Being legal is not always ethical. The issue expressed above was that those who are not self-aware of their harmful actions under the presumption of doing good may still be Evil. At one point, sterilizing the mentally ill was considered charitable.
Blissful compassion is certainly not a reasonable defense of surgical conversion therapy on…
Being legal is not always ethical. The issue expressed above was that those who are not self-aware of their harmful actions under the presumption of doing good may still be Evil. At one point, sterilizing the mentally ill was considered charitable.
Blissful compassion is certainly not a reasonable defense of surgical conversion therapy on minors, and it would be reasonable for some of the doctors and activists to be targeted for appropriate legal (criminal and civil) action to perhaps cause others lost in doing good to stop and consider next moves. They may still be not self-aware of their harmful behavior but may stop out of self-preservation, much like a sociopath.
This was a great podcast episode, but I don't think we should necessarily turn the other cheek ... just in case they decide to take our cheeks and transplant them to another part of our bodies.
And I would agree that many Western institutions are rotten and likely need to be raised and rebuilt. At least, we can start to depopulate the managerial class.
And the First do not harm! is actually attributed to Thomas Sydenham not Hippocrates. Regardless, it remains a good guiding principle. So is checking that the scene is safe or not pissing into the wind. Cheers.
Yes, ethical considerations and legal ones are not the same.
But even if we were talking about ethical considerations, the avoidance of harm is not a consensus opinion. It might be yours, and it might have merit, but the point I was making is that to try to hold the medical profession to a standard that it does not itself aspire to is not a winning strategy on a rhetorical level.
My point is about how the transgender activists won. They didn't do it by being right, or even by having a good ethical or empirical argument, but they did win to some significant extent.
Being legal is not always ethical. The issue expressed above was that those who are not self-aware of their harmful actions under the presumption of doing good may still be Evil. At one point, sterilizing the mentally ill was considered charitable.
Blissful compassion is certainly not a reasonable defense of surgical conversion therapy on minors, and it would be reasonable for some of the doctors and activists to be targeted for appropriate legal (criminal and civil) action to perhaps cause others lost in doing good to stop and consider next moves. They may still be not self-aware of their harmful behavior but may stop out of self-preservation, much like a sociopath.
This was a great podcast episode, but I don't think we should necessarily turn the other cheek ... just in case they decide to take our cheeks and transplant them to another part of our bodies.
And I would agree that many Western institutions are rotten and likely need to be raised and rebuilt. At least, we can start to depopulate the managerial class.
And the First do not harm! is actually attributed to Thomas Sydenham not Hippocrates. Regardless, it remains a good guiding principle. So is checking that the scene is safe or not pissing into the wind. Cheers.
Yes, ethical considerations and legal ones are not the same.
But even if we were talking about ethical considerations, the avoidance of harm is not a consensus opinion. It might be yours, and it might have merit, but the point I was making is that to try to hold the medical profession to a standard that it does not itself aspire to is not a winning strategy on a rhetorical level.
The ethics are a whole different conversation.
I guess you win?
My point is about how the transgender activists won. They didn't do it by being right, or even by having a good ethical or empirical argument, but they did win to some significant extent.