The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC) stated with insight "Justice is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed." Fast forward some 1800 years, John Locke (1632-1704) wrote similarly, "No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." Similar only if one compares the proper elements of these two quotes or axioms and others like them. For what is justice if harmed but injustice. What is life, health, liberty and possessions if harmed but injury to these things in various possible forms; termination, affliction, subjugation, confiscation and incalculably more.
The common operative is "if harmed", that is to say, if perceived as such by the individual. If perceived as harmful, it is solely due to the individual dissenting to the arraignment. In contrast, if perceived as beneficial or at least not harmful, it is solely due to the individual consenting to the same arrangement.
Lets be clear. Popular or majority opinion have no more ethical justification to intrude, intervene or impose upon individual perception than minority or oligarchical opinion. Determining what is harmful per dissent or not harmful per consent is strictly a matter quite individual thus ethical else a matter quite tyrannical thus unethical. Only covetousness, presumption and arrogance would reject the aforementioned, and only violence would react to it. My apologies.
Note:
For more on this topic, see the following in my 10th book entitled 100 Proems & Poems on the Peculiar Human ABILITY to REASON, Singular Human RIGHT to CONSENT & Other Neglected Matters (either link)...
No. 25 - To Consent Is Unalienable
No. 26 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 1st Reprise
No. 27 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 2nd Reprise
No. 28 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 3rd Reprise
No. 29 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 4th Reprise
...and related issue, see...
No. 96 - Jefferson, Epicurean or Lockean / Part 1
No. 97 - Jefferson, Epicurean or Lockean / Part 2
No. 98 - Jefferson, Epicurean or Lockean / Part 3
Unedited/draft version,
https://cafeperq.blogspot.com/2017/07/ability-to-reason-right-to-consent_45.html
Edited/published version...
https://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-ABILITY-Singular-CONSENT-Neglected/dp/1532053665/
The common operative is "if harmed", that is to say, if perceived as such by the individual. If perceived as harmful, it is solely due to the individual dissenting to the arraignment. In contrast, if perceived as beneficial or at least not harmful, it is solely due to the individual consenting to the same arrangement.
Lets be clear. Popular or majority opinion have no more ethical justification to intrude, intervene or impose upon individual perception than minority or oligarchical opinion. Determining what is harmful per dissent or not harmful per consent is strictly a matter quite individual thus ethical else a matter quite tyrannical thus unethical. Only covetousness, presumption and arrogance would reject the aforementioned, and only violence would react to it. My apologies.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Note:
For more on this topic, see the following in my 10th book entitled 100 Proems & Poems on the Peculiar Human ABILITY to REASON, Singular Human RIGHT to CONSENT & Other Neglected Matters (either link)...
No. 25 - To Consent Is Unalienable
No. 26 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 1st Reprise
No. 27 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 2nd Reprise
No. 28 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 3rd Reprise
No. 29 - To Consent Is Unalienable / 4th Reprise
...and related issue, see...
No. 96 - Jefferson, Epicurean or Lockean / Part 1
No. 97 - Jefferson, Epicurean or Lockean / Part 2
No. 98 - Jefferson, Epicurean or Lockean / Part 3
Unedited/draft version,
https://cafeperq.blogspot.com/2017/07/ability-to-reason-right-to-consent_45.html
Edited/published version...
https://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-ABILITY-Singular-CONSENT-Neglected/dp/1532053665/
No comments:
Post a Comment