Drawing lines and limits

[ZenitYerkes]

Topics like "Sex: where should the line be drawn?" or the Euthanasia one (which is turning into a suicide thread) make me wonder why we feel the need of putting limits to the others' actions. I believe that such topics are created from the already made lines drawn by Law mostly (such as for example, the former ban of homosexual behavior or the current controversy on euthanasia and abort).

Individuals are intrinsically and inherently free (within their physical and psychical limits, of course); why is it necessary to limit even more this freedom with social restrictions? Living together by itself means that "our freedom ends where the others' begins", leading to a basic code that allows coexistence. Are more laws needed?

Another thing that bothers me greatly is the reason why we defend our opinions on these limits: some people cling on to vague feelings, others base themselves on an unquestioned education that makes the person repeat what they have been told like mindless parrots, and others are in favor of or against something because they happen to be benefited by it.

Do we defend our points of view because of personal interest, because we feel certain actions are wrong; that we would(n't) do them? Shouldn't we focus on what's good for all of us as a whole, on the common good?

[Fkeu 'Awpo]

Well, how do you determine what's "good for all of us as a whole?" What I consider good might not be the same as what you consider to be good. This is how those debates start. Why do we defend our views? I don't know, but, I could ask you the same question.

Some people cling on to vague feelings, others base themselves on an unquestioned education that makes the person repeat what they have been told like mindless parrots, and others are in favor of or against something because they happen to be benefited by it.

Interesting... and in which of these categories do you fit?

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

Individuals are intrinsically and inherently free (within their physical and psychical limits, of course); why is it necessary to limit even more this freedom with social restrictions? Living together by itself means that "our freedom ends where the others' begins", leading to a basic code that allows coexistence. Are more laws needed?

It seems that as a society grows larger, the more complex its system of justice (law) becomes. In small societies, usually no larger than 500 people, law was based mainly on what benefited or was detrimental to society. As societies grew larger and stratified, it seems that new laws were needed in order to help the society survive. While the laws of the smaller society were incorporated into the larger society, our interaction with strangers was forced to change as a stranger could now be considered a part of our society. I think the perceived need to regulate this new form of human interaction in society is what leads to more laws.

Another thing that bothers me greatly is the reason why we defend our opinions on these limits: some people cling on to vague feelings, others base themselves on an unquestioned education that makes the person repeat what they have been told like mindless parrots, and others are in favor of or against something because they happen to be benefited by it.

People may defend their opinions based on personal experience. Personal experience can be a strong factor in the development of one's perspective on any particular issue.

Do we defend our points of view because of personal interest, because we feel certain actions are wrong; that we would(n't) do them? Shouldn't we focus on what's good for all of us as a whole, on the common good?

It probably depends on what philosophical body of thought one tends to base their views of morals upon. The idea of focusing on what is good for the whole (the common good) seems to be a Utilitarian idea, if I remember my philosophy education correctly.