dye

Precisely.  The HO person can also claim he should not be procecuted.  He also has his own intepretation base on evidence and faith.  

He has a right to drink HO and should he not have right to choose his own death?

Did he not have a right to his health but only his death?

He certinly canl claim he is perfectly rational and normal, perhaps even above averagely intelligent (so he can claim).  Is there really no reasonable way to determine if he is metally sick?

--------------
Should the police stop procecuting him and let him have his right, his HO?

--------------
I never said we should out right ban assisted suicide.  I believe we should consider the issue carefully, and make sure the ones involved also consider it carefully.  

If that takes a bit of pressure or force, that is only because the gravity of the situation (life and death) demands it.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-7-27 01:04 編輯 ]

酒井明

嗯嗯...........你所說的，都很對呢。看來是我錯了。

抽刀斷水

我嘗試理解dye 兄的概念：

(1) 質疑對方的信念的出發點可以是良好的
(2) 看見對方／世上某些信念有問題／錯誤，有道義去阻止及強行改變對方

我則以和平愛好者的角度去看問題，內裡有包容及尊重等所謂「良性」的性質。

我不否認 (1) 及 (2) 的存在，但是用上「質疑」及「強行改變」，對方大都會「反抗」。是否有更好的方法／手段去達成這目的？

同時有另一個問題衍生了出來：我們怎知道自己的信念是對的，而別人的信念就是錯的？或者這樣說：我們怎知道自己的信念能在別人的身上順利應用，而且改變對方後比現況更好？

以對等交流的角度來看，彼此的信念地位應該是均等的。自以為自己的信念比別人更好、或稱為道德水平更高，就要返回道德問題的討論了。

酒井明

嗯嗯...........對不起，真的對不起，我[頂唔住]，以下時間真的交給你了，對不起...........

抽刀斷水

原帖由 酒井明 於 2007-7-27 01:21 發表
嗯嗯...........對不起，真的對不起，我[頂唔住]，以下時間真的交給你了，對不起...........

只要本著交流對等的討論立場就可以了，大家看後都可以回覆的，不一定要去證明自己所想的是絕對的對嘛。

dye

1) If it is only doubting, I do not believe most people will resist.  In any case, the world is not perfect, a lot of time we do not have the resources and time to search for an ideal solution.  We will just have to use whatever solution we have.

2) Decision is not neccessary equal in quality.  Doctor is better in medical decision.  Engineer is better at engineer decision.  Artist is better at artiistic decision.  Scientist is better at scientific decision.  Plumber is better at plumbing decision.  

One of the key here is that there is an objective world outside.  There ARE a "correct" answers to SOME questions.  

It is not really about my decision better than yours.  It about there can be SOMEONE (which can be a panel of people) who can make a better decision than ME (alone).

以為有些人的信念比別人更好有何不妥

dye

Pick another example.  

If a fire fighter runs into an apartment and finds an old lady cringing to her bed while the fire is about to enter, how do the fire fighter know that he is "right" to remove the lady from the premise and the old lady is "wrong" to cringe onto her bed?  How do he knows that it is better for the lady to ive another day than to burnt to crisp in her apartment?

Is the fire fighter claiming he is "morally superior" just because he thinks the old lady should leave the premise?

What if the old lady resists?  

Should the fire fighter abandons the old lady because she can take the responsibility of her death?
--------

抽刀斷水

原帖由 dye 於 2007-7-27 08:35 發表
1) If it is only doubting, I do not believe most people will resist.  In any case, the world is not perfect, a lot of time we do not have the resources and time to search for an ideal solution.  We will just have to use whatever solution we have.

2) Decision is not neccessary equal in quality.  Doctor is better in medical decision.  Engineer is better at engineer decision.  Artist is better at artiistic decision.  Scientist is better at scientific decision.  Plumber is better at plumbing decision.  

One of the key here is that there is an objective world outside.  There ARE a "correct" answers to SOME questions.  

It is not really about my decision better than yours.  It about there can be SOMEONE (which can be a panel of people) who can make a better decision than ME (alone).

以為有些人的信念比別人更好有何不妥

當我們以專業、學歷等權威，以為在某些範疇內比別人優勝，普遍來說是對的，但也不是絕對。而且在某些層面上還沒有普遍共識，如某些議題在學術界中仍有爭議。

假如以自身改進的角度來說，能消化、接受別人對自己信念的質疑是好的。

dye

The is also numerical difference.  If 1 million people see the earth as round and 1 see the earth is flat, chance is high (but not absolute) that the 1 person is in error.  The reverse is also true, if 1 million people see the earth as round and 1 see the earth as round, chance is high (but not absolute) that the 1 person is in error.

There is degree of experience.  If a 10-year experience doctor judges the patient to have cancer and a 0-year experience doctor judges as have-not.  Chance is high (but not absolute) that the 0-year experience doctor is in error.

Not to mention there are talented individual who is naturally better at evaluating certain decision.

------------------------
Because of the nature of .. nature, we can never obtain anything in great certainty.  Instead, we are always forced to make choices base on "educated guess".

When in doubt, attempt a small scale experiement?  Move in little step?

If there is a debate going on, perhaps we can wait a bit for the big decision. If we have a situation where everything being equally reasonable, let the error be on the "living" side because "death" is irreversible.  (We can always regret and put someone to death.   We can't regret and resurrect a dead body.)

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-7-27 10:49 編輯 ]

dye

Right or wrong, it does not matter that much.  My prefer wording is a 'rational' decision.  

Are we acting in a way that will reach our goal (whatever it may be)?  Do we really want a world where people would respect a drunkyard's decision to die?  Or a deluded fanatic's decision to harm his health with HO? Perhaps a mis-informed fellow to use holy water?  Or a broken heart lover the decision to self-destruct?

If it is the world you truely want, we can agree to disagree.  (My question is true a question.  There is no intented answer even though I will secretly wish you would agree with me on some point.)

kc

好像愈扯愈遠了。

「沒有人有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念」－－（＊），要麼是空廢，要麼是自我推翻。

（「以自己的角度」和「以人的邏輯」一樣是廢話。)

－－－

例１：

「對方的信念」：地球是平的。

人們可以相信地球是平的嗎？看來可以。

人們可以質疑地球是平的嗎？根據（＊），不可以。

但難道一定要信地球是平的，連質疑一下也不可？由此可見，（＊）只是繞個圈說人們一定要認同某個（例如自己的）說法而已。

－－－

例２：

（留意＊和＃是互相排斥的）

「對方的信念」：我們可以質疑別人的信念－－（＃）

「以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念」：質疑「我們可以質疑別人的信念」這信念

「有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念」:可以質疑「我們可以質疑別人的信念」這信念

「沒有人有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念」:沒人可以質疑「我們可以質疑別人的信念」　（這裏要麼是肯定了（＃），要麼是排除了「可以質疑（＊）」，但「可以質疑（＊）」也是信念，所以（＊）推翻了自己。）

－－－

所以我就從此一直持著「我們可以質疑別人的信念」的信念好了，反正「沒有人有權利以〔他們〕的角度去質疑〔我〕的信念」。

註：「質疑別人的某個信念」不等於「企圖以自己的信念強行改變對方要跟隨你」。

龍井樹

睇黎睇去，都睇唔到句野──
「沒有人有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念」
最先係由邊個提出。

dye

抽刀 P5 原句為「沒有人有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念，這是最基本的尊重、包容和相處之道。」

龍井樹

thx! 抽水已經不只一次表達類似的想法。

抽刀斷水

我理解以下程度上的不同：

(0)無意見／不表示意見→(1)捍衛自己的信念→(2)就別人的信念提出自己的意見→(3)質疑別人的信念→(4)強行改變對方的信念

我認為只有(0),(1)及(2)可以符合包容及尊重。而(2)跟(3)的分別，在於(3)是認定了對方的信念有問題，而(2)則不是。

至於各位是否有權利去做(3)及(4)，那可是各位的自由，亦是各位自行承受後果。注意我最初所指的「權利」是狹義的，即類似我們沒有權利去殺人、去強姦別人等，而事實上各位仍可以這樣做，即在廣義來說，大家仍有「權利」去殺人、去強姦別人。

而(0)跟(1)亦不代表「認同」別人的信念。

dye

0、1 和 2 一樣有後果去承受。

質疑本身不一定認定了對方的信念有問題。
警察叫吹波仔，不是認定了你有問題。
銀行要你雙確認，也不是認定了你有問題。

質疑
心中懷疑而向人提出問題。

-------
如果警察叫吹波仔，真的發現醉酒，去強行改變對方的未醉的信念，把人拖下車，我看不見有什麼尊重不尊重、包容不包容。

難道由他醉酒自害∕害人了？

—————
比如HO吧

0) 我對喝HO的功效無意見
1) 我相信喝HO有害（只說說）
2) 對喝HO的說說喝HO有害
3) 問喝HO的為什麼喝HO好
4) 揪到喝HO，迫他上一堂科學課

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-7-27 16:32 編輯 ]

抽刀斷水

例子與信念無關。

酒井明

難得諸位真係咁神心，繼續就呢個命題爭辯落去；不過，睇黎火藥味甚濃，我諗........不如我潑碗油上去先......！
其實係咁架喇，一個人，係可以完全唔信身邊任何野，只係相信自己一直相信o個套係真o既，然後就拿住自己o個套黎質疑人地o個套，甚至將自己o個套強加響人地身上。自己o個套就係evidence，人地o個套就係interpretation。呢樣野，佢係可以搵九百九十九個理由黎支持自己繼續咁樣落去；呢個世界打咁多場仗，都係因為呢種心態之嘛。呢種心態，你可以話係自我中心；不過我會覺得係自我投射多D。

dye

都可以咁講

其實係咁架喇，一個人，係可以完全唔理身邊任何人。只係自己顧自己，然後就由得人死。自己o個套就係evidence，人地o個套就係interpretation。呢樣野，佢係可以搵九百九十九個理由黎支持自己繼續咁樣落去。呢種冷漠心態，令社會不能形成，當然冇仗打（定係全民皆戰？）。

好彩世上仲有人多管閒事去做嫁兩，如果唔係我地今日大概沒人有機會說什麼。

______

總之打二戰大家不如自保就算，由得D人納粹。
黑奴都不要打，我地冇權去改人地對黑人睇法。

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-7-27 17:35 編輯 ]

龍井樹

質疑，又唔一定係挑戰對方，想要打倒對方；
質疑，其實都只係想問個明白。

某甲：太陽是圓的。
某乙：太陽是方的。(提出自己的意見)
某甲：你要質疑我嗎？

某乙在質疑某甲嗎？