|
|
|
|
|
|
by luckylion
1310 days ago
|
|
|
It's important because people started talking about choice. What they mean, I assume, is "let them live in peace", which I fully agree with. But this whole "no, they've chosen that lifestyle" is dumb. It implies that they know the alternatives and somehow arrived at that lifestyle as the one they preferred. That's nonsense on e.g. the North Sentinalese islanders. I dislike changing the meaning of words because it sounds nice, it ruins communication. > For example, it doesn’t seem like a reasonable requirement that someone spends a bunch of time doing cocaine so they understand it, in order to not want to do cocaine. And I would mostly agree with that, if it weren't for the fact that you can read about drugs and their effect and learn something about it. It's limited, and you should be very aware of the fact that you have a very limited understanding of the alternatives, but it's not comparable to "I don't know that cocaine exists, therefore I have chosen not to consume it". That's just ignorance, not choice. |
|
|
In the cocaine example, If I stay away from reading about recreational drugs, and don’t put anything that I don’t know what’s in it in my body, why should I ever have to know or care about cocaine at all? Is that not a choice with the same effect, but also without all the work and risk involved in doing all that research and potentially trying something that is more dangerous to me than would be obvious?
Forcing someone to know something is removing their ability to make those choices.
Having Agency/Self Determination means being able to make that choice, even when others don’t agree with it, or it causes potential problems for someone. That is the cost (and privilege) of ownership.
In a society, we infringe that for members of our society when the society overall thinks it justifies the costs. Vaccinations for kids before they go to school, to stop large scale outbreaks and death for instance. Or mandatory public education.
But that is for folks raised in and part of the overall fabric already, and impossibly intertwined with it.
Doing that for someone outside of it makes no sense.
For one (less extreme) example, The Amish (if they’re devout) aren’t being deprived because they aren’t being forced to learn how to program in C or whatever. They’re making choices to intentionally not go there, for their own reasons. They are free to change that if they want.
If you want to argue that their kids or whatever don’t get to choose, that’s all kids everywhere.
Unless they are offending us in some serious way that we can’t stand by and ignore, we’ve generally all agreed to let everyone live and let live, since otherwise it produces worse abuse and deprives them of their right to live the way they want.
But if you want to say that it’s societies obligation to ‘fix that’, you’re treading a very dark and dangerous path.
The same path that resulted in the ‘aboriginal schools’ in Australia, Canada, etc. and the reservations, missions, forced conversions etc. in the US and their massive and terrible abuses.