Feedback, if you please
Consider the following quote:
The limit to your freedoms is where other peoples and other sentient beings freedoms begin. In other words, you don't have the right to harm others.
- Doc Trejo, who is appearently a Spanish muscician, though I could easily imagine this coming from the Dalai Lama
I'm inclined to agree outright with this statement. But by the same token, then, am I committed to rejecting paternalistic assistance towards others? I don't think this applies if, say, I were merely to offer help to another, as that sentient being would still have the freedom to choose to accept or decline the invitation. But what of helping others without their knowing? I don't want to say too much on this, as I'd like to hear what your take may be. Feel free to leave a comment or IM me on this one.
- Doc Trejo, who is appearently a Spanish muscician, though I could easily imagine this coming from the Dalai Lama
posted by J.B.P. at 10:46 PM
3 Comments:
Okay, continuing our conversation, you really need to read Rand. The short answer is yes. But there are issues, because looking back somebody might decide to "retroactively" accept the help in some cases (or even harm). Probably the most common case is parent/child relationship, which is exactly why we do not see children as legitimate adults.
Let me just say with your paternalistic help idea there are lots of interesting parallels to government actions on behalf of their citizens, i.e. the current row over the "terrorist surveillance" or "electronic espionage" program.
Let me just edit my post to say that I don't believe Rand is completely correct here. Just that she says some very interesting things on this subject. The short answer is MY short answer, I talk like that sometimes. Sorry.
yes, i agree. however, i'm having problems deciding why. i'll think about it over coffee.
aw
Post a Comment
<< Home