Meanwhile in Canada

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
No. But some people take it too far or they harass those without power, because they can, instead of challenging those at the top - they just mess whoever’s vulnerable enough to mess with. That may be a consequence of Socrates’ contributions.
Click to expand...
For sure, but Socrates didn't do that. He was, for the most part, questioning either purported experts or his own followers and students, who were there precisely to be questioned. But, yes, he actually acknowledged that some of his students did carry it too far. However, he (and I) believed that the need to question the claimed wisdom of others was vital to the functioning of democracy. Taking a purported "guru" or "thought leader" down a peg is something that isn't happening often enough in the age of social media.
 
WhyCzar said:
Do what? Legalize serial killing?
Click to expand...
Certainly not.

They also don’t examine theirs or each others’ lives. They just live them. And they’re valuable. We have the capability to think and to love. Some lack one or the other, some both. But love allows the inherent worth of fellow human beings even if the thinker can’t see it.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
But love allows the inherent worth of fellow human beings even if the thinker can’t see it.
Click to expand...
No thinker worth thinking about would deny that.

By promoting the idea that individuals should be free to define their own purpose, one promotes a society based on voluntary cooperation amongst fellow humans, mutual respect and the inherent worth of each person as an autonomous being.
 
WhyCzar said:
No thinker worth thinking about would deny that.

By promoting the idea that individuals should be free to define their own purpose, one promotes a society based on voluntary cooperation amongst fellow humans, mutual respect and the inherent worth of each person as an autonomous being.
Click to expand...
Unless they don’t want to do that. Then what?
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
Unless they don’t want to do that. Then what?
Click to expand...
Don't want to do what? Define their own purpose? The voluntary cooperation and mutual respect?

For the former, that shouldn't be a problem. Having no defined purpose usually means they just have chosen to live as they will and not have a guiding principle.

The latter, on the other hand, is problematic and is where things like laws and governments come in. A society where everyone cooperates and lives in harmony and mutual respect is wonderful, but the reality of human existence is that there are many people whose personalities simply won't accept that. They want to be right, they want to be in charge, they want their views enforced.

Interestingly, both your statement about "love allows the inherent worth of fellow human beings" and WhyCzar's about "the idea that individuals should be free to define their own purpose" both have resonance for me since they are similar to UU principles. They are not mutually exclusive and, indeed, recognizing the inherent worth of all persons is almost a prereq for those persons being free to define their purpose since once you accept that inherent worth, then you must also accept that they can, and should be able to, find their own purpose.
 
Which is why you have to have both principles and inherent worth (actually, it's inherent worth & dignity in UU'ism) has to take precedence. If you are respecting the inherent worth of every person, then you can't hold to a destructive purpose since inevitably, someone will be harmed.
 
Mendalla said:
Which is why you have to have both principles and inherent worth (actually, it's inherent worth & dignity in UU'ism) has to take precedence. If you are respecting the inherent worth of every person, then you can't hold to a destructive purpose since inevitably, someone will be harmed.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of people with power - and some who use what little they’ve got - who don’t believe in the inherent worth of everybody person. It is a bit of a quandary for both to coexist. Like goldfish sharing a shark tank.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
who don’t believe in the inherent worth of everybody person
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is the crux of many, if not most, of our problems. Humans generally don't respect each other's worth. They create ideologies that say that not all humans have inherent worth and dignity and that define who does and doesn't. Or they assign degrees of worth instead of just accepting all have equal worth.

Being human should be enough to merit that respect. And by "human", I would include hominins (i.e. all species belonging to the genus homo as well as direct ancestors like the australopithicenes) and maybe even hominids (i.e. all hominins plus the great apes). And an argument could be made that all of nature has inherent worth and dignity that we should also be talking about respecting.
 
Equal inherent worth gives everyone the starting point.

Self-respect is how you claim and maintain that worth in practice.

When self-respect is weak, ideologies of graded worth or transactional respect fill the void?
 
WhyCzar said:
How do you have less power than I do?
Click to expand...
WhyCzar said:
How do you have less power than I do?
Click to expand...
More oppressive policies and societal practices to live under as a disabled person than you do. I’m not confusing inherent worth - which is equal - with power - which is not. No, not the same starting point in society. Society doesn’t actually - despite human rights laws in place but disregarded - recognize inherent worth in practice. Maybe in small pockets of it but mostly not or we wouldn’t have legalized track 2 MAiD, there wouldn’t be a housing crisis, etc.

Hard to exercise your ‘power’ to live as you wish, participate, or for collective cooperation when you can’t even get into a building. Not saying that can’t or shouldn’t change but as an individual I have less power in society than you, as an individual, do.
 
Last edited:
WhyCzar said:
I doubt it.

View attachment 12327
Click to expand...
Uh huh. So I just spend a lot of time online because physically my options have been limited by “free society” who doesn’t think of us in their free minds. And people who spend a lot of time online are often shamed for it. It’d be great if I could join or meet friends in what they’re doing if it was accessible to me. My ideas are often met with frustration that doing stuff with me is too complicated - why can’t I just make myself more convenient? I’d love to go see some live music. The last venue I checked out had many stairs. The best idea was maybe a bouncer could carry me. Which would mean I’d need help to the bar or to the bathroom. Even if a walker was carried up. That’s okay if it was something I had to do - but to live out in the world with real equality I’d need my scooter in there. I can’t. That diminishes my “power” to socialize and connect and have fun so I don’t get too down. They likely wouldn’t fork out for a lift to level the physical “playing field”. Being able to use my scooter makes me feel less “disabled”. People don’t get that.

There is no accessible way for me to travel up island to go sightseeing for the day with my scooter. If I took my walker I would not be able to walk far to see much. Renting one is complicated for me, and expensive - I already have one. Wanted to join a writing group but they met upstairs (two different groups, two different staircases) and they wouldn’t alter their established arrangements. Trying to impose some kind of human rights rules on a private social group becomes futile, and antisocial. Not that I can’t do anything but there’s a lot more work society could do, to think of us and plan us into it so we can do more. But they brought in MAiD instead. That means, currently you have more power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top