Interesting that you took this post to be entirely about romantic/sexual relationships, especially since a partner should not be solely responsible for assuaging your lonliness.

Even if everyone had a partner/spouse male loneliness would still be a massive issue because men aren’t socialized in a way that equips them to have emotionally intimate platonic friendships. If my wife was my ONLY friend, I’d still be very lonely. Furthermore, even if I wasn’t in a relationship, I wouldn’t be lonely because of the friends I have.

Is it ok to manipulate them to save their souls?

No, because souls don’t exist.

What about if someone doesn’t want kids, but you know they would be happier with them?

If I actually knew that for a fact then yeah, literally yes that would be ethical. The reason that feels wrong is because there’s literally 0 possible situation in real life where you can be certain about that, and in the vast, vast majority of situations the person saying that is correct about themselves. So in any real-world scenario, it wouldn’t be.

I’d like to clarify that I think the situations where it’s ethical to override a patients agency are not common. In practice I probably agree with you in 99.99% of cases.

But if I was literally omniscient so I knew?

What about giving up sex, drugs, and rock n roll? What about starting sex, drugs, and rock n roll?

Sure. If you had sufficient certainty that you can correctly, by reason alone, identify it as a truth that this would maximize their well being. Like the children example though, I don’t think there’s any real world scenario where you could be.

Yes, people are stupid. And medicine is complicated and difficult to understand. And in systems like American healthcare, there’s a ton of bullshit on top of everything. But it’s very rare to be ok to deny them their agency to make a decision.

I’m not saying we should deny people agency as a rule. Doctors are also failable humans who would make bad decisions if we established as a rule that it’s ok for them to override patient agency.

I’m just saying that even though it’s immoral to establish a culture in the medical system of doing so, individual instances of doing so can absolutely be moral. Probably they should still be condemned anyway to prevent the establishment of such a culture, though.

Of course, IME in the US, it won’t be the patient refusing treatment; it’ll be their insurance company that does so. And if not them, then finances in another form.

If there’s one thing we can confidently conclude is immoral here I agree that it’s insurance companies lmao.

I think thus just boils down to whether you think Kantian or Utilitarian ethics is more correct.

I think it’s not just ok, but morally obligatory to do your best to promote people’s well being, even via manipulation, regardless of if they are hellbent on fucking themselves over. Human beings are deeply, deeply imperfect, and we do not always make good rational decisions. With respect to medical care specifically, if someone refuses something that is objectively a clear benefit regardless of potential unknown context, then they are not doing so rationally, and there’s no good reason to just throw your hands up and give up on them for that.

deleted by creator

Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it’s all made up.

Made up, sure, but still very useful to understand because so many people believe it.

I’ve run a full DJ setup with speakers, a mixer, soundboard, laptop, etc. off a single line of 6-8 daisy-chained extension cords more times than I can count.

…uh…how have I never learned of this.