Human Rights

[skoSko9]

Society can "punish" you for committing a crime, because when you commit a crime you (should) have violated someone's rights. Once you do that, you forfeit a corresponding set of your own rights. At that point whether or not society punishes you and how is up to them (within the bounds of your crime). You simply have no logical basis for claiming the punishment is unjust.

To take a simple example: you murder an innocent person. Your right to life is now forfeit. Society can execute you, incarcerate you, or do nothing. It is up to them. You cannot argue with any of those outcomes because you have forfeit your right to life.

I think I made that pretty clear, but the punishment is based upon opinion, which by force the State/Society enforces.

To me that's irrelevant, I just said what decides the punishment for crimes in a car? And to me if the crime is the same, despite the person being intoxicated or not, the punishment should be the same. What I see is the emphasis on drunk driving. which shouldn't be emphasized. Regardless of whether you're drunk or not, the risk was already there when you operate the vehicle, so the punishment should be the same.

 

[niky]

But you believe what was proven based upon a premise that proves it to be true (did that make sense?). Which is basically a belief.

I understand that often people explain why their beliefs is right and not what it actually means for it to be right. But to even understand something, you need to believe in it.

That part hinges upon a similar discussion in the "God" thread. If you have proof, you don't need belief.

In science, you formulate a premise based on observation, which you develop into a hypothesis, which you then test. If it turns out to not be true, then you reject it. You don't continue to believe it. If it turns out to be true, then it's true, and belief is not necessary.

A good example would be believing in miracles. Let's say that you believe in miracles (assume the premise). If something happens (massive car accident, yet child lives with few injuries) and someone says that's not a miracle because of lucky chance and so on (things that cannot be proven), how can he understand it's a miracle if he does not believe in miracles?

(Miracles are the unlikely chance of something happening that happens and favors the person.)

I completely accept the likelihood of the unlikely. To expect the outcome of random accidents to always be the same would be akin to expecting a coin to always come up tails because the heads side is heavier. Always.

The parasite usually is very unlikely to survive, but again it depends.

For abortion- No, you don't get rid of the parasite, it lives which must be maintained. My issue with people who are pro-life is that they only care about the baby when it's in the fetus. The moment that it is born, "good luck kid you're on your own" ******** comes out. They could care less about all the orphans that are out there, but if they do, it seems abortion is much more important than the orphans. If it's not even our problem, then doesn't it make sense to talk about what to do with the orphans than the fetuses? And if abortion is still a problem, then like I said, it depends on the situation.

See, here's the problem: Is it better for a child to have a hard life or to have no life at all? To choose the latter takes away from the child the freedom to choose later on. Like I've said: A human has the right to decide to take their own life. No one else can do it for them. In the case of abortion, it still boils down to when the fetus becomes a human, in the sense that it becomes a thinking, feeling being.

I think this is very simple flaw in Law, which the best way to deal with it is not by having harsher laws to prevent drunk driving, just educating that it is bad. The Law for drunk driving then becomes completely unnecessary.

Even with the best of education, sometimes people do really stupid things. And there needs to be consequences for doing stupid things.

Denying someone the use of a road, for instance, who had demonstrated reckless driving, is a perfectly justifiable action.

I know it sits on that slippery slope, but I define driving drunk as reckless driving. in other words: You know that drinking impairs your ability to drive, yet you drink, anyway. Being a regular designated driver for regular drinkers, I take that definition seriously. It is perfectly possible to party and not drink.

Personally, I see no logical reason to remain stopped at a red light when there is no traffic. There are a few locations and times around the city where I've recently begun treating them as stop signs because going on my merry way doesn't hurt anybody and therefore there's no logical argument against it.

Typically, I treat reds as absolutes, simply because there are people who treat greens at night as a license to blast through an intersection at high speed. In which case, not crossing against the red simply limits liability. But I agree that an active stoplight in the absence of traffic is silly.

Sure you can. All you have to do is set up a sobriety checkpoint, stop and harass every car that goes through it, and pick about one person over the legal limit (aka not drunk) out of every 200 that pass through.

Be fun to have licenses to certify how drunk you can be before you're unfit to drive. Wonder how many beers it'd take before any of us here fail a driving test?

The idea of liberty is that people have the freedom to make their own decisions, including stupid ones. If they can't make stupid decisions then they don't have liberty because their ability to choose has been restricted.

See, I completely believe that people are at liberty to do stupid things. It's just that I treat a driver's license like a pilot's license or whatever the equivalent is for ship captains. It's a certification that you're able to pilot a large, heavy dangerous transportation device and a social contract that stipulates you follow the laws of the road, including laws for sobriety.

Licenses are just too damn easy to obtain, for no good reason. A ship captain or pilot has to spend months to years in training, to prepare them for situations that they will most likely never encounter, as they pilot craft that will, in normal operation never get within a mile of each other.

While we give licenses for motor vehicles that drive within feet of each other at closing speeds (on two way roads) of over 100 mph to teenagers.

Fancy that.

 

[skoSko9]

Lol niky, you have 3 people attacking you and still be able to respond to them properly. Respect! 👍

I think we agree on principle how the state should run and the laws be based upon. What we disagree is probably in how we should set the Laws in. I don't know if you live in the USA, but we believe in the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". What many people don't know is what that actually means. Sometimes our pursuit to happiness may conflict with the liberty of others. Of course this is the issue we face today, and their may be no other solution than to do what is best.

 

[Danoff]

To me that's irrelevant, I just said what decides the punishment for crimes in a car? And to me if the crime is the same, despite the person being intoxicated or not, the punishment should be the same. What I see is the emphasis on drunk driving. which shouldn't be emphasized. Regardless of whether you're drunk or not, the risk was already there when you operate the vehicle, so the punishment should be the same.

If you didn't violate someone else's rights, the punishment should be nothing.

I know it sits on that slippery slope, but I define driving drunk as reckless driving. in other words: You know that drinking impairs your ability to drive, yet you drink, anyway. Being a regular designated driver for regular drinkers, I take that definition seriously. It is perfectly possible to party and not drink.

Many many many things impair your ability to drive. Not driving, for example, can impair your ability to drive. Being hungry can impair your ability to drive. Being interested in the scantily clad girl on the sidewalk can impair your ability to drive. Yet you drive anyway.

Until you do something physically wrong with your car, no one should pass judgement on your ability to drive.

 

[CSLACR]

Still love reading your posts Danoff 👍

 

[niky]

Is attempted murder a victimless crime?

If someone carelessly, indiscriminately shoots in your direction, do you then have the right to shoot back and kill them before they kill you?

To my mind, drunk or impaired driving is no different. Yes, there are levels of tipsiness, and a driver who's had a few drinks but who is still in control (if a bit slow) is safer than many other road users, but willfully driving while roaring drunk is just as reckless as indiscriminate gun fire, and deserves the same level of punishment, whether anyone is hit or not.

 

[Danoff]

Is attempted murder a victimless crime?

Attempted rights violations still forfeit your rights. Success is not a criteria, only the demonstrated inability or refusal to observe the rights of others.

If someone carelessly, indiscriminately shoots in your direction, do you then have the right to shoot back and kill them before they kill you?

Yes. See above.

To my mind, drunk or impaired driving is no different.

If someone carelessly, indiscriminately drives their car in your direction it is no different. If they pilot their car down the street observing all laws governing where their car can be and where it cannot be, it is indistinguishable from someone who is driving unimpaired and you're just passing judgement on someone who is minding their own business harming no one.

Driving home observing the traffic laws is not an attempted rights violation. It's minding your own business.

 

[niky]

Again, I agree that a person who's had a few can drive perfectly fine, and that BAC limits are probably arbitrarily low. But driving above BAC is willful ignorance of traffic laws, even if you follow all the rest.

It's like driving without headlights or brake lights. Probably nothing will ever come of it if you drive following the rules of the road, but it's still illegal.

Still don't really see the issue, as, again, while freedom of movement is a right, driving itself is not.

 

[FoolKiller]

Again, I agree that a person who's had a few can drive perfectly fine, and that BAC limits are probably arbitrarily low. But driving above BAC is willful ignorance of traffic laws, even if you follow all the rest.

Isn't he arguing that it shouldn't be against the law by itself?

This is a thread about rights. I thought it was well understood that "it's the law" is not a legitimate argument. Or do you defend all laws purely because they are the law?

 

[Dotini]

Isn't he arguing that it shouldn't be against the law by itself?

This is a thread about rights. I thought it was well understood that "it's the law" is not a legitimate argument. Or do you defend all laws purely because they are the law?

Let's be sensible about it. Laws and rights are intimately related. From Hammurabi to the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, we cannot speak of one without reference to the other.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[FoolKiller]

Let's be sensible about it. Laws and rights are intimately related. From Hammurabi to the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, we cannot speak of one without reference to the other.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Inalienable human rights vs legal rights.
Malum in se vs malum prohibitum.
Inherently wrong vs legally wrong.

Malum in se (vehicular homicide) should be malum prohibitum.
Malum prohibitum (driving intoxicated by itself) is not necessarily malum in se.

And speaking of law in reference to human rights often means disputing the reasoning of the law.

The argument is if driving intoxicated, without violating any other law, is inherently wrong and should be illegal. Saying it is, because it is illegal is presenting your solution as defense for itself.

 

[GTsail]

***
It's like driving without headlights or brake lights. Probably nothing will ever come of it if you drive following the rules of the road, but it's still illegal.

Isn't he arguing that it shouldn't be against the law by itself?

What about Niky's other examples?

Are you proposing that driver's can ignore any single aspect of the motor vehicle laws as long as the driver doesn't cause harm to someone else?

The purpose of the drunk driving/motor vehicle laws are to reduce the likelihood of an accident and to reduce the likelihood of harm to other motorists. The purpose of the headlights/brake lights is to reduce the likelihood of an accident, etc.

"A ounce(shot glass) of prevention"

Issuing a citation/fine to an errant drunk-driver after an accident is nice for the State's bank balance, but will do little to un-do the physical damage caused by the drunk-driver.

****
The argument is if driving intoxicated, without violating any other law, is inherently wrong and should be illegal....

Driving intoxicated is not inherently wrong (feel free to do so during your next living-room drive at the 'Ring).

Driving intoxicated is even legal (and perfectly ok) if you are doing so on your own private property. It becomes wrong when its done on public roads in violation of your State's motor vehicle laws. Here in Massachusetts, Section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Laws says "Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access....operates a motor vehicle with a percentage by weight of alcohol in their blood of eight one-hundreds or greater.... shall be punished by a fine....or by imprisonment....or both.

So Massachusetts specifically only makes it illegal to drive intoxicated while on public roads, making it perfectly legal to drive while intoxicated as long as you are not on public roads (though I would still recommend keeping your speed down).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[niky]

That's the way I see it. You are perfectly within your rights to drive drunk on your own time, on your own property and in your own car.

But again, driving on State roads (which, yes, are only overseen by the State for the owners, The People) is not a right, it is a privilege. A privilege granted only through licensing.

Applying for a license and acquiring it represent an implicit agreement to follow the rules of the road as set by the licensing body. Don't follow them, then your privilege is revoked.

Should drunk driving be decriminalized? Sure, maybe. But on the condition that a license can be permanently revoked by the State if the person is caught driving drunk.

-

As to whether it's your right, in the absence of laws and whatnot... driving while you are unable to react properly to road dangers and incapable of using sound judgment as to what is dangerous or not is reckless. That could be driving drunk, driving sleepy, driving on the phone or driving while high. We often take these things lightly because of our upbringing... most people have a very cavalier attitude towards driving drunk, passed down from their elders or their peers. But this is basically playing Russian Roulette with other people's lives.

And personally, I wouldn't consider homicidal disregard for others a right. Because that gives others the right to reciprocate and disregard your right to life. Again, if all cars had big lights and sirens screaming to the world "The Boss has had a few drinks!", then it wouldn't be a problem. But they don't, and it is.

I support anyone and everyone's right to do stupid and dangerous things to themselves. I cannot support their supposed right to do it to other people, whether they're successful or not.

 

[FoolKiller]

Unless you are breaking another law th police shouldn't even be checking your sobriety. Why make it a separate law rather than an additional penalty when breaking the law while intoxicated? All making driving under the influence a crime in itself does is result in the harassment of the innocent. I've been a passenger in two cars pulled over for no reason, and the drivers let go after a sobriety test. I have personally been through multiple roadblocks that have resulted in nothing but making me late.

Preventative laws are more likely to harass innocent citizens than stop crime. They seek to punish for infringing zero rights. There is no reason to check sobriety without the violation of other laws, so why make it a crime by itself?

 

[Gonales]

Unless you are breaking another law th police shouldn't even be checking your sobriety. Why make it a separate law rather than an additional penalty when breaking the law while intoxicated? All making driving under the influence a crime in itself does is result in the harassment of the innocent.

From a personal experience I can say I sinderely disrespect drunk drivers. Because they don't only consider themselves above the law, but they also endanger other people. What's an 'additional punishment' worth if you have killed someone in a traffic accident because you were intoxicated?

I've been a passenger in two cars pulled over for no reason, and the drivers let go after a sobriety test. I have personally been through multiple roadblocks that have resulted in nothing but making me late.

Take more time when leaving home... If a 10 minute hold up makes you late... Plus you can drive a lot more relaxed...

Preventative laws are more likely to harass innocent citizens than stop crime. They seek to punish for infringing zero rights. There is no reason to check sobriety without the violation of other laws, so why make it a crime by itself?

Because it IS a crime. When you're drunk behind the wheel, you're endangering other people. Don't.

Besides that, I completely support the laws that punish DUI...

 

[FoolKiller]

From a personal experience I can say I sinderely disrespect drunk drivers. Because they don't only consider themselves above the law, but they also endanger other people. What's an 'additional punishment' worth if you have killed someone in a traffic accident because you were intoxicated?

Let's try this again. A guy driving with alcohol in his system does nothing else wrong. Why are you punishing him? Better yet, considering that it is unconstitutional in the US for police to stop someone without a cause, how are we going to know? By law you can't catch a drunk driver in the US without them exhibiting wreckless driving behavior (a crime in itself ).

Take more time when leaving home... If a 10 minute hold up makes you late... Plus you can drive a lot more relaxed...

I should be inconvenienced because you want to "drive more relaxed?" How much more dangerous do you think the roads would be? Drunk drivers are one of 1000 worries on the road.

Because it IS a crime.

This is not a reason for why it is a crime. It's like a kid asking why the sky is blue and you saying, "Because it is blue." Why is driving home after a few drinks, behaving no different than any other driver, a crime?

When you're drunk behind the wheel, you're endangering other people. Don't.

This is an argument for why you shouldn't do it, but assumes every inebriated driver is being dangerous, which is already a crime.

Besides that, I completely support the laws that punish DUI...

Good for you. There are a ton of laws I don't support, like seatbelt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, smoking laws, etc.

 

[Joel]

I think the important distinction is the difference between a guy who had 3 or 4 beers at the bar while watching a football game for 3 hours, and a guy who had 16 shots at the club trying to drive home. The first guy probably won't do anything wrong, and if you watched him driving, you wouldn't see a difference. The second guy would be swerving all over the road and would be guilty of reckless driving and other road violations. Why are we assuming the first guy is going to drive recklessly without him displaying that behaviour?

 

[Gonales]

Let's try this again. A guy driving with alcohol in his system does nothing else wrong. Why are you punishing him? Better yet, considering that it is unconstitutional in the US for police to stop someone without a cause, how are we going to know? By law you can't catch a drunk driver in the US without them exhibiting reckless driving behavior (a crime in itself ).

1: Why let people drive drunk? That's making risks that are unnecessary. Why? Just because people like you think they have the right to endanger other people?

2: Police definitely has a right to stop you. A cause would be: checking your identification, insurance, vehicle registration etc etc... Or aren't they allowed to do that in America, without a warrant? -.-

I should be inconvenienced because you want to "drive more relaxed?" How much more dangerous do you think the roads would be? Drunk drivers are one of 1000 worries on the road.

Roads would be more dangerous because people drive more relaxed, and take less risks? But NOT, when drunk people are behind the wheel? Seriously?

This is not a reason for why it is a crime. It's like a kid asking why the sky is blue and you saying, "Because it is blue." Why is driving home after a few drinks, behaving no different than any other driver, a crime?

If you willingly endanger other people, you're committing a crime.

This is an argument for why you shouldn't do it, but assumes every INR rusted driver is being dangerous, which is already a crime.

INR? And frankly, just because there are rusty drivers out there, which is dangerous, it doesn't mean you can just take unnecessary risks...

Good for you. There are a ton of laws I don't support, like seatbelt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, smoking laws, etc.

Speed limits, seat belts? You're against them? Wow... that's frightening...

I think the important distinction is the difference between a guy who had 3 or 4 beers at the bar while watching a football game for 3 hours, and a guy who had 16 shots at the club trying to drive home. The first guy probably won't do anything wrong, and if you watched him driving, you wouldn't see a difference. The second guy would be swerving all over the road and would be guilty of reckless driving and other road violations. Why are we assuming the first guy is going to drive recklessly without him displaying that behaviour?

Yes, but where is the line? How will people that are drunk, tell the difference? Intoxicated people are more prone to blurring their 'security'... If you get what I mean with that...

We are assuming that the first guy might be able to display that behavior. Allowing people to drink and sit behind the wheel will cause a significant increase in traffic accidents, including lethal ones.

 

[FoolKiller]

1: Why let people drive drunk? That's making risks that are unnecessary. Why? Just because people like you think they have the right to endanger other people?

When did I say I think I have the right to endanger others? I am pretty sure I have repeatedly stated that the moment they exhibit dangerous behavior they are then a problem.

2: Police definitely has a right to stop you. A cause would be: checking your identification, insurance, vehicle registration etc etc... Or aren't they allowed to do that in America, without a warrant? -.-

Cause means reason to suspect criminal activity.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No they cannot just stop and ask us for our ID. The only time you hear that here is in movies based in the Nazi era. We are not supposed to be treated as suspected criminals. We are to be treated like innocent civilians until we prove otherwise.

Roads would be more dangerous because people drive more relaxed, and take less risks? But NOT, when drunk people are behind the wheel? Seriously?

Not sure how you got that from what I said. I'm asking how a road block makes us drive more relaxed.

If you willingly endanger other people, you're committing a crime.

But you are calling it a crime to exhibit zero dangerous behavior.

INR? And frankly, just because there are rusty drivers out there, which is dangerous, it doesn't mean you can just take unnecessary risks...

I apologize. Autocorrect turned inebriated into "INR rusted." I was saying that you assume that alcohol in the system makes every driver dangerous. If they are actually exhibiting dangerous driving behavior then it is already a crime, alcohol or not.

Speed limits, seat belts? You're against them? Wow... that's frightening...

30 year old speed limits with modern technology. Yeah. There should be some updates there.

Being required to wear a seatbelt? Please, mommy, protect me from myself. You can't even argue that I'm endangering others if I don't wear my seatbelt.

Here is my philosophy on things like seatbelt laws, food restrictions, and other nanny laws: just because it is a good idea doesn't mean the government should do it.

Yes, but where is the line? How will people that are drunk, tell the difference? Intoxicated people are more prone to blurring their 'security'... If you get what I mean with that...

You don't expect them to judge their ability, but you think they will obey a law just because it exists?

We are assuming that the first guy might be able to display that behavior. Allowing people to drink and sit behind the wheel will cause a significant increase in traffic accidents, including lethal ones.

Alcohol related accidents have steadily decreased over the last 20 years, but the laws have existed far longer. What has made the change has been awareness.

Of course, it is impossible to determine statistics in the US when any BAC of 0.01 or higher is counted toward alcohol-related accidents. They get counted even when they don't violate the legal limit of 0.08. But I guess that makes it even more amazing that incidents have been on a decline.

 

[DK]

Well according to a county council filled with Ireland's equivalent of rednecks, drink-driving is OK!

 

[Joel]

Yes, but where is the line? How will people that are drunk, tell the difference? Intoxicated people are more prone to blurring their 'security'... If you get what I mean with that...

We are assuming that the first guy might be able to display that behavior. Allowing people to drink and sit behind the wheel will cause a significant increase in traffic accidents, including lethal ones.

The line is when they start to display signs of impaired driving. Almost everything that gets people pulled over for drinking and driving is illegal in the first place. Drunk drivers usually get pulled over for driving recklessly, carelessly, etc etc. These things are already illegal in the first place, and warrant being pulled over whether or not someone is drunk. It's not about what the drunk people think, it's about the way they're driving, if a guy is swerving all over the road, he should be pulled over and arrested whether he's drunk or not. A guy who is driving fine and is obeying and observing all other traffic laws should not be pulled over and booked just because he's had a few beers. That's where the line is.

 

[niky]

By the way, I agree that seatbelt violations should not be punishable by law. Any law that is meant simply to protect you from yourself is asinine. If a person feels the need to die, let them. Yeah, yeah... it's a pain in the butt for insurance companies, lawyers and other motorists involved in an accident, but all you have to do is simply rewrite the law limiting insurance liability in the case of non-use if it can be proven that non-use was he cause of death.

Preventative laws are more likely to harass innocent citizens than stop crime. They seek to punish for infringing zero rights. There is no reason to check sobriety without the violation of other laws, so why make it a crime by itself?

Setting aside the police pulling you over for "suspicious behaviour" which is not really suspicious and which is, admittedly, harrassment...

The reason for sobriety tests is that a subjective assessment of a driver's behaviour has led the police to believe that the driver is impaired in some manner. The sobriety test is meant to be a way for the police to separate the merely tipsy but still safe from the fall-down drunk.

But courts frown upon sobriety tests, because subjective is subjective. Which is why we have blood limits, which may or may not be too low.

-

The problem with the theory that drunk driving should not be illegal in and of itself unless the driver drives recklessly is that some drunks are perfectly capable of driving arrow straight down the road.

Then arrow straight off it. And they won't even know what happened.

I've been driving for years, in a country whose drunk driving laws are as cavalier as you hope the US's would be. If you drive home roaring drunk all the time, you get used to it, and are able to approximate normal driving behaviour even if you can't stand up straight. I've seen people drive straight home and wake up the next morning not remembering how they got home or why there's a puddle of puke inside the car. Others get 80% of the way home, get confused and smash into the nearest curb. Or tree. Or pedestrian. The only difference between the two is sheer, dumb luck. And up to the point of the accident, the latter will have exhibited no reckless behavior at all.

If being drunk simply meant having slower reflexes and a difficulty standing up straight, then drunk driving should be no more illegal than driving as an eighty year old. But it doesn't. Being drunk (really drunk) means losing the capability to discern that you're too drunk to drive, losing the inhibitions that make you drive at a safe speed and losing all awareness of other road users... and the road itself.

Should BAC limits be set higher? Maybe. Most definitely. Should drunk driving be made completely legal? No.

 

[Spoil-t]

Driving tired can be just as dangerous as driving drunk. I try to avoid driving my vehicles if I'm dead tired because I drive like I'm drunk when I'm like that.

 

[Keef]

I can't even read a Jalopnik article without being irked by somebody's illogical view of human rights. Note: The article itself is unrelated but I'll link it for fun.

"Helping the police find murderers in any way we can is our duty as citizens. Helping a guy find the stolen car that's precious to him is not, but it was damn nice of you!"

So somewhere along the lines this guy thinks that when somebody else infringes another's right to life, the rest of us therefore must forfeit our right to liberty, at minimum, in order to "help", or more appropriate be enslaved, to find the killer. Meanwhile, when a person's right to property gets infringed we don't have to worry about it at all because that fundamental right isn't as important as the one to life.

I'm pretty sure that the most basic way to boil down human rights are by life, liberty, and property. All three of these things depend on each other. They must coexist. It's like the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the US government - everybody seems to thing that life, or the executive branch, is ultimately the only one that matters when that's a load of bollocks. They all depend on each other to exist. You can argue for any one in particular but you'll conclude that the other two must coexist.

And no, I won't be forced to help the police find a killer. If I do, it'll be because I feel like helping, same as if I felt like helping my neighbor find his stolen car. Duty, my ass! The only duty I have as a human is to not infringe the life, liberty, or property of another.

 

[Dotini]

Duty, my ass! The only duty I have as a human is to not infringe the life, liberty, or property of another.

Your enthusiasm is admirable, Keef. But do we not have a duty to wash or use deodorant? But perhaps this obligation is not universal to humans. Or perhaps it should be characterized as a duty only to those wishing to be accepted into civilized society?

 

[Keef]

Depends on the context. Must you in your own home? Must you in or on somebody else's property who might have different rules than you?

Your example doesn't quite get to the point. Whereas you propose a citizen holding an expectation that another citizen act upon themselves, my example was that of either a government or a citizen expecting another citizen to act for everybody else. The word "duty" implies the act must be done at risk of punishment. And that's similar to the definition of slavery.

 

[Zenith]

I stopped reading anything Gawker-media because of stupidity like that.

 

[Danoff]

Keef's summary is consistent with my own position on the subject.

 

[FoolKiller]

Your enthusiasm is admirable, Keef. But do we not have a duty to wash or use deodorant? But perhaps this obligation is not universal to humans. Or perhaps it should be characterized as a duty only to those wishing to be accepted into civilized society?

Matthew McCaughnehey and Adam Carolla both claim to not use deodorant and Adam Carolla also claims his showers just consist of a quick rinse off once a day. Other civilized societies don't have the same kind of cleaning and grooming habits we do.

 

[Dotini]

I was taught that the three central duties of life were to pay your taxes, respect your parents, and be good to your friends. One of my best friends is the son of a diplomat, born at our capital city, college educated, widely traveled, and published. He adopts the old-fashioned European custom of, ahem, not over-bathing. I don't let it bother me.

With respect to duties, some would say the term has levels of meanings. For example, some would say humanity has a duty to reproduce, making it a choice, and still others would say it's a biological imperative. Is there a difference?