Salutations everyone, I'll try to keep this post as short and still informative of my current plight as possible.
I have known a friend for quite sometime whose company I enjoy and would prefer to keep interacting with said individual no lower than our current level.
We got into an argument, where while much was said and brought up, there is a deep underlying cause:
I am against killing and my friend is for killing.
Now let me clarify:
When I say killing I mean in as far as the death penalty AND euthanasia.
My friend believes that if one's crimes are bad enough, there is no chance of redemption.
My friend believes that if one's suffering gets to an externally noticeable level, one should be euthanized. My friend believes that keeping one alive while they are suffering is because the caretaker is too weak to live without said individual.
I believe that the accused learns nothing from being killed, hence the punishment is meaningless.
I believe that one should have as many days to live as possible, because there is no undoing death (to our knowledge at the time of this post). I believe that euthanizing a loved one that can still communicate and feed oneself means that the caretaker is too weak to watch the prolonged suffering.
Yes, there were other things that started and were brought up in the argument, but what downright ended it (leading to the realization of which I'm posting) was bringing up this incident that happened earlier this Autumn (warning, this contains graphically-worded imagery):
We were driving back to the friend's house (I was in the passenger seat) and we saw a cat in the road that had just been struck (seemingly not by the car right in front of us, but it was still moving). I told my friend to pull over and I ran out to the still twitching cat. When I got to it, the cat was rather still. I could now see that a portion of its skull had been ran over and the eye was permanently damaged and blood was slowly coming out of it's mouth. I hesistated for a moment and then picked up the cat, having little other option and not wanting to leave it in the middle of the road. Long story short the cat died in my arms before I ever got back to the car.
My friend pulled the car over so the cat could be put it out of its misery.
I had gotten out to see if we could rush the cat to urgent care.
...
Neither myself nor my friend have committed a crime in each other's eyes, yet I feel like our trust in each other has been shaken by this...disagreement.
What I seek are:
-Advice for us to move on and continue our friendship.
-More insight into my friend's perspective (we currently are not talking).
-How to coexist with our perceived weaknesses when they are two sides of the same coin.
This is one of those areas where, if you wish to continue said friendship, you both need to agree that you both disagree, move on, and never bring the subject up again, ever.
Seriously.
The topic you're describing has some really convoluted answers and is almost entirely dependent on a each individual case. In other words, it is not possible to have a black and white answer.
My spouse and I had a similar discussion after watching an episode of "Fear Thy Neighbor." My answer was succinct and short, but interestingly it surprised her. No, I won't tell anyone what my answer was. But instead of arguing with me, she asked the golden question, why? She opted to listen. Once she heard my view, and I hers, we both continued to enjoy each other company with a much deeper understanding of each other. I doubt the subject will come up again.
The problem with your friend's point of view is that they are the arbiter of who gets to live and die. That's majorly problematic from and ethical point of view.
There's nothing wrong, in general, with either of your points of view, but calling someone "weak" is usually a cover for a lack of empathy.
Savannah Lion is right, if you want to be friends you'll have to agree to move on.
I'm not going to get into the particular issue at hand, because that's not really what the important thing is in this matter. I will say that there are good arguments in favor of either approach that have nothing to do with weakness on anyone's part.
What is important is the question of your friendship.
Strong friendships can weather deep disagreements about morality and other elements of philosophy. However, what they cannot weather is a lack of mutual respect.
To the OP: Do you feel there is something here that must be resolved? If so, why? Is it because you think one of you is wrong and you'd like to arrive at a solution? Is it because you can't stand the idea that someone close disagrees with you? Or is it because you worry that how your friend arrived at a different decision says that you two are incompatible (say, irreconcilable moral outlooks)?
Each of these speaks to a different type of personality on your part, your perception of your friend, and the quality of your friendship.
- If you don't feel anything needs to be resolved, then you need to take a good look in the mirror to figure out why you're so uncomfortable. If you're past resolving anything, this friendship is basically already over.
- If you think this issue is a meaningful one, and deeper conversation might help you and he arrive at a better understanding, that's the best thing possible.
- If you can't stand the idea of being disagreed with, well, then you don't respect your friend, period.
- If you think this issue signifies some irreconcilable difference in character, than you don't trust your friend enough to assume he has a good reason for thinking the way he does.
The bottom line is that your friendship is already damaged because something is bothering you and you don't trust something about the reason he disagrees. Once you realize that, you either have to either (a) accept a damaged friendship (because this will still gnaw at you, and you'll never fully trust them until it's resolved); (b) realize the problem is on your end, and figure out how to accept the difference of opinion while trusting that they got to a different place in a still good way, or (c) decide to have a conversation that risks blowing up the friendship or, if your connection is deep enough and you're both of good character, will probably end up actually making it stronger.
From my perspective, it's always best to have the conversation. For every close tie I have, there is something something deep and meaningful that we disagree about. However, in having those discussions, I learned how good people can arrive at conclusions different than my own (and occasionally changed each other's minds). I lost few friends this way, but those friends weren't really worth having anyway.
My main issue was not the disagreeing, but the perceived weakness we saw in the other. I been lucky in life and I know people who aren't in as favorable situations, but that doesn't make me consider them as weaker individuals, just products of their situations. During this argument with my friend, we saw each other as weak due to our stance. That doesn't sit well with me being labelled as such and it does not sit well with me labelling someone that I call a friend as "weak". It's toxic.
It actually came up today and that was where I focused. I told me friend how I felt looked down upon for my viewpoint and immediately admitted being guilty of doing the same to them.
We are (for the time being at least) back to normalcy. I'll be honest, it was better to hear my friend's viewpoint from a backstory style narrative than the day of the argument when it was used as a blunt instrument to bash my beliefs (and no, I was not a saint in the fight either).
I agree that this is a big schism in our otherwise joint beliefs, but I know it's something I cannot change. Since I cannot change it, the other path is acceptance. Indeed that means I don't have to agree with it, but for a friendship that has lasted for over nine years, I also agree that it's worth not forcefully bringing up as a non sequitur.
Morality isn't black and white. There is a lot of gray.
Morality is different in every single scenario. Every time you have a general ideology it falls apart in different specific hypthetical situations.
Discussing philosophical arguments is the issue. In that specific situation, the cat was in an immense amount of pain and should be put out of its misery. As for any other argument, it honestly depends on the specific situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Anyone can snap her fingers and yanks a soul. I prefer to kill creatively." -- Braids, Dementia Summoner, Ghastly Demisde
"If you don't hit your adversaries wile they're down, they might get up again." --Whipkeeper
"Victory favors neither the righteous nor the wicked. It favors the prepared." -- Lay of the Land
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have known a friend for quite sometime whose company I enjoy and would prefer to keep interacting with said individual no lower than our current level.
We got into an argument, where while much was said and brought up, there is a deep underlying cause:
I am against killing and my friend is for killing.
Now let me clarify:
When I say killing I mean in as far as the death penalty AND euthanasia.
My friend believes that if one's crimes are bad enough, there is no chance of redemption.
My friend believes that if one's suffering gets to an externally noticeable level, one should be euthanized.
My friend believes that keeping one alive while they are suffering is because the caretaker is too weak to live without said individual.
I believe that the accused learns nothing from being killed, hence the punishment is meaningless.
I believe that one should have as many days to live as possible, because there is no undoing death (to our knowledge at the time of this post).
I believe that euthanizing a loved one that can still communicate and feed oneself means that the caretaker is too weak to watch the prolonged suffering.
Yes, there were other things that started and were brought up in the argument, but what downright ended it (leading to the realization of which I'm posting) was bringing up this incident that happened earlier this Autumn (warning, this contains graphically-worded imagery):
I had gotten out to see if we could rush the cat to urgent care.
...
Neither myself nor my friend have committed a crime in each other's eyes, yet I feel like our trust in each other has been shaken by this...disagreement.
What I seek are:
-Advice for us to move on and continue our friendship.
-More insight into my friend's perspective (we currently are not talking).
-How to coexist with our perceived weaknesses when they are two sides of the same coin.
Thank you in advance.
Edited to add grammatically missing words.
Seriously.
The topic you're describing has some really convoluted answers and is almost entirely dependent on a each individual case. In other words, it is not possible to have a black and white answer.
My spouse and I had a similar discussion after watching an episode of "Fear Thy Neighbor." My answer was succinct and short, but interestingly it surprised her. No, I won't tell anyone what my answer was. But instead of arguing with me, she asked the golden question, why? She opted to listen. Once she heard my view, and I hers, we both continued to enjoy each other company with a much deeper understanding of each other. I doubt the subject will come up again.
Playing at “realist” or “idealist”, for instance, will not serve us well in this crazy complex world.
There's nothing wrong, in general, with either of your points of view, but calling someone "weak" is usually a cover for a lack of empathy.
Savannah Lion is right, if you want to be friends you'll have to agree to move on.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
What is important is the question of your friendship.
Strong friendships can weather deep disagreements about morality and other elements of philosophy. However, what they cannot weather is a lack of mutual respect.
To the OP: Do you feel there is something here that must be resolved? If so, why? Is it because you think one of you is wrong and you'd like to arrive at a solution? Is it because you can't stand the idea that someone close disagrees with you? Or is it because you worry that how your friend arrived at a different decision says that you two are incompatible (say, irreconcilable moral outlooks)?
Each of these speaks to a different type of personality on your part, your perception of your friend, and the quality of your friendship.
- If you don't feel anything needs to be resolved, then you need to take a good look in the mirror to figure out why you're so uncomfortable. If you're past resolving anything, this friendship is basically already over.
- If you think this issue is a meaningful one, and deeper conversation might help you and he arrive at a better understanding, that's the best thing possible.
- If you can't stand the idea of being disagreed with, well, then you don't respect your friend, period.
- If you think this issue signifies some irreconcilable difference in character, than you don't trust your friend enough to assume he has a good reason for thinking the way he does.
The bottom line is that your friendship is already damaged because something is bothering you and you don't trust something about the reason he disagrees. Once you realize that, you either have to either (a) accept a damaged friendship (because this will still gnaw at you, and you'll never fully trust them until it's resolved); (b) realize the problem is on your end, and figure out how to accept the difference of opinion while trusting that they got to a different place in a still good way, or (c) decide to have a conversation that risks blowing up the friendship or, if your connection is deep enough and you're both of good character, will probably end up actually making it stronger.
From my perspective, it's always best to have the conversation. For every close tie I have, there is something something deep and meaningful that we disagree about. However, in having those discussions, I learned how good people can arrive at conclusions different than my own (and occasionally changed each other's minds). I lost few friends this way, but those friends weren't really worth having anyway.
Modern: Merfolk UU // Green Devotion GG // SkRed Red RR
Legacy: Death & Taxes WW // Burn RR // Death's Shadow Delver UB
Commander: Brago UW // Karlov WB
It actually came up today and that was where I focused. I told me friend how I felt looked down upon for my viewpoint and immediately admitted being guilty of doing the same to them.
We are (for the time being at least) back to normalcy. I'll be honest, it was better to hear my friend's viewpoint from a backstory style narrative than the day of the argument when it was used as a blunt instrument to bash my beliefs (and no, I was not a saint in the fight either).
I agree that this is a big schism in our otherwise joint beliefs, but I know it's something I cannot change. Since I cannot change it, the other path is acceptance. Indeed that means I don't have to agree with it, but for a friendship that has lasted for over nine years, I also agree that it's worth not forcefully bringing up as a non sequitur.
Morality is different in every single scenario. Every time you have a general ideology it falls apart in different specific hypthetical situations.
Discussing philosophical arguments is the issue. In that specific situation, the cat was in an immense amount of pain and should be put out of its misery. As for any other argument, it honestly depends on the specific situation.
"If you don't hit your adversaries wile they're down, they might get up again." --Whipkeeper
"Victory favors neither the righteous nor the wicked. It favors the prepared." -- Lay of the Land