Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
|
Your example regarding the pregnant woman is ridiculous because a husband would want to support his wife in childbirth. Yes, he has the right-of-way not to support her if he prefers, but why would he prefer this knowing that by supporting her he is showing his love, which will make her love him all the more and offer him the security of a loving relationship? Obviously, you didn't read that part
|
I am glad you brought his up again! I do not think your objection is a very good one, because we are not talking about preference: that same man might want to stay in and help his wife cook dinner, sure. And he might prefer to attend the birth.
But what we are discussing is an ethical rule: the man's desire gets right of way, so it is ok for him to go see a movie. Or go golfing in stead of attending the birth, or what have you. |
It's not a rule where there are external consequences Vivisectus. If you choose not to follow it, that's your decision. You're fighting a losing battle because I'm not trying to convince you to yield to another if you think you're right about demanding that others do for you even when they don't want to. You don't get it at all!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You are trying to hand-wave this away, claiming that this would not happen, but that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that as an ethical rule, your right-of-way system is completely silly. It all depends on the situation if it is OK to take the right of way. My desire to go see a movie does not out-weight my wife's desire to have me home to help her cook dinner per se, based on the fact that her desire requires my aid: it all depends on the circumstances. If she had recently had bad news, it would not be OK for me to leave.
|
Your wife has the right to ask you to aid her in helping to cook dinner, but she would never demand that you stay home if you desired to do something else. The irony is that she would only want you to stay home if it gave you pleasure. Because of this non-judgmental rule, everything takes an about face, and people are more concerned for the other's happiness than their own. But you don't get it at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
The point is that the rule that is proposed is poorly thought out and leads to ridiculous situations that no-one would consider ethical.
|
It's the most ethical and fair means of finding a solution when there is a conflict. It can actually save marriages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You admit this, but try to pretend that this would never happen because people would not be capable of doing unethical things... but we are discussing the rule that must be followed to ensure exactly that! Once again you are required to reason in circles to make Lessans seem to make sense.
|
You are the one going in circles just so you can claim that you are right. This rule does not have to be followed to ensure ethical behavior. This rule is to be followed because it prevents arguments, and it only is followed if someone wants to follow it. There is no one that is going to tell you what to do. You are so confused, it's no wonder you don't believe Lessans has anything worthwhile to offer the world; you understanding nothing. It's really sad that a simple formula has taken on such huge proportions in your eyes, because you want Lessans to be wrong, but he's not wrong. That's the bottom line.