What right do you have?

[BigJohn]

I am not sure what you are saying.

When a situation occurs, for example a vehicle hitting a building or somebody being robbed, most people react the same - they freeze. At least this is what I have observed. People claim they will do this and that but in reality - they freeze.

Now if somebody should 'fight back': those hearing about it should not be judgmental. The criticizers were not present so they generally have no idea what was going on.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Really? Perhaps, but one has to consider what that phrase "a duty to one's self" all includes before we build a moral code around it.

Lets say for instance that you had a neighbor who you felt certain was planning to walk into a grade school with a gun and shoot a bunch of 5 and 6 year old kids. You feared that if you reported her, the police might not do anything anyway, as you had no proof. Then the neighbor may suspect you and try to go after you first.

What does one's duty to one's self call for in this sort of situation?

Oh of course.. actions and moral duty to help others goes without saying. I would be the first to help someone in danger. But I was talking about personal beliefs.it matters only to one self what we believe.. because each individual has to live with him/ herself. It is of little consequence whether the old lady next door shares your belief, for she is not you.

[

Originally Posted by BigJohn

I am not sure what you are saying.

When a situation occurs, for example a vehicle hitting a building or somebody being robbed, most people react the same - they freeze. At least this is what I have observed. People claim they will do this and that but in reality - they freeze.

Now if somebody should 'fight back': those hearing about it should not be judgmental. The criticizers were not present so they generally have no idea what was going on.

Perhaps most do freeze, I don't know. People will often claim they did this or that, but in reality they may have done something much different, and yet they are not lying, that is the memory they have of it. Some will often do very illogical things, such as put their hands up to block a bullet when someone points a gun at them, yet how many when asked what would you do if someone pointed a gun at you would answer that they would put up their hands to block the bullet. Some will claim to be an eyewitness to an event, and then end up forming memories and testifying to something rather different then what actually took place. When one is able to find evidence.... IDK....maybe security camera footage that shows what they are saying happened is totally inaccurate, others might wonder if this self professed eye witness was even there at all.

Maybe their body was there, but they weren't. I suppose it may depend on how one defines themselves. Am I my reptile brain, that id, reacting instinctively without thinking? Am I the thoughts going on in my cerebral cortex? The me that arrived at the accident after it was all over and is now telling everyone all about its memories of it. Does it take both to define me? Brain researches will tell us about how the thinking cerebral cortex will often make up stories after the fact and take credit for something that it knows nothing about. They will also tell us how our memory is not a record of events, but rather a story that we recreate each time we remember something. A story for which missing information is made up to fill in the details, and then held as truth by the brain, a story which then becomes the new basis for that original memory. Over time that memory story can become something quite different, not only from what the security camera footage would show if it exists, but even from the memory story that the person first started with, at which point the police say they keep changing their story and are unreliable. Yet what the police often fail to acknowledge is that an eye witness can even have a distinct and vivid memory of an event that never took place whatsoever. Some people like to define themselves by their memories, but whose memory is it when a false memory is intentionally placed in their mind, or even when a memory becomes more and more false over time. What would a person think if they define themselves by their past memories and are then shown that most of those memories are sketchy and many are just their imagination of what probably happened, as any original memory has either faded away completely, or been altered beyond recognition by time.

Silly brain, it thinks I am in it's cerebral cortex, but I was in it's stem during the accident. It may even have memories of the thoughts in the cerebral cortex during that accident, but the silly brain doesn't realize that ego me made it up and fooled itself into remembering it is really what happened. The silly brain keeps going back to that memory to recount what happened but doesn't realize the story it keeps telling itself and believing is changing each time it tells it.


I suppose those who were not there should not criticize is a good general rule. Of course if nobody else is there, then the detectives and judges have to critique the story of the accused as someone has to get to the bottom of it. But even when someone is there, often the story they tell may not be supported by the evidence at all, not because they are lying, but because the memories of the event are just a story the cerebral cortex made up to explain to itself why the events took place. The most useful story it could come up with. Useful for making sure that if the events take place again, it will know what to do to avoid them, provided it has time to react, otherwise it is back to the reptile brain and its reflexes to protect the brain from harm. But even if the cerebral cortex is late to the party again, and the reptile brain jumps in with those fast reflexes and saves the day, the reptile brain can’t talk, it’s memories are just stored emotions sometimes triggered at odd and seemingly unrelated times. Silly reptile brain, all he can do is stick his tongue out and catch flies and doesn’t even know he is doing it. So it is up to the cerebral cortex to make up a story about why the brain did what it did. A story that becomes a memory of what happened so that it can avoid similar circumstances in the future.

D’ oh! We started trying to define what my rights are, and now we can’t even define who or what has those rights. How am I supposed to define my rights if I can’t even define me?

Originally Posted by Elfin

Oh of course.. actions and moral duty to help others goes without saying. I would be the first to help someone in danger. But I was talking about personal beliefs.it matters only to one self what we believe.. because each individual has to live with him/ herself. It is of little consequence whether the old lady next door shares your belief, for she is not you.

Perhaps, but don't those beliefs end up driving our actions and reactions. If the old lady next door doesn't consider an intruder breaking into your bedroom window at midnight to be any of her business, is that no ones business but her own? Our beliefs and morals drive our actions and those actions affect the well being of others. So where do I start with that man in the mirror? With the actions after the fact, or with the beliefs and morals that drive them? An explanation that is often offered by those who do something we point out was wrong, is that although they now see how wrong it was, at the time they didn't understand it was wrong. How much expectation can we place on them to contemplate right and wrong actions and the morals and values they hold prior to the point where they act on their current understanding of such?

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Perhaps one would? In fact, there have been, perhaps are, and will be many more Hitlers, of many different shapes and sizes. But how far are you willing to take that argument? If you knew a lunatic was about to walk into a grade school with a semi-automatic weapon would you act, or would you say, why bother to risk my life and stop this one, another could just come along anyway?

The issue is that you have to change the cause that brought that situation, not to keep "shooting" down the symptoms.

Surely you have to act against the lunatic, and earlier than he becomes a present danger. I don't think that anybody argued that you shouldn't do what needs to be done to address a manifested issue.

What people don't think of, hence they don't do, is to address the cause, and here I bring the idea that the "thought" cause predates, and causes the manifested cause, then the manifested effect.

And the cause of that situation isn't the lunatic ...

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Really? Perhaps, but one has to consider what that phrase "a duty to one's self" all includes before we build a moral code around it.

Lets say for instance that you had a neighbor who you felt certain was planning to walk into a grade school with a gun and shoot a bunch of 5 and 6 year old kids. You feared that if you reported her, the police might not do anything anyway, as you had no proof. Then the neighbor may suspect you and try to go after you first.

What does one's duty to one's self call for in this sort of situation?

Do what your intuition says, and support the consequences. The worst thing you can do is to fear, hate your neighbor. Surely, you might be the lunatic ...

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Originally Posted by Starman
... thus freedom requires constraints.
... Certain communist ideologies definitely do not accept the concept of individuality.

Oxymoron in is, yet it is very relevant to the thread. We all feel we should have the freedom to believe what we want, and to integrate those beliefs into our actions. We might say it is our right to do so. Yet invariable, those beliefs and actions end up in direct conflict with others beliefs and actions and we struggle to figure out who's rights take precedence, and often it ends up being might rather then right that decides.

Certain spiritual ideologies definitely do not accept the concept of individuality. I think that is a mistake, though not quite so dangerous a one as one has eternity to correct it.

Many animals, for the sake of the group, don't pursue individuality ...

Everywhere in nature "might" wins, because "right" is relative. Each one of us believes to be "right" even the lunatics, and the abject criminals. Democracy doesn't yield the "right" either. Actually the United States came to be so successful because it is a republic, not a democracy.

Everybody is free to do whatever they believe to be "right", even whatever they want, but they have to accept inherent consequences.

My points against those two assertions, ware as stated:
- Don't redefine terms to fit your agenda!
- Don't even remotely defend or justify communism!

Originally Posted by inavalan

The issue is that you have to change the cause that brought that situation, not to keep "shooting" down the symptoms.

Surely you have to act against the lunatic, and earlier than he becomes a present danger. I don't think that anybody argued that you shouldn't do what needs to be done to address a manifested issue.

What people don't think of, hence they don't do, is to address the cause, and here I bring the idea that the "thought" cause predates, and causes the manifested cause, then the manifested effect.

And the cause of that situation isn't the lunatic ...

What is the "thought" cause the predates and manifests the lunatic?
How would one address this cause?

Originally Posted by inavalan

Many animals, for the sake of the group, don't pursue individuality ...

Everywhere in nature "might" wins, because "right" is relative. Each one of us believes to be "right" even the lunatics, and the abject criminals. Democracy doesn't yield the "right" either. Actually the United States came to be so successful because it is a republic, not a democracy.

Everybody is free to do whatever they believe to be "right", even whatever they want, but they have to accept inherent consequences.

My points against those two assertions, ware as stated:
- Don't redefine terms to fit your agenda!
- Don't even remotely defend or justify communism!

Are there no natural rights, that even if others fail to respect them, we still have?
We do all think we are right, but is there no objective truth to what is right?
You may be free to do what you like and think right, but should you be if you are not the only one to have to deal with the consequences?

I think the US is both a democracy and a republic, or rather a democratic republic with a constitutional underpinning or foundation. It became successful for a number of reasons, but like all democracies will eventually fail. Communism, now there is a beautiful idea....in theory....not so much in practice. It seems all forms of human government are plagued by the shortcomings of those who are governed. Democracies claim their right to govern comes from the governed and claim to ensure those rights, but as we see, determining and balancing all those rights gets complicated and messy.
I did understand why you responded to SM with your assertions, yet they proved useful to the overall discussion none the less. I think it is a mistake that both some spiritual and some political ideologies make. We are all individuals as well as part of a greater whole, the trick is to be able to satisfy the needs of both at the same time. Perhaps this is a greater truth of the universe as well, perhaps that is one thing we are here to learn?


.

Originally Posted by inavalan

Do what your intuition says, and support the consequences. The worst thing you can do is to fear, hate your neighbor. Surely, you might be the lunatic ...

Have you been peeking at my medical records? Sure I might be a lunatic, some might say it is even more likely then not. But if I think I might be a lunatic, should I still do what my intuition says?.. the consequences could be difficult to support.

Do we not lock the lunatic up because we fear they will do whatever they want and we will suffer the consequences?