|
Your argument boils down to "this is how things are know so this is how they must be". No greater principle prevents the formation of a group of people qualified enough to perform major surgery yet unbound by an oath created in completely different times.
As an interesting note, the whole Czech healthcare runs on doctors' sense if duty as they are terribly overworked and underpaid, so this hypocratic spirit is actually useful. But this is not a desirable state anyway, so what.
Again, your sense of responsibility is appreciated, but it doesnt give you the right to decide upon life of others. Forcing people to live to pay up is horribly inhumane and it is basically slavery.
|
@opisska Yeah, I agree. We're rapidly approaching the point where traditional economies will change drastically, with mass automation and all and other technological advances becoming more and more main stream (biological/electronic enhancement). The ethics and morals of what we have now have to change accordingly. Not only that, I even argue that our current value system is arbitrary at best and should only be used on a case by case basis and not for sweeping generalizations.
Social setting is a very difficult topic because everybody wants something different, because everybody is different. This is why I think traditional politics also fail because they never manage to satisfy anyone. But I won't delve into this further.
(bio-)Ethics will always be a difficult topic as well because you have the tug and pull of the progressive and the conservative mindset. Some people want to go forward, other people are happy where it's at. It's the eternal conflict of ... literally anything.
|
On April 06 2017 20:13 opisska wrote: Your argument boils down to "this is how things are know so this is how they must be". No greater principle prevents the formation of a group of people qualified enough to perform major surgery yet unbound by an oath created in completely different times.
As an interesting note, the whole Czech healthcare runs on doctors' sense if duty as they are terribly overworked and underpaid, so this hypocratic spirit is actually useful. But this is not a desirable state anyway, so what.
Again, your sense of responsibility is appreciated, but it doesnt give you the right to decide upon life of others. Forcing people to live to pay up is horribly inhumane and it is basically slavery. Not really. My argument boils down to "this is how things are now, and there is a reason for that. It's fine to change things, but you need to acknowledge those reasons, and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". Some of those reasons are antiquated, but in the case of the Hippocratic Oath, the overarching framework is medical ethics. And those arguments I have seen in favor of throwing out the hippocratic oath are in favor of replacing it with some different oath which better covers the corner cases that are murky in current medical ethics (for instance Pellegrino's concepts). The most clear case of this is assisted suicide.
As for your assertion that it is slavery to "decide" upon the life of others, that's a rather brash assertion. I am not forcing anybody to live to "pay up". I am just pointing out why certain actions in your life enter you into a social contract that extends beyond simply your life. If you choose to have children (and lets be clear, I am pro-choice, so having children is a CHOICE), then you incur an obligation to care for them until our social contract decides that your obligation to care for them ends. What you are essentially arguing is that it is quite alright to commit suicide and have somebody who did not make the choice of having your children "pay up" to raise them as constructive members of society. Or maybe we should just resort to letting these children fend for themselves, in a true Randian fashion.
|
Norway28267 Posts
Acrofales, I have not seen specific numbers, but is not suicide far more common among groups that do not have children who need to be taken care of? I agree that through certain actions of your life you enter into a social contract extending beyond your own life, but I don't really think being born constitutes that.. And while I can agree that through choosing to have children kinda forces your hand, that parents are obliged to take care of their children, I don't think the same holds true for the opposite scenario; I don't think children have (any, really) obligations towards their parents.
|
Drone, do you believe that the student has any obligation to the teacher with regards to the thing taught? In other words, if someone appropriately teaches you that 2+2=4, do you have any sort of obligation with regards to not teaching someone else that 2+2=5? Like, I can appreciate the idea that everyone is free to regard their circumstances in their own right, but methinks a healthy sense of obligation should naturally arise with regards to beneficial relationships.
To put it another way, I feel extremely obligated to help my parents as they get older due in large part to all the assistance they've provided me, but I know I don't have to so much as I want to. Naturally, this won't be the case with everyone, but the idea that children should, as a general rule, feel that they owe their parents nothing seems misguided outside specific circumstances.
|
Not teaching someone != teaching someone something different. Your idea of children owing parents stems from the idea of having had a good upbringing. There's alot of broken families. There's a lot of bullshit parents. There's a lot of bullshit situations period. Regardless of upbringing even, one could come to the conclusion that life isn't not worth. You can't prevent that as parent, nor can -as in your analogy- the teacher prevent the student to think that 2+2=5 after all after so many years.
I'm happy for you that you're blessed and feel like you have some kind of purpose in this society, but sadly, for alot of people this isn't the case. It might be a side product of inherited and entitled privilege, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
Society is a self perpetuating no questions asked institution for a lot of people because they just want to get on with their lives, because it's too much of a hassle to go into that shit or because they don't have the mental faculties to do so. IMO there are numerous problems how we love today, but sadly it's just never going to be any other way because big changes upset people (and as a side note, that's why we like cats and dogs: dogs are obedient and cats need familiarity, traits we identify with strongly)
|
Norway28267 Posts
I think that a child will under normal circumstances feel a gratitude towards their parents that manifests itself as a perceived obligation, but I don't think this obligation is derived from being birthed. Like, most parents do their best parenting, and doing a good job parenting does entail some degree of big personal sacrifice, and if someone makes a big personal sacrifice to better my life quality I will feel obliged to repay them. But 'giving birth' isn't that sacrifice, I feel that is a choice parents make for themselves, not for the child. Teacher-student relations I guess are much the same - the status 'teacher' does not merit respect or appreciation by itself, but the self-sacrifice required to do a really good job teaching (and most teachers are good teachers and do quite a lot of unpaid work) should be appreciated. Dunno if I'd go as far as saying students have an obligation towards the teacher in not misconstruing what they've been taught or whatever, though.
|
On April 06 2017 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:I think that a child will under normal circumstances feel a gratitude towards their parents that manifests itself as a perceived obligation, but I don't think this obligation is derived from being birthed. Like, most parents do their best parenting, and doing a good job parenting does entail some degree of big personal sacrifice, and if someone makes a big personal sacrifice to better my life quality I will feel obliged to repay them. But 'giving birth' isn't that sacrifice, I feel that is a choice parents make for themselves, not for the child. Teacher-student relations I guess are much the same - the status 'teacher' does not merit respect or appreciation by itself, but the self-sacrifice required to do a really good job teaching (and most teachers are good teachers and do quite a lot of unpaid work) should be appreciated. Dunno if I'd go as far as saying students have an obligation towards the teacher in not misconstruing what they've been taught or whatever, though. Well I'm mostly mincing words here in order to avoid going down the path of borderline obscurantist postmodern virtue ethics like the kind I'm hinting at, but your clarification suggests that we agree. The act of birthing is not where the obligation takes root, rather it takes place over the time relative to the circumstances surrounding the relationships at issue. I think I'm getting at more of a normative view of families, meaning, in the ideal situation, children should feel obligated towards their parents, but in saying so, one assumes a particular set of facts.
On April 06 2017 22:45 Uldridge wrote: Not teaching someone != teaching someone something different. Your idea of children owing parents stems from the idea of having had a good upbringing. There's alot of broken families. There's a lot of bullshit parents. There's a lot of bullshit situations period. Regardless of upbringing even, one could come to the conclusion that life isn't not worth. You can't prevent that as parent, nor can -as in your analogy- the teacher prevent the student to think that 2+2=5 after all after so many years.
I'm happy for you that you're blessed and feel like you have some kind of purpose in this society, but sadly, for alot of people this isn't the case. It might be a side product of inherited and entitled privilege, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
Society is a self perpetuating no questions asked institution for a lot of people because they just want to get on with their lives, because it's too much of a hassle to go into that shit or because they don't have the mental faculties to do so. IMO there are numerous problems how we love today, but sadly it's just never going to be any other way because big changes upset people (and as a side note, that's why we like cats and dogs: dogs are obedient and cats need familiarity, traits we identify with strongly) I won't start a pity party here, but you are assuming a ton of things about me based on my view of families and I'd caution against that in the future, as there are people who will surprise you in terms of how these notions line up.
|
Speaking of this topic, how should I feel about my parents, who have probably given a honest effort in raising me up, but only to their very limited abilities, which may very well be the reason why I am now suffering from a serious condition that I could not have developed if my parents were able to not smoke around me as a child and provide me with better nutrition instead of the quite unhealthy traditional diet, not to mention that they have essentially given me nothing to work with in my life and I even had to support them financially even from my very limited income, because they aren't capable of sound financial decisions? I feel societal pressure to take care of them eventually, but I don't feel any internal need to do so. I do not particularly like them, I do not enjoy being around them and the idea of being involved with their day-to-day live is outright repulsive, because they are both pretty unsufferable when they have any issues. But the time will eventually come probably when they are gonna need care ...
|
Well, given what you've said, I think it's clear that "take care of them because they are your parents" is a bad starting place generally.
|
How am I assuming a ton of things? Reread my words and maybe you'll understand that I haven't assumed anything about you in the slightest, but the fact that you feel an obligation towards those that teach/nurture you.
I might see how the first sentence might seem as an assumption, but that's because I generalized here as this will be more rule than exception (what child will feel like they owe their parents something when their parents have been nothing but abusive? as a hyperbolic example). I said you're blessed not in the sense that you're blessed with a good upbringing per se, but with the sense of purpose because you've clearly conveyed that in your previous posts.
You're both looking at a "normal" family, but in reality I think the normal family is going to be found far less than you think.
|
Yeah, but what are the other options? The state doesn't really offer viable options for people who need 24h care, which may well happen to my father eventually as his aterosclerosis progresses. Surely, for acute conditions, they will take them to hospital, but elderly care is otherwise quite limited. I could pay for a nurse to be around them, but that is so insanely expensive ... Then also there is this problem that I am their only child (well, my father has a daughter with another woman, but she seems to care even less than I do) and I am not sure for how long I will be even walking, so the decision about helping the or not might not even be mine to make ...
|
On April 06 2017 23:18 opisska wrote: Yeah, but what are the other options? The state doesn't really offer viable options for people who need 24h care, which may well happen to my father eventually as his aterosclerosis progresses. Surely, for acute conditions, they will take them to hospital, but elderly care is otherwise quite limited. I could pay for a nurse to be around them, but that is so insanely expensive ... Then also there is this problem that I am their only child (well, my father has a daughter with another woman, but she seems to care even less than I do) and I am not sure for how long I will be even walking, so the decision about helping the or not might not even be mine to make ... I mean, this is the starting position for most arguments in favor of socialization of essential goods/services, as it seems clear that the alternative puts undue burdens on folks like yourself.
On April 06 2017 23:15 Uldridge wrote: How am I assuming a ton of things? Reread my words and maybe you'll understand that I haven't assumed anything about you in the slightest, but the fact that you feel an obligation towards those that teach/nurture you.
I might see how the first sentence might seem as an assumption, but that's because I generalized here as this will be more rule than exception (what child will feel like they owe their parents something when their parents have been nothing but abusive? as a hyperbolic example). I said you're blessed not in the sense that you're blessed with a good upbringing per se, but with the sense of purpose because you've clearly conveyed that in your previous posts.
You're both looking at a "normal" family, but in reality I think the normal family is going to be found far less than you think. Fair enough; I think the word "normal" is basically useless in contexts like this, but yeah, your point stands.
|
On April 06 2017 23:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 23:18 opisska wrote: Yeah, but what are the other options? The state doesn't really offer viable options for people who need 24h care, which may well happen to my father eventually as his aterosclerosis progresses. Surely, for acute conditions, they will take them to hospital, but elderly care is otherwise quite limited. I could pay for a nurse to be around them, but that is so insanely expensive ... Then also there is this problem that I am their only child (well, my father has a daughter with another woman, but she seems to care even less than I do) and I am not sure for how long I will be even walking, so the decision about helping the or not might not even be mine to make ... I mean, this is the starting position for most arguments in favor of socialization of essential goods/services, as it seems clear that the alternative puts undue burdens on folks like yourself.
Oh I fully agree then. I think we actually have this rather good in comparison the US (assuming your country tag is true, I think it is given your posting in the US pol thread), only this particular aspect is still lacking, because as the population ages, the capacities are trailing.
|
On April 06 2017 23:15 Uldridge wrote: How am I assuming a ton of things? Reread my words and maybe you'll understand that I haven't assumed anything about you in the slightest, but the fact that you feel an obligation towards those that teach/nurture you.
I might see how the first sentence might seem as an assumption, but that's because I generalized here as this will be more rule than exception (what child will feel like they owe their parents something when their parents have been nothing but abusive? as a hyperbolic example). I said you're blessed not in the sense that you're blessed with a good upbringing per se, but with the sense of purpose because you've clearly conveyed that in your previous posts.
You're both looking at a "normal" family, but in reality I think the normal family is going to be found far less than you think. A "normal" family is going to be found in approximately 68% of the time, if we make some mild assumptions, like that the normality of families follows a Gaussian distribution, and we call anything within 1 std deviation of the mean "normal". Of course, given that this is two-tailed, we could make some further assumptions that you are talking in particular about the chance of encountering a subnormal family and are less interested in those supernormal ones, so encountering a random family, there is effectively an 84% chance of that family being at least as good as "normal"
|
On April 06 2017 23:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 23:15 Uldridge wrote: How am I assuming a ton of things? Reread my words and maybe you'll understand that I haven't assumed anything about you in the slightest, but the fact that you feel an obligation towards those that teach/nurture you.
I might see how the first sentence might seem as an assumption, but that's because I generalized here as this will be more rule than exception (what child will feel like they owe their parents something when their parents have been nothing but abusive? as a hyperbolic example). I said you're blessed not in the sense that you're blessed with a good upbringing per se, but with the sense of purpose because you've clearly conveyed that in your previous posts.
You're both looking at a "normal" family, but in reality I think the normal family is going to be found far less than you think. A "normal" family is going to be found in approximately 68% of the time, if we make some mild assumptions, like that the normality of families follows a Gaussian distribution, and we call anything within 1 std deviation of the mean "normal". Of course, given that this is two-tailed, we could make some further assumptions that you are talking in particular about the chance of encountering a subnormal family and are less interested in those supernormal ones, so encountering a random family, there is effectively an 84% chance of that family being at least as good as "normal"
Yeah, but normal in that way is not what most people think about when they say "normal" family. When people say "normal" family, they usually mean loving married husband and wife, living together in a nice house, the husband works most of the day, while the wife takes care of most of the housework, except for the garden, which obviously the husband does. The wife might have a small job on the side, because she is a modern women, bust mostly she takes care of the 2-3 blond children, two boys and one girl, about 2-3 years age difference between them. The children are pretty good at school, but not outrageously, solid Bs all around, and maybe a D in something silly that noone care about like arts for the male children or maths for the girl. Each boy plays the appropriate sportsball game in his spare time, while the girl plays an instrument (Obviously not something uncouth like drums though, a nice instrument like the violin, or maybe even the cello if she is a wild one!). They go to church on sundays, and all of the neighbours say that they are really nice people.
Which means that about 3 families in total are normal.
|
Just do your share of community service and go adopt a kid, jeez.
|
Your version of normal is pretty scary mang.
|
On April 06 2017 19:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 18:48 opisska wrote:On April 06 2017 18:34 Uldridge wrote: What if you want to cut off your own arm so you can get a cyborg arm in true transhumanist fashion? What if you'd voluntarily want to replace your heart with a better working machine?
Where are the ethical boundaries there? Are there any at all? My body, my decisions, as long as i pay for it. If it becomes reliable and affordable, then let's also think about public healthcare funding, but that's long from now. I definitely do not accept that other people's possible ethical issues should affect what I do with my body. The only true issue is possible immortality vs. limited living space. There we can talk ethics, because in the current mainstream thinking its almost unsolvable. The only practicsl solution is "space for space" aka "have children? die at age xxx at last" but good luck trying to sell that. The second option of granting immortality based on merit or money is even more terrible and letting everyone live likely means killing them all at the end, also not very good. Sadly this is a little bit sour topic for me now as I have disfunctional the only part of body that wont be cyberreplaceable any time soon, the brain, so I wont profit much even if cyborgisation happen soon This kind of libertarian point of view breaks down when you start picking at it. For starters, suicide. What if someone truly feels they are not made for this world and want to end it (lets call it trans-living, because apparently adding trans in front of your shit makes it hip). Should you try to stop them? In my opinion, you should. Not only because there is probably something clinically wrong with them, but also because by being alive you incur obligations, and ending your life thus has effects that go beyond the very simplistic "my body, my decision". Perhaps more to the point in this case, assisted suicide or assisted *anything* that has more harm than benefit (such as amputating perfectly good limbs): doctors swear the Hippocratic oath for a reason, and amongst other things the modern version contains: Show nested quote + will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
And simplified versions are often simply "primum non nocere", or "first, do no harm". Most doctors, in most situations will have real problems with performing some cock-a-mamy surgery while upholding their oath. There's a case to be made for assisted suicide in the terminally ill. But beyond that, it is very very hard to find a justification for saying "the person wants this, so hell, lets do it". And furthermore, this complete self-determination over your body would allow one to sell bodyparts. In fact, in the extreme, what is to stop someone from selling his heart? The problem here is not in the self-determination, it's in the corrosive power of money. We can have this discussion, but in short it's an aberration of perverse incentives. Of course, most of this doesn't apply to post-humanistic arguments, where the surgery will lead to an "improvement". As for your immortality bit, I am ambivalent. I don't think immortality is an issue we have to worry about: our bodies are not immortal, and in fact very vulnerable (although longevity can continue to increase for a while more), meaning we will either be post-humans in a physical world by the time immortality comes around (aka robots with a human consciousness) or we will be uploaded into a virtual world and achieve immortality in that manner. In either case, lebensraum is far less of an issue (as is, in fact, reproduction). There's a world of difference between trying to persuade someone else that they shouldn't suicide/get a bionic arm/smoke/whatever because you think it's best for them, and actually forcing someone not to suicide/get a bionic arm/smoke/whatever because you think it's best for them.
|
Hope this is the right place to ask.
I am attending the international this year and was wondering when does the first game start for the final weekend? I think it is 10am but I just want to make sure so I can buy my flight to Seattle accordingly. Can someone who attended last year help me?
|
|
|
|