continuing from mrcheapass's post.

[ogiwij]

I'm not sure I'm as an advocate of freedom of choice as I think I am. There seems to be some complication with inequalities, due to everyone else's lack of responsibility(?), and it's practically unnecessary for people to die and barely survive within a world where others are living luxuriously; I doubt the aforementioned chose that fate. It all

Comments

[anonymous]

" There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it,"
- Atwood, _The Handmaid's Tale_

It is unnecessary, but it's hard to imagine those in power giving it up for equality. I'd like to think it could happen, something closer to equality, a situation where freedom of choice exists, but I'm not so sure it's possible given human nature. We're inherently selfish creatures, motivated by a need to survive.

Is there really freedom to choose? Given the situation where you can choose to kill or be killed, is there really a choice if an individual's ultimate goal is to preserve life? Some situations offer an alternative to choose, but perhaps the freedom of choice doesn't really exist.

There has to be some sort of balance but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Maybe I'm just totally off.

I move home at the end of April. Let me know what you're up to.

-Layne

[ogiwij]

oh wow, so funny.. I have just recently read that, and remember that quote specifically.. I even mentioned it to my prof

[ogiwij]

I'm not so sure I was talking specifically about killing per se, the situation I wanted to propose was something more along the lines of someone is trying to kill you and you can either kill him in self defense or let yourself be killed. I was thinking that while there is the choice to die, I think most people would try to defend themselves (especially knowing they probably wouldn't be charged with murder since it was in self defense). Yet, they would have to live with the fact that they killed someone. I feel that freedom of choice in that situation is compromised. I guess its when you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't know...I just feel that there isn't always freedom of choice. Not to sound too deterministic, but I think choice is limited

[ogiwij]

ah yeah, I can see where freedom of choice is definitely limited to any person naturally defending themselves (in that situation); kill or be killed as you said, I understand what you were saying now.

Morally correct.. agreed, although too bad it's mostly acknowledged only in theory or concept. Maybe unjust sounds too brutal, or moral even, but it practically is.

You might agree too, but as social responsibility may not sound exactly fair in a country not founded on it, it's easily understood that corporation and economics, which justifies capitalism, has taken over any morality this country was founded on (for the most part). If social responsibility were to have any legal influence, I'd start with business. Although, why am I ranting.

[ogiwij]

I don't know if you can enforce social responsibility legally. I guess you could, but what I think it comes down to is you can't make people actually care. You can make them go through the motions and that would help, but it's changing people that's the problem. Making people less disaffected. I'm not saying I am disaffected...I ignore a lot of problems and fail to take action to help worthy causes. Maybe people who don't care but act anyways are better than people who care but don't act? I'm not sure, nor am I sure where I'm going with this.

When do you come back from State?

-Layne