razboz
14th January 2007, 15:49
SO heres the question: should epopel be given the freedom to chose who lives with them or not?
The question probably does not seem obvious up front.but here is my reasoning. If somone is harmfull to society they have them removed from society and placed in jail. Now you can doubt the ethicity of jail or its effectiveness as a deterrent, but one thing it does do is stop this individual harming any other people in their society/community. Thus the decision was amde at one point thaat people should be allowed to live without anyone harmfull around them.
Should this freedom extend to anyone? What if a majority of people in a given neighbourhood do not approve of a minority? Should they then be allowed the freedom of chosing wether or not to live with this minority? I guess this boils down to the question of which freedom is more important: the freedom of the majority to chose what kind of community they live in, or the freedom of the minority to chose where to live?
Maybe it would help if i gave a more concrete example. If there exists on your block a group of fanatical Chrsitans that go around carrying 2 meter tall crosses and wailing relgious chnts around the placeand praying at every street corner should they be asked to leave and find a community that is more accepting of this behaviour? Similarly if it is a group of homosexuals that go around being openly homosexual in an otherwise straight community, and that this bothers the community (this is the Christian community we were considering sending the fanatical people on your block to) should they also be asked to leave? If it really bothers the inhabitants, should they be forced to be more accepting of others, or allowed to chose? Of course they could always leave, but im saying if a majority of people in a given environment disaprove, should the rule of majority prevail?
Itd be cool to get some comments.
[and before anyone sez im a racist homophobe etc i am a minority who bothers people so id probly be on the frontline to exile]
The question probably does not seem obvious up front.but here is my reasoning. If somone is harmfull to society they have them removed from society and placed in jail. Now you can doubt the ethicity of jail or its effectiveness as a deterrent, but one thing it does do is stop this individual harming any other people in their society/community. Thus the decision was amde at one point thaat people should be allowed to live without anyone harmfull around them.
Should this freedom extend to anyone? What if a majority of people in a given neighbourhood do not approve of a minority? Should they then be allowed the freedom of chosing wether or not to live with this minority? I guess this boils down to the question of which freedom is more important: the freedom of the majority to chose what kind of community they live in, or the freedom of the minority to chose where to live?
Maybe it would help if i gave a more concrete example. If there exists on your block a group of fanatical Chrsitans that go around carrying 2 meter tall crosses and wailing relgious chnts around the placeand praying at every street corner should they be asked to leave and find a community that is more accepting of this behaviour? Similarly if it is a group of homosexuals that go around being openly homosexual in an otherwise straight community, and that this bothers the community (this is the Christian community we were considering sending the fanatical people on your block to) should they also be asked to leave? If it really bothers the inhabitants, should they be forced to be more accepting of others, or allowed to chose? Of course they could always leave, but im saying if a majority of people in a given environment disaprove, should the rule of majority prevail?
Itd be cool to get some comments.
[and before anyone sez im a racist homophobe etc i am a minority who bothers people so id probly be on the frontline to exile]