Demolition man....it's not 2032 yet, but we're almost there...

[DeppityDawg]

Howard? soddin autocorrect meant howzat 

I assume then that you agree with him that human well being is a "fact derived value" - in which case I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous post. Howzat for a fascist? 

[Borchester]

I think this is a solved moral question.

Human well-being is a fact derived value. If you want to abdicate any sense that this is knowable then I think that can be challenged with a few real world examples.

It is a bit like the Bhagavad Gita where Arjuna asks Krishna how he should live his life and Krishna says that he should do as he is bloody well told.

[cromwell]

I don't understand Ken? You'll have to explain? 

Howard? soddin autocorrect meant howzat 

[DeppityDawg]

What he says in the post before yours,Howard for a liberal?

I don't understand Ken? You'll have to explain? 

[DeppityDawg]

Everything mentioned in this post is fact based - illness, pain, medical procedures, desires etc. Changing those factual variables could change the outcome. This supports my claim.

In the above example as described I think the individual should have autonomy over their life/death.

It does nothing of the sort. Thats simply you being an elitist and deciding what you think is best, not what a person might actually want or what makes them "feel better"

Everything in it could indeed be said to be "fact based". But that is not what is being contested. You said that human "well being" was a fact derived value, and I don't agree. Something that might make you feel "well", might not make me feel well? The clue is in the words - you "feel" well or you don't. What factual measures can you use to decide that your feelings are worth more than someone elses?

Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal under English law. That you've had to climb down and conceded that someone should have autonomy over their own life and death in those circumstances kind of illustrates that its what someone might feel to be in their own best interests, not yours or anyone elses

[cromwell]

To you perhaps, Nalaar.

Is "well being" factual? I would say that it is highly subjective. Here's a real world example - if I were 80 years old and suffering acutely from cancer, it might well be "factual" to say that treating it with invasive surgery might be in the interests of my "well being". As an individual, and as an 80 year old, I might well argue back that, in pain and with more suffering as a result of surgery in prospect, with perhaps a life expectancy remaining of 5-10 years at best anyway, that I didn't want to undergo that surgery and should be left to pass in peace. Or even that I might want to end my life voluntarily? What would give you the right to decide what was or was not in the interests of my "well being"?

What he says in the post before yours,Howard for a liberal?

[Nalaar]

To you perhaps, Nalaar.

Is "well being" factual? I would say that it is highly subjective. Here's a real world example - if I were 80 years old and suffering acutely from cancer, it might well be "factual" to say that treating it with invasive surgery might be in the interests of my "well being". As an individual, and as an 80 year old, I might well argue back that, in pain and with more suffering as a result of surgery in prospect, with perhaps a life expectancy remaining of 5-10 years at best anyway, that I didn't want to undergo that surgery and should be left to pass in peace. Or even that I might want to end my life voluntarily? What would give you the right to decide what was or was not in the interests of my "well being"?

Everything mentioned in this post is fact based - illness, pain, medical procedures, desires etc. Changing those factual variables could change the outcome. This supports my claim.

In the above example as described I think the individual should have autonomy over their life/death.

[DeppityDawg]

I think this is a solved moral question.

To you perhaps, Nalaar.

Human well-being is a fact derived value. If you want to abdicate any sense that this is knowable then I think that can be challenged with a few real world examples.

Is "well being" factual? I would say that it is highly subjective. Here's a real world example - if I were 80 years old and suffering acutely from cancer, it might well be "factual" to say that treating it with invasive surgery might be in the interests of my "well being". As an individual, and as an 80 year old, I might well argue back that, in pain and with more suffering as a result of surgery in prospect, with perhaps a life expectancy remaining of 5-10 years at best anyway, that I didn't want to undergo that surgery and should be left to pass in peace. Or even that I might want to end my life voluntarily? What would give you the right to decide what was or was not in the interests of my "well being"?

[Nalaar]

In essence the point is, who has the right to decide what is a "better" world on behalf of others? No one is the answer.

I think this is a solved moral question.

Human well-being is a fact derived value. If you want to abdicate any sense that this is knowable then I think that can be challenged with a few real world examples.

[DeppityDawg]

Gosh - you don't have to don boxing gloves with me.

I was careful to point out that I wasn't referring specifically to 'you' but to a collective attitude

We have Thomas saying there is nothing to discuss and everyone moaning that politics has reached dullsville and there I go to try and create a discussion and get my head chopped off. It's Sunday we are supposed to be nice to people!

His definition of dullsville and yours may be completely different, and thats kind of the point. The film in question depicted a world where any kind of personal expression was heavily censored to suit a specific kind of idealism - a kind of idealism which leaves me cold and I would bet him too

I don't apologise for my idealism if that's what it is. I believe in a better world - surely most people do - it's how we achieve it that is the question. I don't know the film mentioned, it sounds like something I wouldn't waste time on, but if as you say everyone is a clone then no it isn't for me. I'll leave it there regretfully.

I'm not asking for you to apologise. I'm saying that what you (or anyone really) might describe as "ideal" other might be repulsed by. In essence the point is, who has the right to decide what is a "better" world on behalf of others? No one is the answer.

[T00ts]

And you seriously believe that you can create a world like that? How about "sterile", contrived and meaningless? It depends on whether you believe that human beings are all intrinsically "good" and can simply be "fixed" by elitist ideas about how we "should" behave? No thanks Toots. I'm a realist, not an idealist

If thats what you believe, thats up to you. But you (a royal you, not a personal you btw) aren't deciding what I can think and say in order to achieve your idealist principles. If personal freedom is the price of your idealism, then I want no part of it and will fight you every step of the way

Gosh - you don't have to don boxing gloves with me. We have Thomas saying there is nothing to discuss and everyone moaning that politics has reached dullsville and there I go to try and create a discussion and get my head chopped off. It's Sunday we are supposed to be nice to people!

I don't apologise for my idealism if that's what it is. I believe in a better world - surely most people do - it's how we achieve it that is the question. I don't know the film mentioned, it sounds like something I wouldn't waste time on, but if as you say everyone is a clone then no it isn't for me. I'll leave it there regretfully.

[DeppityDawg]

To try and turn the argument on its head - what if your dreaded future actually meant that people were no longer cruel, cheats, liars, thieves, bullies, drunkards, drug addicts, war mongers and all the other nasties that are prevalent in the world today. Would that make it any more attractive?

And you seriously believe that you can create a world like that? How about "sterile", contrived and meaningless? It depends on whether you believe that human beings are all intrinsically "good" and can simply be "fixed" by elitist ideas about how we "should" behave? No thanks Toots. I'm a realist, not an idealist

I agree that removing individuality is a step too far, but isn't a world without all those aforementioned horrors which allowed us all to live safely just a little bit attractive?

If thats what you believe, thats up to you. But you (a royal you, not a personal you btw) aren't deciding what I can think and say in order to achieve your idealist principles. If personal freedom is the price of your idealism, then I want no part of it and will fight you every step of the way

[papasmurf]

To try and turn the argument on its head - what if your dreaded future actually meant that people were no longer cruel, cheats, liars, thieves, bullies, drunkards, drug addicts, war mongers and all the other nasties that are prevalent in the world today. Would that make it any more attractive?

It would be more attractive me, but to achieve that goal would mean taking some actions not for the squeamish.

[Thomas]

I couldn't possibly say. But I suppose it will end "viscous" personal attacks. 

I know mate, that viscous comment was a feckin belter.

Imagine lecturing someone on their pees and qews and typos one minute , then the next falling foul of the very lecture that was given?

Talk about poetic justice and what goes around comes around?

Its a hard gig at the minute on here , there appears to be feck all going on in the world of politics to any degree except of course unles you are interested in yank politics.

Its all as you say doom and gloom chinese flu hysterics , and the repetitive drone of remain , so no wonder no one has anything new to say.

When you are reduced to picking apart a patbox post sneer , or taking a pop at smurf , or even reading a quackers post , you know the game is up.

Still it should liven up in about two weeks time.,......if trump gets elected , its going to be hysterical listening to the bleating cries of the liberal left .

Tbh, imagine a world full of complete (expletive censored)s, but you can't say anything? Utopia? Sounds more like dystopia to me

Without a doubt.

[T00ts]

My son (not entirely sure he wasn't mocking me) pointed out to me the other day how many things in that film are starting to look like the actual future. If you've never seen it, it's set in a liberals utopian future where smoking, drinking, swearing, eating meat and even sex are banned. Everyone is a wonderful lovely human being, but anything that even looks like it might be fun is illegal. Everyone looks, says and does the same things.

Some posters on here already have a head start mind, but it's coming.

To try and turn the argument on its head - what if your dreaded future actually meant that people were no longer cruel, cheats, liars, thieves, bullies, drunkards, drug addicts, war mongers and all the other nasties that are prevalent in the world today. Would that make it any more attractive? I agree that removing individuality is a step too far, but isn't a world without all those aforementioned horrors which allowed us all to live safely just a little bit attractive?