Right, so you have no faith in the voters.

Though I'm pretty sure the Russians are behind this.

Well, if you can't trust the voters then it's all over.

I'm asking if one is greater than the other.

This is the question now; is the love of the mother greater than the husband?

In some ways I may be making this as difficult as possible so that we have to dig deeper. Yes there is only one factor to consider, the quality of her existence. Which is unknown and cannot be taken back once committed to.

I understand that there are people who overcome the pain and live a life as best they can. I don’t know how many find it intolerable or end up taking their life.

Just to dig a little deeper. A mother’s love for her child is unconditional, not always but generally. A husband’s love for his wife is not nearly so unconditional. It’s conditional on a number of things, one being that she love him back. Would he still love her the same way if she said she did not love him and loved another and was going to live with that man?

Can the mother of the victim be sure the husband will commit himself to his wife whatever the circumstances or how long they went on for? Would he be prepared to put himself second the way mothers do with their children? Dos he understand the sort of commitment made by mothers, which is what would be required from him? I don’t know what it’s like to give birth to a child and watch it grow. That’s something that perhaps is impossible to be explained to me. So the depth of feeling for a mother about the suffering of her child may be something that is beyond the law.

What would be stopping them from ending their life (or having it ended by doctors) after they regained consciousness? — Tzeentch

If euthanasia was available to them it could help. If they were Catholuc it would not. (Not totally sure on that, though).

Spouse trumps parents for adults. — Bitter Crank

Are you quoting law or your own feelings?

Isn't this @schopenhauer1s thoughts in action, not just theory.

I thought it meant both parties have zero rights over the victim.

Because by that point there is no way out of the pain they've been given. You have knowingly rebirthed them into a world of pain.

Had it been, of the two, which has the greater right? I'd have answered that it depends. On what? On everything. — tim wood

That's the question. So what is "everything"? There is no one resolving it except us.

I was trying to find your reason for siding with the parents, which was that they were thinking more of the victim's circumstances than the husband. Is that right? But then you seem to have backed away with the zero conclusion. Which still leaves the victim caught between.

— Enrique

I've got "self-control, free will and rationality" but I'm me and you're you and that's not a bridge that can be gapped. There's no unconditional "us". — Judaka

This is the reality of the situation. There might have been an “ us” at some stage, a village, a town, maybe a small country, but that changed with the growth of populations, migration, technology and a global economy. Nothing is that simple anymore. Nothing is stable. Multiculturalism, diversity, identity politics put an end to the idea of “us”. Everyone has objectives so different there’s not even a middle ground. There’s not even an “us” on this small philosophy site.

If there’s going to be an “us” then it has to be imposed from above. That’s the pragmatic solution. But we resist that idea because it imposes itself on our perception of who we are.

Can human beings have enough free will and rationality to make widespread self-control based on sizable commitment to reflective decision-making even conceivably attainable?

It’s not lack of reflective decision-making that’s the problem. Haven’t we been doing that? Of course we have, but not all of us. That’s not going to change.

It’s the paradox about who we are; we want order and we want individual freedom. Can you have both? How is it possible?

Not for the Jews, though.

Could there not be different right answers depending on the specific person in question? ...

In general, how can we ever know that we are doing the right thing? Especially when it comes to the welfare of others. Should people be given what they want, or what they need? Who knows best?

In the end, the best you can do is to be brutally candid with yourself about what your own motives are, then proceed from there. — Pantagruel

Okay, so make the brutally candid decision.

My assumption is that it would be the spouse and not the parents who would then decide because upon marriage, one is generally considered fully emancipated from their parents' control. — Hanover

I think in terms of law you’re probably right. And it’s interesting that as you say, assuming it’s correct, that on marriage you are fully emancipated from your parents. But a mother may not agree in her heart about that and regard her child as something that can never be taken from her, and regard her responsibility for her child as hers until the day she dies. Her concerns will still be with her daughter, not her son in law. So there is the suffering of the mother.

So you feel that the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim than the husband?
— Brett

Probably yeah. (Again, depends on the victim)

Who has this right over her future; the man who loves her or the women who gave birth to her?
— Brett

Now you're asking the first question to which I answered: — khaled

I don’t think these two questions are the same.

To the first one you answer that you feel the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim.

But the second question is about who has the right over her future, her husband or the parents? Just because the parents are acting in the interests of the victim doesn’t necessarily mean they have the right to decide over the husband. The husband may feel he can nurse her and help her recovery. Nor does he want to lose the person who means more to him than anything. He may also feel he has to commit to an unspoken agreement that they would also always care for each other.

Does the mother have the right to come between the husband and wife?

You make an interesting point. Many people have come to distrust “intelligence” because they see their interests destroyed or diverted by the manipulation of language and facts. Part of this may be because of the aura of education, that the educated know best, and that their intelligence represents that manipulation and deceit.
They're equally suspicious of the contradiction presented by the simple language of those trying to be one of them, one of the people, just an ordinary bloke.

Who can people trust? What is the language they can trust? Can they only trust those from their group who unconsciously speak a common language, understood for all its complex little nuances?

This isn't really a philosophical discussion but more of a discussion on the benefits of living a life devoid of materialism. — Wittgenstein

I think this is a question of psychology. Why would people subscribe to asceticism? What would make them chose to go without, and just how much are we talking about?

The forces of the post industrial, technology driven world that you believe destroys any individualism are embraced by people because they receive so much from it. Ironically they believe it confirms and highlights their individuality. Which suggests a powerful quest for a sense of individuality they cannot find. To give all that up and to have only what you need, which would be no different than your neighbour, is a real threat to that perception of individuality.

It’s true, as Devan99 said, that we all have to let go of everything in the end, but the “letting go” is not of material things but of who we are. Time, for many, will prepare you for the end, and you will let go of more and more, release the burdens of life, until you’re ready to let go of life itself. But that’s a long lesson about who we are.

The problem about changing our world through renunciation of consumerism is that we cannot be anything else. Asceticism means becoming virtually invisible to others, having nothing but the moment to live in. If we had that in us then we would be different people from who we are.

It’s because this is true that restraints on consumerism have to be applied against our will, or by a reduction in disposable income. But no one will work for less income because of the value they perceive in themselves, their individual worth. So it comes down to the sense of individualism again.

Maybe future generations could be manipulated into this reduction in consumption, but who would they be, could they really live and thrive without a sense of themselves except as a social unit, like an ant or bee? What if the consequences, of let’s call it asceticism, result in unmanageable mental health problems?

Who has this right over her future; the man who loves her or the women who gave birth to her?

So you feel that the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim than the husband?

Though I side with the parents on this one — khaled

Any reason why?

This is not about law but a moral decision, without the aid of a legal system to help.

Well we all have 'brilliant' minds.

it really depends on how hellish hell is — khaled

A life you wouldn't chose for anyone.

I did say "imagine this", and "set aside legal issues".

The life cycle" is a specific aspect of the mussel that can much more easily be compared as more or less complex. — ZhouBoTong

That was the point I as trying to make, not that mussels are more complex, but that there are areas of more complexity.

What do we gain by just accepting the declaration that humans are the most complex organism? — ZhouBoTong

I think we were trying to determine if there could be something more complex than humans, then as usual it got bogged down in demands for meaning.

Who has the right regarding the victim to decide her future if it is to be between the husband or parents?

If she recovers she will live with chronic pain and disability.

Being killed on the basis that euthanasia is legal.

Being a Moslem it might, so let’s say it’s not a Moslem.

The question is quite clear.

Okay; hell is a lifetime of chronic pain and disability.

The victim is unconscious but could become conscious on the basis of ongoing medical care.

Assuming someone can be killed even though they may return to consciousness.

No children. Husband or wife; I don’t see any difference.

Sorry, that’s my last comment.

Do you believe president Trump committed no crimes? — Metaphysician Undercover

As stated in Impeachment articles; obviously not.

The apparent concern in regard to "true safety" is not placing attention where it can do the most good, which in this case is claimed to be the dysfunctional economy. Nowhere in the article does it explain how mass hysteria or tyrannophobia plays into the hands of totalitarianism. You still haven't explained how one may lead to the other. The truth is that you can't explain it, — praxis

I’m pretty sure that none of my responses would satisfy you. That’s because you’ve take the position that if you’re not with me then your against me.

Of course there is nothing specific in the article about mass hysteria leading to totalitarianism. What it does indicate is how things come apart so easily because of this tyrannophobia, which, if it continues, I suggest, feeds elements of totalitarianism.

“History raises serious doubts about how helpful this tyrannophobic focus on catastrophe, fake news and totalitarianism really is in dealing with the rise of the populist right, of which this bumbling hothead of a president is a symptom. Excessive focus on liberal fundamentals, like basic freedoms or the rule of law, could prove self-defeating. By postponing serious efforts to give greater priority to social justice, tyrannophobia treats warning signs as a death sentence, while allowing the real disease to fester.”

What is “the real disease”?

I’d be happy to walk back on the word “hysteria” as being a bit too extreme but I see I’m not alone in using that word, because it defines the mood of the hyperbole accurately, so I’ll stick with it.

You asked me how it plays into the hands of totalitarianism and I posted the article to explain that. Posting a few lines from the story about the economy suggests the article is only about that. It is not. Social Justice has a very broad interpretation these days, but we can assume that most people would regard it as “a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society” (Wikipedia), which would involve the institutions of that society.

There are people, myself included, who see the Impeachment process being used as a tool to remove an elected President. You may not agree with this. Whether we support Trump or not is beside the point, what we see happening is the erosion of Democratic norms. In time that erosion runs deeper and deeper and becomes the norm. The hysteria I’m referring to is what we read and hear that feeds this process; political use of peoples irrational fears. There’s nothing irrational about my claim.

Do we have a deficit of empathy?

I’m hoping you looked at the article, and read it to the end where the article finishes with this line;

“The threat of tyranny can be real enough. But those who act as though democracy is constantly on the precipice are likely to miss the path that leads not simply to fuller justice but to true safety.”

“fuller justice and true safety” are the essential words. Missing the path to true safety leads you away from the order of a Democratic society. There is only one version of Democracy which, just so we understand the point, is;
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

“Fuller justice” is the absolute priority of a Democratic society.

Once you move away from that, in in any way, you’re on that slippery slope that leads away from Democracy, that doesn’t lead to better things and ultimately will end in a totalitarian system.

I could easily “employ” an army of volunteers for an entire lifetime fleshing just that project out, if there were people with the time to contribute and I had the time to manage them all. — Pfhorrest

The problem is that whatever opportunities exist for people they’re still in need of an income, and it has to be a real income, not subsidised by government.

If they worked week on, week off, they lose half their income.

Would this effectively create a world fo freelancing where longterm contracts were disposed of or is there a possibility of this scheme working and effectively doubling employment. — I like sushi

If the scheme has as it primary purpose creating more employment then I think there’s a problem when you begin the scheme by reducing employment, i.e. week on, week off employment. But part of it does remind me of the people who once travelled across the country reading poetry to people who probably couldn’t read and had never heard of such things, and performing plays outdoors, or minstrels singing about love and loss, and all of them earning a small income from it while they spread something beneficial across the land.

Let's assume that you've shown the "mass hysteria" present in this topic, how exactly does it play into the hands of totalitarianism? — praxis

I thought you’d prefer the NYT as opposed to Fox.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sunday/trump-hysteria-democracy-tyranny.html

Philosophyforum is one very small social media channel which in my view is now being handled by an agent on behalf of this global disinformation campaign. — Wayfarer

I rest my case.