Well, it's halloween so let's have a scary adult discussion about ethics!

When is it okay to take away someone else's freedom or autonomy and and force them into something they didn't choose or are actively opposed to?

@relee When they intend to act on their freedoms in order to oppress, harm, kill or commit genocide.

@FreyaManibrandr Sorry I didn't respond sooner, it's been weird the last couple days...

Your answers are good, those are reasons to have your freedom impinged on, but when is it okay for you to be the one who does it? Or, whoever does it, how is it decided who can do that to someone else?

For that matter, who decides what opression and harm are? We even have trouble defining life and death...

@relee A simple answer would be if the consequences of not drawing my sword is that more harm will happen.

As for who? Well, that's asking the wrong question, because at its roots it's all about being able to draw our boundaries, and being able to enforce them.

Personally speaking, we generally have a live and let live philosophy when it comes to others living their lives, as long as what they are doing isn't harming those around them.

@FreyaManibrandr If we're getting personal, what are your definitions of harm?

If you want to get really deep in there, what is your line on what seperates a person or being from an animal or object? It's okay if there's more tiers than that, too, that's a really complex question.

@relee Harm is anything that is inimical and/or deleterious to the continued existence or well-being of the subject in question.

One may ask, "How do we know if it is the case?" And to that i say, we definitionally can't because it is a categorically subjective classification, and requires us to view the situation on a case-by-case basis.

As for what separate us from animals and/or object. I'd say I honestly can't tell you. As an animist, I see quality in the souls of all that exists, that includes us, animals, humans and objects that are considered "not living." But then again, considering that the universe is itself constantly interacting and involving micro- and macrocosms of itself in endless cycles of death and rebirth, what really makes it so special to be considered "living" that it only extends to carbon-based life forms with self-replicating proteins?

Would you consider stars to be alive? Because I do, as well as landmarks, monuments and world wonders, for that matter.

@FreyaManibrandr It can be really difficult to determine what composes the subject in question.

I have a strange relationship to animism because I tend to anthropomorphize objects and even concepts, as much as even apologizing for saying bad things about them in anger. But, if you look at a living creature, we're multi-celled organisms. Our cells comprise a single being by working together, but arguably they're each a life of their own. (Cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr The individual cells that make up your body aren't even all connected. Blood is a liquid, but part of your body, and each blood cell contains your whole genetic code. Each cell also contains a Mitochondria, with its own genetic code.

And all of them are made up of arrangements of the same particles as every bit of non-living matter. In a sense, you could say the universe is alive because parts of it (like us) are alive. (cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr Stars may or may not be alive in a sense, but they don't really do much besides physical reactions of their constituent particles, as far as I know.

Many animals on Earth are in some way 'intelligent' but have minds distinctly different from humans, and nothing but humans gets human rights from humans regardless of capability or intelligence, though they may get better treatment. (cont.)