POLL: Fair?

Remove all ads!

the Serenity movie got me thinking about this, but it applies just as well today.
1.)Is it fair for a person or group who knows someone else is making a terrible(catestrophic) mistake to force the right choice on them even if the consequences won't affect the first party?
2.)Is it their responsibility to do so (Q1)?
3.)Is it fair for an international power (US, UN, etc) to excize a corrupt foreign government even if the government isn't hurting them (think Iraq).
4.)Is it their responsibility to do so (Q3)?

Poll Information
This poll contains 4 question(s). 8 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Fair? (8 votes.)

Force right choice? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 13% (1)
* No - 88% (7)

Responsibility to do so? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 25% (2)
* No - 75% (6)

Force just government? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 25% (2)
* No - 75% (6)

Responsibility to do so? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 25% (2)
* No - 75% (6)

 

The only responsibility any discrete entity has to any other is to provide advice and guidance UPON REQUEST. Anything more than that is gross interference, especially coming from a party who is otherwise completely uninvolved.

 

While it's not right to enforce morality on someone, this doesn't relieve the obligation to try to dissuade them from the wrong choice.

In the place of nations, the UN was created to prevent such abuses, and have done a piss poor job of it lately...

 

To point out the wrongfulness of a potential choice and try to dissuade someone from making a mistake is a responsibility but the use of force should always be carefully weighed.

If I were a country leader and the neighbouring country had a bloody dictator and it were in my power to remove the dictator without inflicting more pain in the process than the dictator's continued rule would (if my intervention wouldn't cause more pain and suffering than leaving the dictator alone), I would intervene. Diplomacy first, covert ops second, war last. It would be my responsibility by means of the universal responsibility for the other human being. As John Paul II (who was n.b. opposed to bringing war to Iraq) said, no one can disclaim responsibility for another human.

Also, as anyone, I would be responsible to try and prevent a suicide or self-mutilation attempt, even by force. Or to prevent someone from going somewhere where he would find death or incur great injury.

 

Come to think of it, I have positioned myself between my cousin's fiance and the ******* that vandalized my cousin's car and was prepared to restrain the guy so that he didn't fight the ******* infront of a pair of Toronto's Finest...

 

Advise, caution or attempt to persuade, yes.

Force, no. Not unless the action would have serious consequences for people other than the do-er.

Also, there's a real difference between "rights" and "responsibilities": a right is an entitlement that cannot be taken away from you, while a responsibility is a duty that you are charged with upholding.

As I see it, one has a moral and/or ethical responsibility to try and dissuade such a course of action - even if it's unwanted advice. If it's only going to affect the actor, you have no right to intervene to force them not to. You may feel a moral imperative to help, but that's a different issue from having a right to do so, and you certainly don't have a right to dictate the actions of others.

I feel the same way as Chev about suicide; I've lost too many people that way. However, that's .