x_staff | What happened?

And I suppose reading Marius' medical chart without permission when it gave me the information I needed to keep his lungs from imploding was an abuse of the privilege as well? No, the ends don't justify the means, but there are exceptions to every rule. And I suppose if people have problems with that, then it follows that the best solution is to not permit the situation to occur again.

Next time I try and save someone's life, I'll make sure I get all the proper forms and permission slips signed.

Respect for the dignity and personhood of other people is what makes us different than Magneto.

Or do you disagree that putting a collar on me for the greater good of mutantkind was a bad use of genius?

No, putting a collar on you and forcing a separate personality into your head wasn't for the good of mutantkind. It was to use you as a tool, nothing more. If you're still confused about that, then just default to my personal experience, since I was the one of us who was sane enough at the time to concoct an escape plan.

I agree that our ethics separate us from those like Magneto. That doesn't mean that all our ethics have to be ironclad and exactly congruent. Moral and ethical considerations should never get in the way of doing the right thing.

I think that's the only really profound thing I've ever heard Remy say, come to think of it.

A tool that would have furthered his plan for mutantkind. Because he believes, as you believe, that he knows better what a person needs and wants than the person herself. That he should naturally be excepted from furthering his "interests that [he] deemed more important" than my personal freedom, privacy and free will.

Just because you ended up doing something good doesn't mean that you did the right thing.

Yeah, well, he's not ALL bad ideas.

Of course he's not. He wouldn't be nearly so convincing if he were. But the idea that his goals are more important than people is not one of them. When you give in to the arrogance that tells you that you know better what is good for people than they do and take steps to control them for it? Then you are not just wrong, you are acting evilly.

There is a difference between necessity and self-aggrandizement. That difference is why there is a code of ethics.

Incidentally, if that is the only profound thing you ever heard Remy say, you haven't spent nearly enough time with him.

I'll disagree there - sometimes it *is* possible to know better than someone else what is good for them. A parent making sure a child doesn't put their hand on a hot stove or eat rat poison, for example. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not arguing that you can just arbitrarily ignore ethics for either the greater good or what you term self-aggrandizement. I'm just saying that I do not consider certain things, like the sacrosanct nature of medical confidentiality, as a matter of ironclad ethics, simple because a code of medicine I do not subscribe to dictates so.

And most of what I've heard Remy say in the meager time I've been around him is usually unprintable in polite context. He's a very tightly-wound dude.

Children are not in charge of themselves. They're in the charge of their guardians. As minors, their rights are held in trust by their parents though that doesn't preclude them from still having rights of their own. You can try to protect a child from himself but educating a child works better than just barring him from doing something. You don't just tell him not to touch the stove, you tell him it is hot and will hurt him. Often the child touches the stove anyway because that's the problem of free will--he still has the choice to not listen to you. You can tell people cigarettes cause heart disease and cancer but you can't keep them from smoking anyway.

Whether you approve of the ethics or not, you are held to them by choosing to work in the medical field. As you have now opted out of that, you're not held to those same ethics. You are however bound by the laws that have codified those ethics into law.

If you tell me that for security purposes I must wear a tracking bracelet, I'm inclined to believe you because you're the head of security and I expect and trust that you will serve in that post in an ethical and appropriate manner. If you use that bracelet for reasons beyond what you have told me it is for--say, you are also performing hypothetically harmless experiments on me at the same time--you have violated that trust and when I find out, your job will be many times harder because I will not only NOT trust you anymore and work against your security measures but I will tell other people what you have done.

Free will, and the ability to, in the end, make your own decisions in life is the only thing that makes life worth anything. Acting against free will, violating free will, violating personhood, is wrong.

And you are arguing precisely that, Forge. You said very clearly that you consider your interests more important than ethics, law and the basic respect for your fellow humans.

Not all ethics. Just this specific point that I happen to disagree with.

Because it gets in your way.

Ethics of convenience are not ethics at all.

Oh, like you even know. If someone steals your prize souffle, it's not liable to turn up feeding some Canadian super-thug program. Some of us have bigger responsibilities.

Hell with this. I'm going for a drive. Call me if anyone else is about to explode.

You little twerp, I'd kick you in the shins but I've ruined enough shoes recently.

If someone steals my prize souffle recipe, I wish them much joy of it. I don't presume that I'm the only one in the world who can make it. In fact, I know I'm not since it was my teacher who gave it to me. Marcel was a better cook than I could ever hope to be.

You're just cranky because you got played AND you got caught. Sucks to be you.

What happened?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject