Quote:
Originally Posted by ronmcdon
What we think is appropriate is entirely irrelevant.
It's futile to even try and understand China's cultural customs, laws, penalties.
|
I vehemently disagree with the assertion that, "what we think is appropriate is entirely irrelevant". In fact, I think it's perhaps the most relevant thing of all.
By your logic, one could argue that we can't condemn the Holocaust because Nazi Germany was a different society?
While I can appreciate the moral relativist position that China is a vastly different country from the United States - with a deep and rich cultural, social, and political history of it own - and therefore has policies that do not mirror our own, it doesn't change the fact that I find the political and judicial policies of the current regime reprehensible.
In this case in particular I am dismayed that a human being was executed for an act that, in an of itself, harmed no one.
FWIW, as far as drug policy is concerned, I don't think U.S. laws are much better in some respects.
Quote:
About bartenders though, I'm not so sure it's the best example from a legal standpoint.
Alcohol isn't illegal to consume, sell, or transport.
Perhaps illicit drug dealer, or smuggler would be more relevant.
It's also illegal here, just as it is in China and almost every country.
It's just the legal procedures & penalties are different.
|
You missed my point. It doesn't really matter who the "barkeeper" is, or what he serves. Nor in which country he serves it.
At it's very foundation, the example I gave revolves around the following arguments:
- What entity or being has the right to determine what an individuals does with their body or what substances they choose to consume?
- On what basis do we assign moral superiority/acceptability of certain substances over others? Who decides this; and from where do they derive their authority?
I would say that first question is absurd because the answer is inherent: only the individuals themselves can choose.
The second is more complex. Although I would submit that as long as the use of the substance affects only the user, the user should be free to do what he wishes with the substance.
With that in mind, let me offer a simplified version of the example in my previous post:
-Person A offers to sell a product to Person B, without coercion.
-The product offered has the potential to both benefit and/or harm Person B.
-Essentially, Person A is offering Person B a choice: Buy the product, or do not buy the product.
Logically, Person B, is the only individual that can decide whether the potential benefit or harm of the product justifies its purchase.
On what grounds can we justify punishing Person A for offering Person B a choice?
Quote:
Now I'm just guessing about whats technically legal, in my casual opinion
(in case a certain somebody comes in to make a fuss)
Ethics, I could care less about...
|
Could you elaborate on this? Especially the last part in bold.