Morality

[Greta]

Originally Posted by momof7

mine is that man is different from the rest of creation and therefore that life is sacred.

 

I can only say that I find this to be wonderful.

 

But every species is by definition different from the rest. So are they not all sacred?

[Greta]

What if there was an objective measurement -- such as an area of the brain linked to emotional/physical pain -- would this moral guideline then become an "absolute"?

[jacqui in mo]

What if there was an objective measurement -- such as an area of the brain linked to emotional/physical pain -- would this moral guideline then become an "absolute"?

 

Knowing what I do about the brain from my speech therapy studies & reading this recent book The Brain that Changes Itself, the brains of different people would show different areas & amounts of the brain being activated during suffering. We know without brain scans that people suffer in different ways & some people have higher pain/suffering thresholds than others. So I'm afraid that this area too would have a degree of relativity.

 

Jacqui

[Greta]

Interesting! But even if it can not be tied to a specific region of the brain, suffering can still be measured through certain physiological changes, yes?

 

I'm arguing, perhaps ineffectively, that suffering is a real, tangible phenomenon. (And that is why not causing others to experience it forms the basis for moral behavior.)

[nancypants]

Here's a question sort of along these lines then... if morality is defined by not causing others to suffer, would it be possible for someone to be immoral if he/she was completely alone on a desert island (or better still, for this question's purpose, alone in the world)? I mean, is it in any way possible for them to do something wrong still?

 

Great conversation everyone. :)

[8filltheheart]

What if there was an objective measurement -- such as an area of the brain linked to emotional/physical pain -- would this moral guideline then become an "absolute"?

 

The problem with using suffering as a basis for morality is that there is suffering that is indirect and beyond control. How do you deal with that suffering?

 

Suffering in and of itself is not a wrong. Labor is obviously painful, yet the result is birth. The fact that the child is inflicting pain on the mother is not immoral.

 

The premise of suffering and happiness as the basis for morality is not a sound argument.

[Greta]

Good question! I've always considered the question of morality to be at its core: "how should I treat others?"

The things we do to harm ourselves are just as tragic, but are they the domain of morality? I tend to think not. But I'd like to hear a case for that if anyone wants to make it!

[8filltheheart]

 

 

But every species is by definition different from the rest. So are they not all sacred?

 

The differentation of species is not the basis of the argument. It is the functioning of man within creation. Man is the only creature that employs technology, plants harvests and raises food sources, barters services, researches in order to provide medical care, records history, etc.

 

Man questions his existance.

 

These higher "functions" distinguish man as unique from all other creatures.

[Greta]

The problem with using suffering as a basis for morality is that there is suffering that is indirect and beyond control. How do you deal with that suffering?

 

Not relevant. Morality is about how we ought to behave. Things outside our control have no bearing on that question.

 

Suffering in and of itself is not a wrong. Labor is obviously painful, yet the result is birth. The fact that the child is inflicting pain on the mother is not immoral.

 

Since the child has no choice in this, I would submit that perhaps it falls into the above category.

 

The premise of suffering and happiness as the basis for morality is not a sound argument.

 

But it's the best I've ever heard.

[Greta]

The differentation of species is not the basis of the argument. It is the functioning of man within creation. Man is the only creature that employs technology, plants harvests and raises food sources, barters services, researches in order to provide medical care, records history, etc.

 

That's better. :001_smile: I couldn't agree with the argument as originally stated. Getting closer.

 

Man questions his existance.

 

But we don't know that we're unique in that.

 

Don't mean to sound terse. Typing difficulties!!! (See http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=250666#poststop)

 

Gotta run. Back this afternoon.

[8filltheheart]

Not relevant. Morality is about how we ought to behave. Things outside our control have no bearing on that question.

 

 

But, it is a definition that is being used to make moral decisions. Euthanasia inorder to prevent suffering is being called a moral good. Therefore the behavior of ending a life to prevent suffering is being called just.

 

Situational ethics is a slippery slope. Cliche but true.

[Peek a Boo]

But I already told you... I did put a value on it. It's going to be thrown away. It cannot suffer. Thus it should be able to be used for research. But it can't be because of your belief. Instead you throw nonsense like this at me. "Why not kill people"... we're not talking about people. If it were a person it would not be able to be thrown away.

 

 

Right --your value is that *you feel* it is OK to throw it away. You still have not defined "suffer". I throw FACTS like "it is human life" at you. Please show me how it is incorrect that a blastocyst you want to use for research is not a human life. You are the one choosing to put an arbitrary value on a human life. Do you want to continue w/ the legal definition of "person"? One that is likely to change over the years? We're already legally moving to recognizing the death of a fetus in a murdered pregnant woman. really --you need to establish a standard for whose life is worth protecting and whose is worth killing for whatever reason you deem OK. Define --for the purposes of this thread-- what human life you think is worth protecting. If you are going to accept current legal definitions, will you accept past and future definitions?

 

You refuse to put a value on human life? Then why do you sit by while it's thrown away? Why do you sit by while the life that's already here suffers?

 

I refuse to put a differential value on the various stages of HUMAN development. You are assuming that i am "just sitting by" :) Now you want to bring the word "life" into the picture? ok ....define "life." And don't forget to define "suffer."

 

 

You put false choices before us and bold your words like it makes the choices clearer. They're still false.

 

So you are saying that a developing human isn't a human? or that it isn't alive? or that it can't die? Please clarify exactly what it is that I bolded that is false.

 

 

No one is talking about killing infants, no one is talking about euthanasia. We're talking about doing stem cell research on fertilized blastocysts three days old. They will never, ever become human beings because they will never, ever be implanted. Only religious fervor keeps us from finding out if we can help those people who are here, alive, suffering now. But for some reason you hold a group of 16 cells in higher regard than a fully grown person.

 

I don't hold them in higher regard. I hold them as equals. You are the one showing an arbitrary regard for a number of cells a human has. And as has already been posted, there's more to the issue than you want to look at.

 

The argument that you use, that it could become a human... every cell in your body holds that possibility now with today's technology. (Do you save your fingernail clippings in a special basket?) So to hold research back... you can make the argument that a man must be killed for any number of reasons. Why can't you make the leap that these cells must be sacrificed for the greater good of all mankind?

 

I didn't say "it could become human" -- I said it IS human. Prove me wrong on that one. unlike fingernail clippings, the blastocyst is a developing human. You really don't need a degree in biology to figure that one out tho. If that possibility is there "w/ every cell" then i would suggest you not let my belief hold research back and grab those fingernail clippings and start researching! oh... wait... you need something DIFFERENT than fingernail clippings, don't you...?

 

So it's OK to sacrifice a developing human for the greater good? Then it should be OK to kill off everyone w/ communicable diseases, right? I mean, they are only spreading suffering! And as long as do so in a manner that doesn't allow suffering, then it would be a two-fer! They don't suffer, and the rest of mankind won't suffer!

 

Again, you might want to define "suffer."

 

You'd also have to show how the Bible says in that passage that it means rape. Unless you wanna fall back on "because i *feel* it does"........

 

 

{and I'm really hoping that everyone realizes I don't HOLD those last few beliefs, right?} :)

[Phred]

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Right --your value is that *you feel* it is OK to throw it away.

Hey Peek.

 

Um, no, I don't feel it's ok. It's going to happen. These are discards from the in-vitro fertilization process. They are held, frozen, and cannot be held that way forever. Eventually they will be discarded... thrown away. But instead of using them for research it's actually been made against the law to do so in some states. If a scientist were to use these discards for something in S. Dakota he could face jail time.

 

You still have not defined "suffer".

In this case the definition is to "feel pain".

 

I throw FACTS like "it is human life" at you. Please show me how it is incorrect that a blastocyst you want to use for research is not a human life. You are the one choosing to put an arbitrary value on a human life.

Now see what you did? You changed from it is "human life" to "a human life". Those are different things. Human life encompasses the cells you wipe off every time you blow your nose. Those are "human life" too. But those are not "a human life". A human life is the entirety of what one is after we are born. There's an awful lot of gray area that happens between conception and birth that we, as a society, have yet to work out. If your definition of "human life" is correct then organ transplants cannot continue as the organ is "human life" which is the same as "a human life" so you can't transfer a person into another person.

 

The blastocyst I want to use for research is "human life" and that's why I want to use it. It is not "a human life" which is why your argument falls apart.

 

Do you want to continue w/ the legal definition of "person"? One that is likely to change over the years? We're already legally moving to recognizing the death of a fetus in a murdered pregnant woman. really --you need to establish a standard for whose life is worth protecting and whose is worth killing for whatever reason you deem OK. Define --for the purposes of this thread-- what human life you think is worth protecting. If you are going to accept current legal definitions, will you accept past and future definitions?

Are you? Are you going to accept the past religious definitions? The future ones? Are you going to continue to ignore science in favor of dogma? The current definition of death is when brain activity stops. The blastocyst has no brain to function. No heartbeat. What "life" are you protecting? Please stop branching off into other sorts of abortions I've never mentioned.

 

I refuse to put a differential value on the various stages of HUMAN development. You are assuming that i am "just sitting by" :) Now you want to bring the word "life" into the picture? ok ....define "life." And don't forget to define "suffer."

But you do all the time. Again, every time you scratch yourself, anywhere, you are committing the crime you accuse researchers of. Because with technology today any cell on your body is a potential human being. This argument of "development" just doesn't hold water.

 

 

I didn't say "it could become human" -- I said it IS human. Prove me wrong on that one. unlike fingernail clippings, the blastocyst is a developing human. You really don't need a degree in biology to figure that one out tho. If that possibility is there "w/ every cell" then i would suggest you not let my belief hold research back and grab those fingernail clippings and start researching! oh... wait... you need something DIFFERENT than fingernail clippings, don't you...?

But it isn't a developing human being. It's frozen in time. Stopped cold. Without intervention by researchers it will never be anything more than cells... just like your fingernails. But why tell me? Tell the young girl with the spinal cord injury. That's what's obscene about this. It's her suffering I'm trying to alleviate and it's her suffering you're disregarding. In favor of what?

 

So it's OK to sacrifice a developing human for the greater good? Then it should be OK to kill off everyone w/ communicable diseases, right? I mean, they are only spreading suffering! And as long as do so in a manner that doesn't allow suffering, then it would be a two-fer! They don't suffer, and the rest of mankind won't suffer!

You are fine with taking a man who's brain is dead and harvesting his organs then burying him in the ground. Why do you treat a blastocyst better than him? They both have no brainwaves, no signs of life and no ability to gain those signs of life. Both are going to be buried in the ground (or tossed in the trash) so why shouldn't we get what good we can from them? In the case of the blastocyst the only thing standing in the way is dogma.

[jacqui in mo]

The blastocyst I want to use for research is "human life" and that's why I want to use it. It is not "a human life" which is why your argument falls apart.

How is a blastocyst not a unique human life? It has all the genes & chromosomes it needs & will ever have to make a human that is like no one else. See my post above about how some agencies are trying to get these frozen embryos adopted.

 

 

every time you scratch yourself, anywhere, you are committing the crime you accuse researchers of.

Skin cells & other human tissue is still just tissue unless a new nucleus is artificially inserted. And then it will be a clone.

When we scratch ourselves the tissues lost are not a unique human. Again the blatocyst has all the genetic info it needs on its own to be a unique human.

 

You are fine with taking a man who's brain is dead and harvesting his organs then burying him in the ground. Why do you treat a blastocyst better than him?

It is different. In this case the man or his immediate family have consented to this procedure as a last wish, a last gift of life to someone else when there is No hope of life continuing for the man. Not everyone does it nor should be coerced to do so. The unique human that is the blatocyst (which is actually an embryo, which is actually a baby) is unable to give consent to sacrifice itself.

[8filltheheart]

Good question! I've always considered the question of morality to be at its core: "how should I treat others?"

The things we do to harm ourselves are just as tragic, but are they the domain of morality? I tend to think not. But I'd like to hear a case for that if anyone wants to make it!

 

I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation soon. I have been spending too much time on computer.

 

Anyway.......I simply ask you these questions to consider......

 

Does society have the right the commit someone who is suicidal to the hospital against their will?

 

Is there any moral obligation to intervene if a teenager is discussing suicide?

 

If someone (including teenagers and adults) attempts suicide and you stumble upon them before they have died, should you call for emergency help?

[Greta]

Does society have the right the commit someone who is suicidal to the hospital against their will?

 

Is there any moral obligation to intervene if a teenager is discussing suicide?

 

If someone (including teenagers and adults) attempts suicide and you stumble upon them before they have died, should you call for emergency help?

 

But all of these questions are variations on the one I asked: how should I (or we) treat others? Should we act, and if so how, to stop someone's suffering?

[Greta]

Situational ethics is a slippery slope.

 

Is there any such thing as non-situational ethics? Or is morality always a question of 'how should one respond to this situation? . . . to that one?"

 

I know you said you don't have much time to devote to this thread. Neither do I! But it is very interesting! I have enjoyed hearing your thoughts, and would like to continue if possible.

[Greta]

T

But we don't know that we're unique in that.

 

This is what I was thinking of when I said that:

 

When an elephant dies, its family members engage in intense mourning and burial rituals, conducting weeklong vigils over the body, carefully covering it with earth and brush, revisiting the bones for years afterward, caressing the bones with their trunks, often taking turns rubbing their trunks along the teeth of a skull’s lower jaw, the way living elephants do in greeting.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08elephant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5070&en=75a7d7b9ccaced19&ex=1164258000

 

I am not fully convinced we are the only sentient species on the planet. What if elephants also wonder why their loved ones have to die?

[8filltheheart]

Even if they wonder why they die, do they contemplate why they were created? Do they develop philosophies, theologies, worship? Those are pretty foundational to all human civilizations.

 

I don't believe mourning is the equivalent. When my father died, my poodle ran around our house for a week looking for him. Did he understand death? He missed his companionship. Not the same thing.

 

I am not even going to speculate on anything further. Animals don't build hospitals and spend yrs training in fields to take care of their own kind. Human beings are different.

[8filltheheart]

Is there any such thing as non-situational ethics? Or is morality always a question of 'how should one respond to this situation? . . . to that one?"

 

I know you said you don't have much time to devote to this thread. Neither do I! But it is very interesting! I have enjoyed hearing your thoughts, and would like to continue if possible.

 

Yes, there is non-situtaional ethics. However, it is based on the assumption that there is an ultimate authority beyond individual human interpretation. It also is based on the ideal that all life is sacred from conception to natural death b/c man is made in the divine image of God.

 

There is no way of my "proving" it. I won't even attempt to justify its position.

 

However, all law attempts to create authority over moral behavior.....whether the law is temporal or ecclesiastical. If morality did not have a foundation in something, somewhere......the sect in TX would never have faced any scrutiny at all, people would not debate homosexual marriage, gambling would be legalized in all states, declaring bankruptcy would not have lead to the discussions it did on this forum, (I could go on for a very long time ;) )etc. It simply depends on the "who" you are willing to accept the definition from.

[Phred]

Yes, there is non-situtaional ethics. However, it is based on the assumption that there is an ultimate authority beyond individual human interpretation. It also is based on the ideal that all life is sacred from conception to natural death b/c man is made in the divine image of God.

 

There is no way of my "proving" it. I won't even attempt to justify its position.

 

However, all law attempts to create authority over moral behavior.....whether the law is temporal or ecclesiastical. If morality did not have a foundation in something, somewhere......the sect in TX would never have faced any scrutiny at all, people would not debate homosexual marriage, gambling would be legalized in all states, declaring bankruptcy would not have lead to the discussions it did on this forum, (I could go on for a very long time ;) )etc. It simply depends on the "who" you are willing to accept the definition from.

If God or a god existed there would be no debate. There would be a clear position that could not be argued or debated. But you are a Christian who believes quite fervently and precisely that you are going to heaven because of what you believe. That means that everyone who does not believe what you do is going to hell. All the Muslims and Jews and agnostics and atheists in the world are going to hell because they do not believe what you do. According to you Ghandi is in hell. Writhing in torture for all eternity. That's not moral...

 

And you're right. If there were a god we wouldn't be debating homosexual marriage. A god wouldn't care what we do in our bedrooms to the exclusion of helping people who are starving. A god wouldn't care about abstinence-only education even though it raises the level of STDs in our society. Countries such as Great Britain, France, Sweden and so on that have moved away from organized religion and a belief in gods have seen crime decrease.

 

No... this battering I'm taking for being relativist... do you have any idea what you're saying? Trying to say that you have a moral code regardless of the situation and you're proud of it? But you can't name one example. You can't show how your deity has passed this on to you nor can you show how this is exemplified to you. The Bible certainly isn't the messenger. You can cherry pick through there and support any decision you wish to make as millions do every day. So you're a relativist too.

 

No... you take your stand on what you think God should be and then tell us that he just keeps peeking out doesn't he? No matter what we try to legislate God just keeps hacking away at us. But you forget that this same God keeps blasting us with hurricanes that kill thousands and tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands and earthquakes that kill and kill and kill. In the same breath that you're praising God for beating back the tide of homosexual marriage that same deity is ripping the children out of their mothers arms and flinging them out to sea. This is moral?

 

It's more important to worry about what happens in our bedrooms than to kill six hundred thousand people? Surely God heard those good Christian people in New Orleans as the water rose and they climbed into their attics to escape but the water kept rising and they kept praying but the water kept rising and they drowned up there. And this is moral?

 

I've said enough... I apologize to those I've offended.

[8filltheheart]

If God or a god existed there would be no debate. There would be a clear position that could not be argued or debated. But you are a Christian who believes quite fervently and precisely that you are going to heaven because of what you believe. That means that everyone who does not believe what you do is going to hell. All the Muslims and Jews and agnostics and atheists in the world are going to hell because they do not believe what you do. According to you Ghandi is in hell. Writhing in torture for all eternity. That's not moral...

 

And you're right. If there were a god we wouldn't be debating homosexual marriage. A god wouldn't care what we do in our bedrooms to the exclusion of helping people who are starving. A god wouldn't care about abstinence-only education even though it raises the level of STDs in our society. Countries such as Great Britain, France, Sweden and so on that have moved away from organized religion and a belief in gods have seen crime decrease.

 

No... this battering I'm taking for being relativist... do you have any idea what you're saying? Trying to say that you have a moral code regardless of the situation and you're proud of it? But you can't name one example. You can't show how your deity has passed this on to you nor can you show how this is exemplified to you. The Bible certainly isn't the messenger. You can cherry pick through there and support any decision you wish to make as millions do every day. So you're a relativist too.

 

No... you take your stand on what you think God should be and then tell us that he just keeps peeking out doesn't he? No matter what we try to legislate God just keeps hacking away at us. But you forget that this same God keeps blasting us with hurricanes that kill thousands and tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands and earthquakes that kill and kill and kill. In the same breath that you're praising God for beating back the tide of homosexual marriage that same deity is ripping the children out of their mothers arms and flinging them out to sea. This is moral?

 

It's more important to worry about what happens in our bedrooms than to kill six hundred thousand people? Surely God heard those good Christian people in New Orleans as the water rose and they climbed into their attics to escape but the water kept rising and they kept praying but the water kept rising and they drowned up there. And this is moral?

 

I've said enough... I apologize to those I've offended.

 

You know Phred, I will now completely disengage from this conversation. I have never once condemned anyone in any of my responses, nor have I insulted anyone that has opposing POV. I have stated from the beginning that a person's source of individual perspective is going to lead them back to their own position.

 

I enjoy intellectual discussions. That was what you ostentiously proposed to be engaging in. However, your rant against my personal beliefs in God prove that unless one is willing to leave God out of the equation, you are not interested in honest discussion. If one believes in an ultimate authority, then it will bear on their view of morality. It cannot be left out of a discussion on morality.

 

(btw....I never once in this thread used the word Christian. All God centered religions....Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have the same basic theological belief that man is created in God's image.....other than professing that that unique attribute lead to human life having intrinsic value making it sacred, I never made any other religious oriented statement)

 

My last post was simply an observation of the fact that law does legislate morality. That morality is being imposed by legislatures. My acceptance of God's law is really no different than anyone conforming to civil law. It is all in view of which source you want to follow.....man's or God's.

[jacqui in mo]

Why do we love? Where does good come from? Why is nature so often beautiful and awesome? Why is there so much to learn & discover?

 

Is suffering easier to bear or make more sense if there is no god in the equation?

 

What makes suffering bad/evil/immoral?

 

If there is a god, does he treat all people equally?

 

I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with these questions, but it seems we always ask the "Why is there evil/suffering in the world?" but not question the Good. I am a follower of Christ, and as I understand things, God does not sit around in heaven thinking up ways to cause us harm & exclude people from His presence.

 

Just throwing out more food for thought.

 

Jacqui

[Peek a Boo]

Um, no, I don't feel it's ok. It's going to happen. These are discards from the in-vitro fertilization process. They are held, frozen, and cannot be held that way forever. Eventually they will be discarded... thrown away. But instead of using them for research it's actually been made against the law to do so in some states. If a scientist were to use these discards for something in S. Dakota he could face jail time.

 

aside from what jacqui shared, you are still left with a life: if they thaw out, are they dead or alive? Can they be used for research if they are not alive?

 

 

 

In this case the definition is to "feel pain".

 

wow. That's quite a big door you got open there. I'd have to say your entire premise falls flat based on that. what kind of pain? emotional pain? only physical pain? minor pain? big pain? What are you willing to do to another to alleviate the perceived pain of one? Should one person suffer [for the greater good] so more can live, or should many die so the one can have a possibility to extend their life? and if we kill another so that there is no pain felt, is that ok? If your premise rests on what another feels, then i can make sure my actions to kill them result in them feeling no pain. "It'll be quick and painless." We have LOTS of drugs that can take care of that.

That doesn't sound very moral to me.....

 

Now see what you did? You changed from it is "human life" to "a human life". Those are different things. Human life encompasses the cells you wipe off every time you blow your nose. Those are "human life" too. But those are not "a human life". A human life is the entirety of what one is after we are born. There's an awful lot of gray area that happens between conception and birth that we, as a society, have yet to work out. If your definition of "human life" is correct then organ transplants cannot continue as the organ is "human life" which is the same as "a human life" so you can't transfer a person into another person.

 

The blastocyst I want to use for research is "human life" and that's why I want to use it. It is not "a human life" which is why your argument falls apart.

 

adding to what jacqui wrote....

If all you needed was human tissue then stem cell research wouldn't be an issue. You need a developing human life. plain ol' tissue won't cut it. *I* never changed anything in my discussion. I've always been talking about a human at a specific stage of development --not various pieces of a human. I've been thru this discussion way too many times to not make that clear upfront ;)

 

What happens between conception and birth is pretty well documented. The only gray areas are those which people want to arbitrarily assign in the name of "morality."

 

Are you? Are you going to accept the past religious definitions? The future ones? Are you going to continue to ignore science in favor of dogma? The current definition of death is when brain activity stops. The blastocyst has no brain to function. No heartbeat. What "life" are you protecting? Please stop branching off into other sorts of abortions I've never mentioned.

 

Nope. i am accepting the same religious definition that has always been, and lines up well w/ science. There is a difference between the legal death of a legally-defined person and whether an organism is living or not. A person is declared BRAIN dead because the rest of his body is *still alive* --they pull life support to kill the rest of the body. After harvesting organs, that is. A blastocyst needed for research purposes must be alive and can't be "just human tissue." Again --if it's not alive, then why not use any ol' aborted blastocyst?

 

But you do all the time. Again, every time you scratch yourself, anywhere, you are committing the crime you accuse researchers of. Because with technology today any cell on your body is a potential human being. This argument of "development" just doesn't hold water.

 

wrong again :) besides the fact that you are still equating human tissue w/ a developing human.....even if they clone a cell, it still must progress through specific stages of development --human development. I'm pretty darn sure that as technology increases we'll eventually have artificial wombs that can easily carry a "discarded" blastocyst to term.

 

But it isn't a developing human being. It's frozen in time. Stopped cold. Without intervention by researchers it will never be anything more than cells... just like your fingernails. But why tell me? Tell the young girl with the spinal cord injury. That's what's obscene about this. It's her suffering I'm trying to alleviate and it's her suffering you're disregarding. In favor of what?

 

In favor of a human life.

 

If it's not alive, then why is this such an issue? If it is not a developing human, then researchers would just need dead cells scraped outta teh fingernail clippers to deal with.

They know better.

What's OBSCENE is that you are willing to thaw out a developing human and then kill it for another's potential benefit. You are willing to intentionally kill to possibly alleviate a perceived subjective "suffering" --I'm not. And yes, i would tell the girl w/ the spinal cord injury that. There are quite a few spinal cord patients that agree with that as well-- you'll find them on the pro-life sides of the aisle. There are a lot of other ways to alleviate suffering w/o killing another human. I'm not "disregarding it" -I'm limiting the extent to which i would go to alleviate one's suffering.

 

You are fine with taking a man who's brain is dead and harvesting his organs then burying him in the ground. Why do you treat a blastocyst better than him? They both have no brainwaves, no signs of life and no ability to gain those signs of life. Both are going to be buried in the ground (or tossed in the trash) so why shouldn't we get what good we can from them? In the case of the blastocyst the only thing standing in the way is dogma.

 

 

jacqui nailed this one too :)

 

and actually, I'm not necessarily "fine" with it. But a person's living will and voluntary consent do weigh heavily in this. you keep insisting that I'm treating a blastocyst "better" than someone else. I am treating them equally: i am not willing to kill either of them.

 

==============================================

FTR, Phred, I'm not offended at what you have written. But it does show your own colors. You are certainly not the first to raise such questions. I disagree w/ your conclusions, but I don't think you are interested in hearing my answers to your questions. I certainly don't have all the answers, but i do have a pretty good grounding of what can guide me and have reached a place where I truly feel peaceful about my faith, even when I don't understand all of it. Even in societies where they have moved away from gods and abstinence-only education they still have a LOT of problems. If everyone were to denounce any and all kinds of religion we'd still be facing difficulties in dealing w/ "morality."

[Peek a Boo]

but it seems we always ask the "Why is there evil/suffering in the world?" but not question the Good.

 

...because the journalists have modeled our discussions:

If it bleeds it leads, if it thinks it stinks ;)

[Vida Winter]

Ok... so to expand on the earlier threads. I took some time and really thought about this. I think morality is simply based upon the difference between happiness and suffering. This is why we don't have a moral responsibility to rocks.

 

So we should be working to alleviate suffering and increase the joy around us.

 

Does anyone see any reason why this is not a good way to live one's life?

 

[i have not read this thread, but I'll put in my two cents.]

 

Perhaps. But the problem arises when one has to define "suffering." If one is inclined to feel sorry for oneself, then the suffering on their own behalf could justify just about anything. As an extreme example, a pedophile could justify molesting a child in order to alleviate their own "suffering."

 

That is why, a moral code (as laid out in the ten commandments, for instance) is a very good code. It is an absolute that cannot be changed.

 

Otherwise, moral relativism has a field day with the "who's suffering" issue.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

If God or a god existed there would be no debate. There would be a clear position that could not be argued or debated. But you are a Christian who believes quite fervently and precisely that you are going to heaven because of what you believe. That means that everyone who does not believe what you do is going to hell. All the Muslims and Jews and agnostics and atheists in the world are going to hell because they do not believe what you do. According to you Ghandi is in hell. Writhing in torture for all eternity. That's not moral...

 

And you're right. If there were a god we wouldn't be debating homosexual marriage. A god wouldn't care what we do in our bedrooms to the exclusion of helping people who are starving. A god wouldn't care about abstinence-only education even though it raises the level of STDs in our society. Countries such as Great Britain, France, Sweden and so on that have moved away from organized religion and a belief in gods have seen crime decrease.

 

No... this battering I'm taking for being relativist... do you have any idea what you're saying? Trying to say that you have a moral code regardless of the situation and you're proud of it? But you can't name one example. You can't show how your deity has passed this on to you nor can you show how this is exemplified to you. The Bible certainly isn't the messenger. You can cherry pick through there and support any decision you wish to make as millions do every day. So you're a relativist too.

 

No... you take your stand on what you think God should be and then tell us that he just keeps peeking out doesn't he? No matter what we try to legislate God just keeps hacking away at us. But you forget that this same God keeps blasting us with hurricanes that kill thousands and tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands and earthquakes that kill and kill and kill. In the same breath that you're praising God for beating back the tide of homosexual marriage that same deity is ripping the children out of their mothers arms and flinging them out to sea. This is moral?

 

It's more important to worry about what happens in our bedrooms than to kill six hundred thousand people? Surely God heard those good Christian people in New Orleans as the water rose and they climbed into their attics to escape but the water kept rising and they kept praying but the water kept rising and they drowned up there. And this is moral?

 

I've said enough... I apologize to those I've offended.

 

Well,Your mind seems to be made up. IMO, it would be a great kindness, to others and yourself, if you would refrain from starting similar threads.

[Scarlett]

That means that everyone who does not believe what you do is going to hell. All the Muslims and Jews and agnostics and atheists in the world are going to hell because they do not believe what you do. According to you Ghandi is in hell. Writhing in torture for all eternity. That's not moral...

 

And you're right. If there were a god we wouldn't be debating homosexual marriage. A god wouldn't care what we do in our bedrooms to the exclusion of helping people who are starving. A god wouldn't care about abstinence-only education even though it raises the level of STDs in our society. Countries such as Great Britain, France, Sweden and so on that have moved away from organized religion and a belief in gods have seen crime decrease.

 

No... you take your stand on what you think God should be and then tell us that he just keeps peeking out doesn't he? No matter what we try to legislate God just keeps hacking away at us. But you forget that this same God keeps blasting us with hurricanes that kill thousands and tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands and earthquakes that kill and kill and kill. In the same breath that you're praising God for beating back the tide of homosexual marriage that same deity is ripping the children out of their mothers arms and flinging them out to sea. This is moral?

 

It's more important to worry about what happens in our bedrooms than to kill six hundred thousand people? Surely God heard those good Christian people in New Orleans as the water rose and they climbed into their attics to escape but the water kept rising and they kept praying but the water kept rising and they drowned up there. And this is moral?

 

I've said enough... I apologize to those I've offended.

 

This post sounds very much like a man who does believe in God. And this man is very very angry with God.

[TXMomof4]

This post sounds very much like a man who does believe in God. And this man is very very angry with God.

 

Exactly my thoughts.

[cricket1178]

Well,Your mind seems to be made up. IMO, it would be a great kindness, to others and yourself, if you would refrain from starting similar threads.

 

 

:iagree:

[Scarlett]

If God or a god existed there would be no debate. There would be a clear position that could not be argued or debated. But you are a Christian who believes quite fervently and precisely that you are going to heaven because of what you believe. That means that everyone who does not believe what you do is going to hell. All the Muslims and Jews and agnostics and atheists in the world are going to hell because they do not believe what you do. According to you Ghandi is in hell. Writhing in torture for all eternity. That's not moral... .

 

You paint with a very broad brush. For instance, *I* although Christian, do not believe any of what you wrote above.

 

And you're right. If there were a god we wouldn't be debating homosexual marriage. A god wouldn't care what we do in our bedrooms to the exclusion of helping people who are starving. A god wouldn't care about abstinence-only education even though it raises the level of STDs in our society. Countries such as Great Britain, France, Sweden and so on that have moved away from organized religion and a belief in gods have seen crime decrease. .

 

This doesn't make sense. A god, God, could care about what happens in someone's bedroom without excluding helping people who are starving. And it isn't abstinence only education that raises the level of STD. It is sleeping around that does that.

 

In the same breath that you're praising God for beating back the tide of homosexual marriage .

 

Again with the broad brush. I don't think God is beating back the tide of homosexual marriage. How could anyone think that? In my first post on that closed thread, I said I was shocked/dumbfounded that our society has come to this. God is not running the world. If he were, we would not have these messes or these sad stories

 

that same deity is ripping the children out of their mothers arms and flinging them out to sea.

 

It's more important to worry about what happens in our bedrooms than to kill six hundred thousand people? Surely God heard those good Christian people in New Orleans as the water rose and they climbed into their attics to escape but the water kept rising and they kept praying but the water kept rising and they drowned up there. And this is moral?

 

I've said enough... I apologize to those I've offended.

 

You don't offend me Phred. You make me feel sad for you.

[Phred]

Oh the outrage. I've asked you over and over again to give me one, just one example of an absolute morality and it can't be done. Yet, the God bomb continues to be dropped. When I try to discuss this without referring to God I am criticized. Yet, how can we discuss anything and refer to God? God doesn't continue the discussion... God ends it. There can be no discussion when you insert mythological characters into the discourse and expect others to recognize them. God has no characteristics and when one gives God characteristics believers change them at will. Which is why you can't have a discussion like this and keep dropping the God bomb.

 

So you have to stop pretending to discuss this when all you're really doing avoiding the discussion altogether.

 

And if I may say... I'm not angry at God... or gods... I can't be. They don't exist. I'm angry at the people who can look tragedies like these in the eye and continue to believe in their all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful deities who do nothing while good people die praying to them but still think that the suffering of these people is meaningless compared to what happens in someone's bedroom or a petri dish.

[Phred]

Here's a question sort of along these lines then... if morality is defined by not causing others to suffer, would it be possible for someone to be immoral if he/she was completely alone on a desert island (or better still, for this question's purpose, alone in the world)? I mean, is it in any way possible for them to do something wrong still?

 

Great conversation everyone. :)

Back on topic. Awesome question.

 

Was that person raised alone... by robots?

[Scarlett]

Oh the outrage.

And if I may say... I'm not angry at God... or gods... I can't be. They don't exist. I'm angry at the people who can look tragedies like these in the eye and continue to believe in their all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful deities who do nothing while good people die praying to them but still think that the suffering of these people is meaningless compared to what happens in someone's bedroom or a petri dish.

 

Are you outraged? Or do you think we are? :confused: Because I'm certainly not outraged.

 

At least you admit you are feeling some anger. ;)

[Greta]

If one is inclined to feel sorry for oneself, then the suffering on their own behalf could justify just about anything. As an extreme example, a pedophile could justify molesting a child in order to alleviate their own "suffering."

 

This is an extreme example indeed, of the very opposite of what Phred was trying to get at. He's saying that being moral means NOT causing others to suffer.

 

That is why, a moral code (as laid out in the ten commandments, for instance) is a very good code. It is an absolute that cannot be changed.

 

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

Deuteronomy 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die

 

Deuteronomy 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die

 

I'm not posting this to pick on you, because the thread has been leading up to this in other regards as well. But I do think it's rather unfair of Christians to claim an exclusive hold on absolute morals, when Christian morals can and do change with time, and did so even within the Bible. But I don't want to dwell on that, because I'm really not trying to stir up animosity.

 

In fact, what I would like to emphasize here is our common ground. Aren't the ten commandments largely about preventing suffering? Not the ones about exclusive worship or the Sabbath, but the ones about how people should interact with each other -- aren't those all built upon the idea that we should not cause others to suffer? When Jesus said to love thy neighbor as thyself, isn't that another way of saying what Phred said -- bring joy, not suffering, to those around us? The idea that we should not willfully cause others to suffer is the foundation of Christian morality, Buddhist morality, Secular Humanist morality, and the morality of every religion on the planet. So I would submit that it's not an idea which should be dismissed lightly. I think it forms people's moral code more than they seem to realize.

[nancypants]

 

Was that person raised alone... by robots?

 

:001_huh: I can tell that this is going to be a very meaningful conversation. :001_rolleyes:

[8filltheheart]

Your right Phred. I concede. I am totally wrong and deluded.

 

My life is really as meaningless as an amoeba b/c my life as a human is no different from its.

 

The fact that I am a reasoning animal is a pure fluke and all living beings could equally have evolved into the intelligent life form that humans are. It simply a statistical anomaly that in billions of yrs no other creatures have evolved to this state.

 

Since I am no different than any other animal, morality is not even necessary for discussion b/c animals behave on instinct, not rationalism.

 

My minutes of existance are limited to the here and now so let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

 

So.......

 

either man's existance is different and b/c of that man's life has intrinsice value or man is nothing other than another animal and pure survival of the fittest should be the sole source of guidance.

 

If man is creating some basis of morality.......what is the basis? Is it for man to respect the life of other man? Is it to preserve the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of fellow man?

 

If any of the above is true.....than the life of other man has to have value. If man's life has value......than that value must be intrinsic to the fact that he is a human.

 

If it is intrinsic, than all human life is worthy of respect.

 

That is an absolute moral truth.

 

When you start qualifying which individual man's life has value, than you have destroyed any premise that man's life is intrinsically valuable and you end back at man is nothing more than any other animal.

 

You simply can't have it both ways.

 

BTW.....I am not avoiding anything. Again, my last post before you had your tirade was simply that in society man is conforming to legalized moral law. The law is enforcing the morality. You are accepting other men's definition of morality by obeying civil law.

 

I'm not quite sure why you are so indignant that others want to follow a moral authority that is different from that established by a bunch of legislatures.

 

This really is my last post on the matter. I have stated my position.

 

I know from experience that any conversation beyond this point will lead no where.

[Phred]

:001_huh: I can tell that this is going to be a very meaningful conversation. :001_rolleyes:

Seriously. Because even a person alone on an island covers themselves so that they will not be naked. Not out of need but because of the way they were raised. Some things are ingrained upon us by our upbringing and will stay there no matter what we do. So a person alone on an island may very well be able to be moral no matter what he (or she) does but they will remain bound by their childhood.

 

So my answer to your question is that a person alone on an island will live by the moral code that they have always lived by. They will continue to think that what was good is good and what was bad is bad. They can be immoral if they think they are being immoral. For example, if they are staunch Roman Catholics then if the castaway was a man and he masturbated on the island the first thing he might do upon being rescued would be to find a priest and confess his sins while lost.

[jacqui in mo]

I think he wants to know what kind of moral code has been taught to this person before being stranded on the island. If they were raised by robots, though, wouldn't you have to know who programmed the robots? Or do the robots merely provide for the basic needs, no other input.

[Greta]

Even if they wonder why they die, do they contemplate why they were created? Do they develop philosophies, theologies, worship? Those are pretty foundational to all human civilizations.

 

I don't believe mourning is the equivalent. When my father died, my poodle ran around our house for a week looking for him. Did he understand death? He missed his companionship. Not the same thing.

 

I am not even going to speculate on anything further. Animals don't build hospitals and spend yrs training in fields to take care of their own kind. Human beings are different.

 

Again, I'm not denying that humans are different. I have no interest in arguing that animals are exactly the same as us. That would be foolish, and wouldn't even prove the point I am trying to make. But I am posing the question, does another species have to be just like us before it qualifies for moral treatment? Regardless of whether another species builds hospitals, if it is proven that they are subject to suffering, do we not have some moral obligation to avoid causing them to suffer? I am posing this question not because I have a hard and fast answer, but because it is something I personally struggle with. Many many people have an attitude that ALL human life, even a single fertilized egg cell, is sacred, while ALL animal life is worthless and it's perfectly ok for us to drive entire species to extinction. I find that extremely troubling, to put it mildly. People who study elephants believe that they have a culture. Obviously their culture does not look just like ours. Why should it? They are a very intelligent, highly social species, and I would submit, most likely a sentient one. And I believe that gives us a moral obligation to them.

 

I would not argue the same for any insect species. And obviously there are a whole lot of species in-between in terms of intelligence and possible sentience. I don't have all the answers. I just believe that the questions are more complex and worthy of more serious treatment than most people give them. It probably seems that I got off on a tangent, and maybe I did. But I don't see how we can have any serious discussion of morality without at least asking the question of what moral obligation we have to other species, even if we don't have easy answers.

[nancypants]

just one example of an absolute morality

 

I'm sorry Phred but you've already agreed that there are absolute truths. You actually said it quite plainly.

 

Some of your statements are indeed absolutely true.

and

Someone who killed and ate my infant would doing wrong.

and

And bad things sometimes happen to nice people. That's an absolute I think.

 

There are so many more that you yourself would assent to being absolute truths whether or not other cultures and times believed them to be or not... (though you did very purposefully avoid answering whether or not you personally believe if anything is ever always wrong or right.) Is there anything that someone in the world today is doing that you think they should stop doing right now whether or not they think they are doing the right thing? If you say "no" then I suppose you really do believe in the absence of a moral reality, in which case you can not logically champion any cause. However, if you say "yes" you are assenting to the idea that moral absolutes do exist -- you just don't know where they come from and are maybe unsure of what they all are, though you are fairly certain on some of them that seem more obvious.

 

Do you think it's good for mankind to take care of the earth? Why or why not? If you think it's good to take care of it, then practically speaking, you believe in a moral reality. If you think it doesn't matter one way or the other because there is no moral truth then you simply cannot logically be upset about the travesties of strip mining, oil drilling, overfishing, deforestation etc... You cannot logically champion any moral cause if you don't believe there is a single moral absolute that everyone is bound by no matter what they think or feel about the correctness of their beliefs.

 

Do you think it is always good for a person to be thoughtful and contemplative about their personal beliefs? If you do, then you believe in a moral absolute.

 

Do you ever think your (or someone else's) child is misbehaving? If you do, then you have some concept that there is, in fact, a right way to behave. If you don't, you shouldn't think there is anything wrong when someone's screaming spoiled child throws her Grape Big Gulp on the floor, splashing you all over, because she wanted a cherry flavored one... and you also shouldn't think anything wrong when her Mom gives her the cherry one, because there is no right behavior.

 

You see, a person can say that he or she doesn't believe in an absolute morality of any kind, but the fact is, that every single day he or she makes choices and probably says things that prove that he or she in fact does.

[nancypants]

Seriously. Because even a person alone on an island covers themselves so that they will not be naked. Not out of need but because of the way they were raised. Some things are ingrained upon us by our upbringing and will stay there no matter what we do. So a person alone on an island may very well be able to be moral no matter what he (or she) does but they will remain bound by their childhood.

 

So my answer to your question is that a person alone on an island will live by the moral code that they have always lived by. They will continue to think that what was good is good and what was bad is bad. They can be immoral if they think they are being immoral. For example, if they are staunch Roman Catholics then if the castaway was a man and he masturbated on the island the first thing he might do upon being rescued would be to find a priest and confess his sins while lost.

 

Okay, for sake of argument, the person crawled up out of the sea and has no parents... He or she was raised by sea anemones or krill. Can he or she be immoral, ever?

[Phred]

Your right Phred. I concede. I am totally wrong and deluded.

:iagree:

 

My life is really as meaningless as an amoeba b/c my life as a human is no different from its.

Where in the world did you get this from? Your life has the meaning you give it... and... that others give it. People love you. Eight others that I know of. So right there you're completely misguided.

 

The fact that I am a reasoning animal is a pure fluke and all living beings could equally have evolved into the intelligent life form that humans are. It simply a statistical anomaly that in billions of yrs no other creatures have evolved to this state.

But they didn't. You did. You are the result of billions of years of evolution. That's not a "pure fluke" but it means that all your ancestors survived the battle to live. Hold your head up high. For all the close calls, the billions of creatures that didn't make it, the millions of species that went extinct... you made it.

 

Since I am no different than any other animal, morality is not even necessary for discussion b/c animals behave on instinct, not rationalism.

Do you behave on instinct? No... and you know the difference. Such a burden to put on a poor animal.

 

My minutes of existance are limited to the here and now so let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Or today if you aren't careful.

 

either man's existance is different and b/c of that man's life has intrinsice value or man is nothing other than another animal and pure survival of the fittest should be the sole source of guidance.

Your argument is crap. Ya know why? Because you have to choose which. If it were real there would be no choice. But our intelligence has let us rise above sheer survival. We are the fittest because we think. Your's is a false choice. One that religionists love to throw out but one that has no meaning. Man's existence is different BECAUSE we're the fittest and we're the fittest BECAUSE we think.

 

If man is creating some basis of morality.......what is the basis? Is it for man to respect the life of other man? Is it to preserve the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of fellow man?

 

If any of the above is true.....than the life of other man has to have value. If man's life has value......than that value must be intrinsic to the fact that he is a human.

 

If it is intrinsic, than all human life is worthy of respect.

 

That is an absolute moral truth.

 

When you start qualifying which individual man's life has value, than you have destroyed any premise that man's life is intrinsically valuable and you end back at man is nothing more than any other animal.

 

You simply can't have it both ways.

But you do. You tell homosexuals they are less than the rest of us. You tell those with spinal cord injuries they just have to suffer because we can't do research that may help them. They are less than a ball of cells which you have promoted to be a human being. Tell the little girl with burns over 75% of her body that the ball of cells is more important. Religion, and your belief in a soul, has divorced you from reality.

[Phred]

Okay, for sake of argument, the person crawled up out of the sea and has no parents... He or she was raised by sea anemones or krill. Can he or she be immoral, ever?

No. I don't see how.

 

What in the world does one get krill for mother's day?

[Phred]

But I am posing the question, does another species have to be just like us before it qualifies for moral treatment?

The answer that's been given over time would be...

 

Are they tasty?

[nancypants]

No. I don't see how.

 

What in the world does one get krill for mother's day?

 

An edible bouquet of phytoplankton of course. :tongue_smilie:

[Greta]

:001_smile: Indeed.

 

But I don't think that's the right answer!

[nancypants]

:001_smile: Indeed.

 

But I don't think that's the right answer!

 

But of course, it's as good as any if there are no right answers. Right? :D

 

Why am I suddenly in the mood for Fajitas?:001_huh:

[Phred]

I'm sorry Phred but you've already agreed that there are absolute truths. You actually said it quite plainly.

But someone eating my child would be doing wrong TO ME... not to him. That's not an absolute truth. An absolute is something that is wrong to everyone at everytime at everyplace. No situation can make this truth change. We talked about things that are true as in facts. These are not moral truths but rather factual truths. The atomic number for Oxygen is 8. That's a fact, not an absolute moral truth.

 

There are so many more that you yourself would assent to being absolute truths whether or not other cultures and times believed them to be or not... (though you did very purposefully avoid answering whether or not you personally believe if anything is ever always wrong or right.)

I believe lots of things are right and wrong. But those are not absolute. And if another culture doesn't believe it then it isn't absolute.

 

Is there anything that someone in the world today is doing that you think they should stop doing right now whether or not they think they are doing the right thing? If you say "no" then I suppose you really do believe in the absence of a moral reality, in which case you can not logically champion any cause. However, if you say "yes" you are assenting to the idea that moral absolutes do exist -- you just don't know where they come from and are maybe unsure of what they all are, though you are fairly certain on some of them that seem more obvious.

What you're saying is that you think there are some things that are OBJECTIVELY right or wrong regardless of what people think. Not absolute. It's right from where we stand. Or, in the way I think you wish to use it, from where God sits.

 

Do you think it's good for mankind to take care of the earth? Why or why not? If you think it's good to take care of it, then practically speaking, you believe in a moral reality. If you think it doesn't matter one way or the other because there is no moral truth then you simply cannot logically be upset about the travesties of strip mining, oil drilling, overfishing, deforestation etc... You cannot logically champion any moral cause if you don't believe there is a single moral absolute that everyone is bound by no matter what they think or feel about the correctness of their beliefs.

 

Do you think it is always good for a person to be thoughtful and contemplative about their personal beliefs? If you do, then you believe in a moral absolute.

 

Do you ever think your (or someone else's) child is misbehaving? If you do, then you have some concept that there is, in fact, a right way to behave. If you don't, you shouldn't think there is anything wrong when someone's screaming spoiled child throws her Grape Big Gulp on the floor, splashing you all over, because she wanted a cherry flavored one... and you also shouldn't think anything wrong when her Mom gives her the cherry one, because there is no right behavior.

 

You see, a person can say that he or she doesn't believe in an absolute morality of any kind, but the fact is, that every single day he or she makes choices and probably says things that prove that he or she in fact does.

When you folks who are against relativism snicker against it you think that there is no stake in the ground. It's relative to nothing. So the needle always points wildly around. But that's not what relativism means. Relativism means we choose where to plant our stakes. Just as you do. Only ours are more carefully defined. You say, "Christian beliefs." But what does that mean exactly? I've studied Christian beliefs for years now and I don't know. In this thread I've seen different versions. Those of us who place our own stakes admit that we do so individually. Based upon our own individual beliefs. But our beliefs are as strongly held as yours.

[nancypants]

So you believe that it's okay to eat babies sometimes, as long as the parents aren't offended? (That, by the way, still puts an absolute moral declaration on something... "It's absolutely wrong to eat a baby if the parents don't want you to.")

 

Just trying to be clear on this.

 

Is female genital mutilation really okay because it is deemed okay in certain cultures today?