1 edit
"almost all " that's right.
Your view dóes entail that differences can be drawn between healthy people and mentally ill human beings. If they can be described as not being persons in the sense you mean than they can be killed without any moral problems. Maybe you can even change the definition of a person in order to widen the groups that are not to be seen as persons anymore. Maybe others will do that instead of you in the context of the semantic gymnastics the journal California Medicine was talking about.
Where do you get this stuff? It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed without any moral problems. Even the mentally ill have the capacity to suffer, rudimentary (at least) rationality, and self-awareness (e.g., they can tell if they are sad, in pain, etc.). According to my view they qualify as persons, though perhaps not as moral agents. They may not qualify as moral agents if they can't tell right from wrong and behave appropriately, but on my view this only entails that we cannot hold them fully responsible for what they do (so punishing the mentally ill for committing crimes would be ruled out, on my view). They still have all the rights of persons. If you had actually paid attention to any one of my numerous posts regarding the necessary conditions of personhood, you wouldn't have made such an inane allegation.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'll explain what I mean when you respond to this:
Bbarr: "No, the distinction (between human beings and persons. Ivanh) is meant to make clear what underlies our common moral claims.
Our common moral claims ? Our ? You mean you and I ? Please explain.
You wrote:
"A brain dead human being or person is dead. You just bury the dead corpse. There is only a dead human corpse. You can stop every treatment. This isnt even a case of passive euthanasia. The person is dead. You cannot kill a dead person. Therefore there is no moral problem here."
I responded:
"But why is there no moral problem here? If all human beings have rights, and corpses are just human beings of the dead variety, then why don't they have rights as well? The obvious answer is that when a human being loses the capacity for mentality, they are no longer a person. So, your claims above commit you to the claim that what makes human beings persons has something to do with their mentality. This, of course, is exactly what I claim."
Now, I'll respond to your questions if you respond to my arguments. I'm tired of you just ignoring the refutations of your views.
BBarr: "A brain dead human being or person is dead. You just bury the dead corpse. There is only a dead human corpse. You can stop every treatment. This isnt even a case of passive euthanasia. The person is dead. You cannot kill a dead person. Therefore there is no moral problem here."
BBarr: "But why is there no moral problem here? If all human beings have rights, and corpses are just human beings of the dead variety, then why don't they have rights as well? The obvious answer is that when a human being loses the capacity for mentality, they are no longer a person. So, your claims above commit you to the claim that what makes human beings persons has something to do with their mentality. This, of course, is exactly what I claim."
You want to seduce me into accepting the categories with which you reason and with which you want to acquire power over who's to kill and who's to live.
I do not accept the division that you make between human beings and persons in order to be able to kill human beings that are no persons according to your (present ?) definition.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]"almost all " that's right.
Your view dóes entail that differences can be drawn between healthy people and mentally ill human beings. If they can be described as not being persons in the sense you mean than they can be killed without any moral problems. Maybe you can even change the definition of a person in order to widen the groups that are not to be ...[text shortened]... ding the necessary conditions of personhood, you wouldn't have made such an inane allegation.
If a mentally ill human being is not a person according to your definition of a person there is no reason why this human being should have rights that you do not give to those other human beings who are also not persons being the unborn before a certain (?) date (age ?).
Are you claiming that ALL mentally ill and handicapped people are persons according to your definition of a person ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, you already accept the distinction between being a human and being a person.
You want to seduce me into accepting the categories with which you reason and with which you want to acquire power over who's to kill and who's to live.
I do not accept the division that you make between human beings and persons in order to be able to kill human beings that are no persons according to your (present ?) definition.
For instance, you would agree that an alien species with mental properties just like humans would deserve the same moral respect we grant to humans. So, you think that it isn't a necessary condition of being a person that one also be a human organism.
Additionally, you don't think that all humans are persons. For instance, you don't think dead humans are persons. Also, you don't think living humans who are brain-dead are persons. So, you think that being a human isn't a sufficient condition for being a person either.
Thus, you already accept that the property of being a person is distinct from the property of being a human.
Ignoring the contradictions in your own view don't magically make them go away, Ivanhoe.
Originally posted by ivanhoeJesus, Ivanhoe, did you even read my post?
If a mentally ill human being is not a person according to your definition of a person there is no reason why this human being should have rights that you do not give to those other human beings who are also not persons being the unborn before a certain (?) date (age ?).
Are you claiming that ALL mentally ill and handicapped people are persons according to your definition of a person ?
I just got through explaining that the mentally ill are persons according to my view.
Again: If a mentally ill person has 1) the capacity to suffer, 2) at least a rudimentary ability to reason, 3) at least rudimentary self-awareness, then they are persons. If a mentally ill person has 1 but lacks 2 and 3, then we are still obligated not to inflict suffering upon them.
Originally posted by bbarr
I'll explain what I mean when you respond to this:
You wrote:
"A brain dead human being or person is dead. You just bury the dead corpse. There is only a dead human corpse. You can stop every treatment. This isnt even a case of passive euthanasia. The person is dead. You cannot kill a dead person. Therefore there is no moral problem here."
I respo ...[text shortened]... f you respond to my arguments. I'm tired of you just ignoring the refutations of your views.
Bbarr,
We are talking about the right to live, right ? A human being who dies looses his right to live the moment he or she dies. Instead of that right he acquires the "right" to be buried. Living human beings do nót have the right to be buried. There cannot be a moral problem about whether a dead person can be killed yes or no. In order to kill a human being he has to be alive. Am I being irrational here ?
Bbarr: "I'm tired of you just ignoring the refutations of your views."
Refutations ? You are being a wee bit too optimistic Bbarr.
We disagree Bbarr, that's something completely different.
Originally posted by bbarr
Jesus, Ivanhoe, did you even read my post?
I just got through explaining that the mentally ill are persons according to my view.
Again: If a mentally ill person has 1) the capacity to suffer, 2) at least a rudimentary ability to reason, 3) at least rudimentary self-awareness, then they are persons. If a mentally ill person has 1 but lacks 2 and 3, then we are still obligated not to inflict suffering upon them.
and what if he lacks the capacity to suffer, bbarr ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeA human being who is brain dead and kept alive artificially is still alive and thus can be killed. Do these human organisms also have the right to life?
Bbarr,
We are talking about the right to live, right ? A human being who dies looses his right to live the moment he or she dies. Instead of that right he acquires the "right" to be buried. Living human beings do nót have the right to be buried. There cannot be a moral problem about whether a dead person can be killed yes or no. In order to kill a ...[text shortened]... wee bit too optimistic Bbarr.
We disagree Bbarr, that's something completely different.
Originally posted by ivanhoeA creature who has neither the capacity to suffer, nor the capacity for rationality, nor self-awareness is not a creature that needs to be taken into account in our moral deliberations. Such a creature cannot be harmed and hence cannot be morally wronged.
and what if he lacks the capacity to suffer, bbarr ?
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoe
"My complaint is that even the Freethinkers agree with that shallow materialistic egotistical culture and not only accept but fervently advocate the ultimate consequenses of that culture: the Culture of Death." Ivanhoe
Maybe I should h ...[text shortened]... very fruitful to accept this very fundamental criticism.
Freethought has much criticism towards society, but not towards the essence of this Western Culture and the ULTIMATE consequences of this consumer oriented capitalist exploitation culture, the Culture of Death.
Maybe this is because freethinkers in general don't agree with you that issues of death are "the essense of Western Culture", nor that some sort of "Culture of Death" would be the ultimate consequence of Western culture in any meaningful sense.
As to freethinkers not critisizing western culture - I don't agree with that at all. The political views, and the views regarding western culture, of freethinkers are highly varied; it therefore does not make sense to critisieze freethinkers of any single view, as if they held some sort of a consensus on these matters. As I've said before, the only uniting feature common to freethinkers is an attitude towards knowldege, exact opionions or policies common to freethinkers don't exist.
I myself hardly think that the Western culture is without fault - I do think that western culture too easily makes monetary success the measure of a man; the thing that should be the center of one's aspirations. This leads to the view that companies must make ever increasing profits, even at the expense of the happiness and health of the people that make up the company. Western societies have a lot going for them too - also in the moral sense; torture is abhorred, and corruption is fought against. I do think that western societies have a lot to improve, but I also think that to say that the crux of the problems of western cultures are due to attitudes towards euthanasia, and towards abortions is a strange position to hold, to say the least.
It is also a position, that to be in the least believable, should, in my view, be qualified by arguments, not just stated along with anecdotes from detestable fringe practices regarding these issues.
The entire concept of "The Culture of Death" is watered down by the liberal way in which you use it; an example of this culture, according to you can equally be allowing a dying man to end his suffering when death would be the end result anyway, and Hitler murdering "unwanted" people. Yet these two extremes have hardy anything to do with each other. With one term covering such extremes, such disparate viewpoints, it's difficult to use the term in any meaningful way.
Bbarr made a good point with "The Culture of Terror" - by exactly as good (or as poor rather) reasons as you ascribe the title of proponent of "The Culuture of Death" to anyone who thinks that killing in some very limited, and strictly defined circumstances is alowable (or even in some cases, as in euthanasia, the right thing to do), I could say that you are the proponent of "The Culture of Terror" - after all, you too believe in a god, just as religious terrorists do... isn't it just a "slippery slope" from your current position, to the position that in order to carry out what you see as God's will, you might be willing to strap on a few bombs, and take some infidels with you?
Of course that claim would be absurd - there are many people who belive in a god or gods, who nonetheless consider the acts of religious fanatisism detestable. These people are secure in their beliefs, including the belief that terrorism is unjustifiable. To suggest that there is a "slippery slope", that despite the strength of the reasons they currently hold for opposing terrorism, it is just a matter of time when they'll find themselves sympathising with terrorists would be patronizing, absurd, and insulting. To suggest that the "ultimate consequence" of a god belief is terrorism, and to promote this argument, simply list examples of where religious people have succumbed to terrorist ideals, would be a clearly false way to argue.
Yet this is exactly analogous to how you argue the "Culture of Death" - Bbarr, for example (and I much agree with him), has presented strong philosophical basis for drawing the line as to when it is OK to kill and when not; yet you still argue that there's a "slippery slope" from this belief to extremist views regarding death; and as "evidence" you list examples of these extremist views - but still without tracing out the path of the proposed "slippery slope" from the actual arguments and reasoning of those who disagree with you here, to the extreme views you present. There is no slippery slope that I can see, in order for Bbarr to go over such clearly drawn lines, there would have to be a complete and dramatic reversal of his philosophy, equal to the reversal required for a moderate Christian that opposes religious fundamentalism to become a terrorist that bases his actions on fundamentalist ideals. There's no "slopyness" about that, the change from one to the other is separated by a sheer, dramatic drop over a cliff!
This is why I think that the whole concept of "Culture of Death" is at best misplaced, and lacks significance as it is presented.
-Jarno
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenPlease give me some credit here guys! I think you will find that I used this term to describe "all govenments that support genecide". Joe just stole it from me on the "personal" issues of euthenasia and abortion. My "Cult Of Death" had real meaning, ie, "Was lead by charismatic leader and involves taboo's and betrayal ritutal".😵😀😛😕😴
Is 'Semantic Gymnastics' going to replace 'Culture of Death' as your catch-phrase?
2 edits
Originally posted by PyrrhoIt seems to me that the person Bbarr has become the center of attention in this debate. I'm not discussing whether he will eventually end up killing people. I'm talking about social, cultural and political processes. I never heard any criticism at all from bbarr concerning the tendencies in society which do not obey "his" limitations regarding the questions of life and death. The champion of critical thinking is absolutely silent in these cases. He is sheltering in his ivory tower and maintaines radiosilence.This makes me wonder.
Freethought has much criticism towards society, but not towards the essence of this Western Culture and the ULTIMATE consequences of this consumer oriented capitalist exploitation culture, the Culture of Death.
Maybe thi ...[text shortened]... st misplaced, and lacks significance as it is presented.
-Jarno
Jarno: "As I've said before, the only uniting feature common to freethinkers is an attitude towards knowldege, exact opionions or policies common to freethinkers don't exist."
Come on Jarno, get real, look around you and see what is happening.
Jarno: "Maybe this is because freethinkers in general don't agree with you that issues of death are "the essense of Western Culture", nor that some sort of "Culture of Death" would be the ultimate consequence of Western culture in any meaningful sense."
Now freethinkers dó have common opinions. You are contradicting yourself. But really Jarno, I'm not interested whether you as a debater are contradicting yourself yes or no. I'm not in the first place interested in your debating techniques, that's another thread. I'm interested in the developements in society. If I ask bbarr to react to a (prophetic) article in a pro death journal he simply states that this has nothing to do with his position. So what ? Are we purely discussing his position or are we discussing social, cultural and political changes in the western culture. Of course his position is relevant, but it is not the main subject of the debate.
Can you explain how the events in Germany during the thirties and forties could have taken place without there being a slippery slope as you've stated. To assume that in our days the possibility of moral decline is impossible because there is no slippery slope is simply too ridiculous for words.
Jarno: " ...... but I also think that to say that the crux of the problems of western cultures are due to attitudes towards euthanasia, and towards abortions is a strange position to hold, to say the least."
I did not say that. Let's say that the real existing western culture and the culture of death are becoming "Wahlverwandschaften". Of course it is just a description ... The relations between the two are very complicated, almost too complicated for words.
.
Jarno: "As to freethinkers not critisizing western culture - I don't agree with that at all."
You are right, but I never heard a Freethinker criticising the Culture of Death in a fundamental way. Have you ?
Jarno, maybe you can react to the article in California Medicine
Originally posted by bbarr
A creature who has neither the capacity to suffer, nor the capacity for rationality, nor self-awareness is not a creature that needs to be taken into account in our moral deliberations. Such a creature cannot be harmed and hence cannot be morally wronged.
.... and thus can be killed. Right ?