|
Bobkgin -> RE: "Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" (O.O) (8/23/2007 12:16:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
People tend to act as they will to fulfill their own ends as they see fit. (There is an obnixiously common misconception that helping others isn't selfish. One who has this notion may have to suspend it for the sake of understanding this argument.) When one is beyond reproach of others, not needing their resources, acceptance, nor even the assurance that they don't be assaulted by them in the night, lessly observed traits may appear as previously insignificant selfish points become more important to the individual than anything that another could do.
I'd suggest, for analogy, one consider his own treatment of insects, or even unicelluar creatures. You do not care for them, do you? Is their existence often meaningful to you? Do you even care about how many you kill when you drive the car, or, in the case of some of the smallest creatures, kill when you move about? Suddenly, though, do you not become aware of them when they can hurt you? (HIV, scorpians, black widows, etc.)
To a far larger degree than insects, we empathize with other human being as a form of life, similar to ourself, and, therefore, in a way, part of ourself. The selfish urge to see ourselves in others is diminished when we can seperate ourselves from others in observing more contrasts. This is a minor factor, though, compared to the fact that one with power is no longer subject to the threats of others; he needn't be concerned with their reactions.
A mitigating point to all of this is that one who has considered himself one of others, and subject to them, during his formative years is liable to retain this notion as part of his personality. Such an individual, which one might coin "a moral" person, could attain absolute power and still act with regard for others, or, this is to say, without great corruption.
Edit: This was strongly abridged due to time constraints. (One may notice the start of points or examples which lack elaboration.) But there is one great example I did want to include. Abortion. Look at the stances on it.
People are kept in line by two forces: wanting to help the part of themselves that they see in others, wanting to help themself (to include the parts that they may see in others) by avoiding wrath, including that of by others.
The unborn are marvelous examples of the contrast between these two aspects. You see, one group sees themselves in the unborn- they see them as human, wishes to protect them (pro-life). (It is important to understand that the proper pro-life argument is not that fetuses are as adult humans, but surficiently like adult humans to recognize them similarily.) However, others do not to such a degree. Here, you have the pro-choice camp. Some of them see such a lack of themselves in the fetuses that they completely do not care. Others see a bit, and think that abortion is a tradgety, but not enough of one to push aside the interests of those who are more closely resembled to them.
Here, you have the line. I love this example since, normally, many people can come together and agree on which side of the line to be on- in this case, though, there's a fair split. And, wrath isn't an issue.
You see, two things are in play: empathy for self and wishing to avoid wrath. Fetuses offer no wrath. So, when it comes down to it, ignoring the opinions of other adults, one considers the level of empathy. Should they be corrupt (such as mentioned in a recent thread where Indian familes did not care for female fetuses), they would opt in their own, personal interests. Should they not be corrupt, they will opt in deference to the rights of the other- the other who is defenseless.
Fetuses are defenseless. How would you treat one? A good start at examining one's own corruption.
You have raised an excellent question.
Were I female I would not abort (I know, as a male that is easy to say, but many years of thought along these lines offers me comfort that this is true for me).
Having said this, I refuse to prevent others from obtaining one for their own reasons.
Why?
Because trying to prevent others from aborting is a worse evil (and would bring on worse evils) than refusing to intervene.
I oppose the state intervening and telling anyone what they can and cannot do with their body.
I oppose the concept that a fetus owns its mother, and the concept that the fetus needs someone other than its mother to act as its guardian.
Down that path lays a form of slavery, where pregnant women lose control over their own bodies and must submit to the dictates of a bureaucracy that values the fetus over the mother.
Those who argue pro-life are not a monolithic group either. There are those who accept exceptions based on the manner in which the fetus was conceived.
For example, a fetus conceived due to incest or rape can be aborted, but not one that results from a broken condom.
Is there any moral justification for arguing that one fetus is more deserving than another based on how it was conceived? I don't see that there is.
Either all fetuses have a right to be born, or none do.
My argument is that it is the choice of the mother to use her body as she sees fit: to either nurture a fetus or to terminate it.
This is not granting them any rights to make this choice. They have -always- had this right, some choosing to kill themselves rather than give birth to the fetus.
Given the manner women used before safe legal abortions were available, I'd prefer the safe, legal kind if any method must be used.
While I would choose to carry to term, I lack the wisdom and insight into another's life to make that decision for them.
I see no other path if I am to respect a woman's right to control her body.
|
|
|
|
