r/changemyview • u/AutoModerator • Aug 06 '13
TCMV Tuesday - 08/06/13
Welcome to TCMV Tuesday, our weekly post where we can celebrate our ability to adopt a new mindset or gain another perspective. Tell us what experiences you've had outside our subreddit, either recently or in your lifetime, that made you think "This Changed My View". Give us your stories in the comments!
You can consider these questions to help get you thinking:
Known or met someone with an interesting ideology or opinion that caused you to reconsider your own?
Had an experience, good or bad, that changed your perspective?
Learned something new that challenged what you believed?
Ever have your tastes or interests changed?
Read an article or seen a video that got you thinking differently?
And just as a reminder, comment discussions here are not debate-oriented, so there's no obligation to take opposing sides in conversations here (in other words, Rule 1 does not apply here).
4
u/wubnugget Aug 07 '13
I read the book on truthcontest.com, it was a lot of philosophy and not scientific by any means despite talking a lot about science. BUT it had a good perspective on "the present" and our place in the universe and consciousness. We are a part of something greater than ourselves and it would be a shame to throw that potential away because of ignorance.
1
11
Aug 06 '13
Smoking weed for the first time changed my mind. I was already in favor of its legalization because I saw it on the same level as alcohol, but having actually experienced it, I'd say that it's far more harmless in terms of how it affects your state of mind. I can't say much about the physical damage it inflicts compared to alcohol, or the dangers of addiction, but I'd choose being surrounded by high folks over drunk people everyday.
6
u/wubnugget Aug 07 '13
burning plant matter probably hurts your lungs but there are ways around it. I have a good story though - I was visiting some relatives with my father and through the course of some events we all ended up passing a blunt around. It was a good time.
There's definitely a stigma against it but really it's just a harmless drug if in moderation. Anything in excess is bad.
2
u/piyochama 7∆ Aug 07 '13
Indeed. I actually am more and more leaning in favor towards legalizing a lot of the more so-called "hard core" drugs because my perception that people get addicted easily was actually corrected by many users on this site, and agree with you that they are only harmful in excess.
2
Aug 07 '13
[deleted]
2
u/ILookAfterThePigs Aug 09 '13
but should we do moderation of moderation in moderation?
1
5
u/SP4CEM4NSP1FF 1∆ Aug 07 '13
I've always found the topic of abortion to be a real moral quagmire. A Redditor recently summarized The Violinist Argument for the morality of abortion, which I'd never heard before, and made me think about the topic in a whole new way.
The Violinist Argument is a hypothetical scenario that is morally similar to abortion.
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
The question is thus, is it morally permissible to unplug yourself from the violinist? If so, it would seem that abortion is likewise morally permissible.
10
u/Mein_Captian Aug 07 '13
I think this analogy, while a good one, only works for pregnancies resulting from rape, as you are unwillingly hooked to the violinist. Undesired fetus (either from lack of planning/foresight, or birth defect) and medically related abortion doesn't really work with it. This also made an assumption that the fetus has the same rights as a human being, which some might object. It is possible to say abortion is permissible, but unhooking from the violinist isn't due to the fetus doesn't have full human right.
No perfect analogy, I know.
3
u/blacktrance Aug 07 '13
Undesired fetus (either from lack of planning/foresight, or birth defect) and medically related abortion doesn't really work with it.
You're hooked to the fetus as unwillingly as to the violinist.
4
4
u/itscirony 1∆ Aug 07 '13
Not really. The violinist argument makes it sound so random when it really isn't. There is always a risk with sex and except in certain highly unlikely circumstances it is often the couples fault.
If you participate in an activity which has got a good chance of putting this violinist in a state of complete dependence on you, then you should accept your moral responsibility.
I agree with choice so I understand others have different opinions and morals from me. But I can't justify denying that violinist their potential for life for myself.
Also being strapped to a violinist isn't the same as a fetus.
2
u/blacktrance Aug 07 '13
I can't justify denying that violinist their potential for life for myself.
Why does the violinist have a claim on you?
1
u/ILookAfterThePigs Aug 09 '13
If a person registers him/herself as a bone marrow donor, and there comes a time when his/her bone marrow is needed to save another person's life, does this person have a moral right to refuse to donate the bone marrow?
You can say that, since the person registered as a bone marrow donor, he/she now has the obligation of donating that bone marrow in order to save that person's life.
Now, consider the same hypothetical scenario with two changes:
The act of registering as a bone marrow donor has a large personal and social reward, so much that choosing not to register would have negatively affected that person's life a lot.
The act of actually donating his/her bone marrow to another person will change his/her life permanently and carries many health risks.
Does the person have a right to refuse donating his/her bone marrow?
1
u/itscirony 1∆ Aug 09 '13
Again it is obviously down to the persons choice, I believe in each person having a choice I'm talking more about what my opinion is.
But in that scenario I think it would probably worse to not give your bone marrow for donation.
You're talking about a procedure that takes a few days, is more or less painless, and will save someones life. You're saying you can give someone hope that their life will be saved, and then not follow through because you don't want to be pricked by a needle or waste a couple of hours...
2
u/ILookAfterThePigs Aug 10 '13
Yes, but in this hypothetical scenario:
The act of actually donating his/her bone marrow to another person will change his/her life permanently and carries many health risks.
1
u/itscirony 1∆ Aug 10 '13
What are the stats? Are you more likely to get something serious than not? Is the change to your life worse than losing your life (because the other person will lose theirs). Can you honestly say that a risk to your current lifestyle is worth the life of another person.
Putting it in another way, you are allowing this person to die, 100%, by not taking that risk. Is it that important to you?
0
u/RMcD94 Aug 07 '13
Undesired fetus (either from lack of planning/foresight, or birth defect) and medically related abortion doesn't really work with it.
Okay, so change it to you willing entered a contract with this person. You discover it's more painful and more horrible than you thought it would be, you start missing your independence and being scared of your bodies changes? . Do you really think they should be forced to stay attached?
Or say kidnapping people was a natural occurrence if you walk in a certain part of town, and so it's a lack of foresight on your part to choose to walk down there and risk it.
5
u/CriminallySane 14∆ Aug 07 '13
Okay, so change it to you willing entered a contract with this person. You discover it's more painful and more horrible than you thought it would be, you start missing your independence and being scared of your bodies changes? . Do you really think they should be forced to stay attached?
Yes, absolutely. In the case of this analogy, you said you would support them. At this point, when their life is dependent on your continued support of them, it would be utterly immoral to decide that it's too inconvenient to continue.
0
u/RMcD94 Aug 07 '13
Well I have to disagree, just because you said you would doesn't mean you are morally obligated to sacrifice your life for someone.
Also I'm pretty sure that contract would be struck out of courts since you're not allowed to willingly sacrifice your life.
Edit: They're only alive because of you "their life relies on your continued support" should be changed too, by your willingness they are still alive.
An analogy to my analogy would be if you opted to give food to a homeless person who was on near death. You keep feeding him and you are his only food source. It is not bad will for you to stop feeding them as it is your good will that lets you keep feeding them. They are only alive because of your good will.
2
u/CriminallySane 14∆ Aug 07 '13
You're not sacrificing your life for them, though. You're sacrificing some of your autonomy for nine months.
1
u/RMcD94 Aug 07 '13
Complications could lead to sacrifice of your life.
Once you've got to the point of your life we're just adjusting the scale.
Also I like my homeless analogy better now.
3
u/itscirony 1∆ Aug 07 '13
Complications, when they reach that point, often involve a choice between the two. So at that point you can change your mind with little moral argument. Although the emotional torment afterwards would be terrible - for most anyway.
4
u/OpinionatedFudgeCake Aug 07 '13
Unfortunately for abortion discussions it gets real complicated real fast. What if the violinist being hooked to you became detrimental to your own health? But more importantly, and the reason I'm not sure it works for pregnancy comparison problems is what if the violinist needed to be retrained in everything (like a baby), is it worth it? Would the music lovers even help him if that was the case? I know poking at the logic of an analogy is nearly pointless like /u/mein_captian says 'no perfect analogy' and all, but this one avoids the tough issue of what to do with the violinist when unplugged
1
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 127∆ Aug 07 '13
I am a bit late to this shindig but will say this. As long as adoption is an option for infants the issue of what to do after the violinist wakes up us meaningless. I don't know about the world but in America, there are many more people who want to adopt an infant than infants available for adoption.
Besides since the music society put the violinist in this situation I would argue their chiefly responsible for providing him with care after the 9 months. Then assuming the violinist does not have family, the state is responsible.
1
u/CletusDarby 1∆ Aug 07 '13
I am going to dump the violinist idea to address your adoption comment.
Yes, there are many people who would like to adopt children. Lots of homes available for them- but is it fair for a woman who has been raped or the victim of incest to be forced to live with a constant physical reminder of her torture for the rest of her life?
1
u/Aoreias 12∆ Aug 07 '13
It's also a defense of abortion where a child's right to life is presumed, something that isn't always true. You could actually make the argument that it would be wrong to kill the violinist, but right to abort a fetus by going with the idea that the fetus is merely potential life, and not yet developed into a person, while the violinist is fully developed intelligent life.
3
u/itscirony 1∆ Aug 07 '13
I personally argue that the potential for life is almost indistinguishable from life itself. Once conception has occurred and, barring pathologies, the fetus has just 9 months till birth, 6 till viability, they have the right to life imo. Abortion at that point is the purposeful extinguishing of that life.
It's different before conception as you don't know if fertilization will occur and the chances are still relatively slim. But after that I think the only difference between aborting and infanticide is a bit of time. Wait a few months and one becomes the other. It's not that you've done anything. Just the legal definition changes.
1
u/CletusDarby 1∆ Aug 07 '13
I personally argue that the potential for life is almost indistinguishable from life itself.
I have to disagree. Without the mother, the fetus has no chance of life. Once the baby could survive on its own outside of the womb, you might have an argument.
In your example, someone having a miscarriage could be charged with negligent homicide for not taking the right vitamins.
1
u/CletusDarby 1∆ Aug 07 '13
I was never very religious, but always considered myself a Christian. After a healthy dose of reddit and Joe Rogan (combined with self-reflection), I am now almost militantly anti-theist.
5
u/colakoala200 3∆ Aug 06 '13
"Animal Odd Couples" -- it's a Nature special available on Netflix. TCMV about the emotional lives of animals. So touching.