|
CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Getting Involved -- On Ethics and Intervention in Lifestyle Practices (6/16/2009 7:58:40 AM)
|
Ok, so there has been a lot of valuable input, and I feel comfortable stepping into the encounter with my own commentary, having heard from a respectable number of people on their opinions of the subject matter -- so here goes, and feel free to comment.
quote:
1. If you are a person with a complete "butt out" perspective, how do you handle yourself when you see something happening around you that directly contradicts your ethical boundaries?
Ok, so I am, in general, a "butt out" kind of person. I am profoundly connected to the idea of personal responsibility and personal freedom. In general, I have two sets of ethical boundaries, I think. The first one is things that I will either require or will not be part of myself. The only other people I expect to meet these boundaries are the people that I am interacting with in regards to those boundaries.
The other set of ethical boundaries are ones that I expect -in general-. Those are pretty limited. One will not damage another person or others' property or livelihood, except in the cause of self-defense, and will make suitable reparation if accidental damage is caused through one's own actions, choices, negligence or failure to properly plan. I include 'failing to obtain consent' and 'failing to abide by withdrawn consent' in these areas. In the world, if I encounter a situation where an individual is being injured or property is being destroyed, and it is clear that it is without knowledge or consent, I will certainly either step in (if there is immediate risk to life/property that someone speaking up could stop) or will obtain help (in the form of officers of the law or other bystanders) to end what is happening. At the -least-, I will file a report of what I've seen, and provide any evidence that I can to bring the perpetrators to justice. In a scene situation, the only way I would intervene is if an individual -clearly- denied or withdrew consent, and another party acted anyway. As the earlier non-lifestyle cases, I would either step in myself and assure that the issue of consent was duly noted and that the individual denying/withdrawing consent was clearly heard and responded to appropriately, or I would find someone else (a DM...) who was responsible for overseeing such things and advise of the situation so that it could be dealt with. However, if the individual in question then reneged on that withdrawl of consent (ie, chose to continue to allow the behavior even though xhe'd previously denied permission), that would be it for me, and I would walk away with a clear conscience. That pretty much defines the limits of my impressing of my ethical boundaries on someone else.
quote:
2. If you are a person with a "step in and make the world a better place" perspective, what role do you see for self-direction, personal responsibility, and individual freedoms in whether or not you step into a situation?
I think that my best chance of "making the world a better place" comes out of paying attention to the people and processes in my immediate sphere of influence, and keeping my nose and morals out of other people's business, so this question doesn't really apply to me, I don't think.
quote:
3. For those who -do- feel compelled to act, do you only act in situations where someone actually -comes- to you to request your assistance, or do you also act in situations that you perceive to be requiring intervention, whether or not you are actively -asked- to intervene?
Sometimes I have been known to intervene where people have not come to directly request my assistance -- but in general, aside from message-board posting regarding opinions on a variety of matters, I don't really stick my nose much into other people's processes. I've had it clipped any number of times, so I've learned to keep my beak in my own cage, so to speak. I do try to help if people come to me for assistance -- but my own assistance usually comes with the requirement that they "do the work". If someone comes to me for help and wants me to 'fix' hir life, but doesn't want to do any of the work of getting hirself straightened out, you'll find me elsewhere pretty quickly!
quote:
4. For either party, how compelled are you to act either directly or by compelling "regulation" or encouraging development of restrictive laws in situations that do -not- directly affect you or yours, and which do not cause harm to another person or property, yet are -distinctly- morally repugnant to you?
I am more inclined to freedom-oriented perspectives. I don't think that laws beyond "you will not physically damage others, or do things or provide items that will do damage to someone else or hir property or livelihood" have much worth, and I am -definitely- in the "do not legislate my morality" camp. If something is morally repugnant to me, I don't participate with those people, nor do I confront them directly, giving them the right to defend their 'cause'. If what they are doing affects myself or someone for whom I am responsible, I will do whatever I need to do to protect myself and my family, short of taking a life. I don't really -care- if someone else chooses to destroy hir body, as long as that person isn't within my immediate sphere of influence -- and even then, if the individual in question is a grown adult, while I may -comment- on the behavior and indicate that I am unhappy with it, I fully acknowlege that a person has the right to do what xhe pleases with hir own body, as long as xhe is not injuring someone -else- in the process. If a drunk goes out and gets behind the wheel of a car and kill someone, I think xhe should be accused of murder, the same as if xhe'd used a knife or gun. On the other hand, if someone wants to sit around hir living room and drug hirself into oblivion, regardless of the intoxicant, well, that's on hir... and if a religion wants to base itself around seeking altered states of consciousness in any way they want, as long as the people participating are above the age of majority and are there of their own free will, I don't think the government should be able to step in and say "You have religious freedom, but you can't practice -that- sacrament because -we've- decided it's immoral."
So that's my nickle's worth of thougths... feel free to tear it up.
Dame Calla
|
|
|
|
