whinging"?

[TPFKA@W]

She did it. I hope she is peacefully pain free now.

[Lord Jim]

That's weird, she was on TV just a couple of days ago saying that she gad decided to wait and not do it this weekend...

[Crackpot]

Probably to throw off the protesters. You know the ones that would rob her of a peaceful passing in the name of forcing her to live a painful life?

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's weird, she was on TV just a couple of days ago saying that she gad decided to wait and not do it this weekend...

She was only gadding about that.