09 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour questions were about whether or not I myself practise what I claim to be moral actions in terms of donating blood and working against poverty, no? On what basis do you think I did not answer the questions?
That doesn't answer the questions.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFThat makes no sense. If Robbie genuinely believes he and others are immortal (and is entitled to believe so) then your scores are wrong. You are essentially saying he can believe one thing but must act another.
robbie is entitled to believe he himself is immortal in some shape or form, but for him to project this speculation and superstition onto the reality of another person and then allow that person to die unnecessarily scores zero for not doing harm, scores zero for empathy, and I see it as a moral failure.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFThe problem is you read my questions, try to guess where I am going, then try to get three steps ahead. But you guess wrong.
Your questions were about whether or not I myself practise what I claim to be moral actions in terms of donating blood and working against poverty, no? On what basis do you think I did not answer the questions?
My questions were these:
1. Would you give blood if the person in question was in Africa and you had to fly here at your own expense to do so?
2. Do you do anything about the people starving in Ethiopia?
3. When does your moral responsibility to assist stop and why?
1. and 2. are yes/no questions. What you do in Indonesia is irrelevant. 3. requires more explanation, but you didn't answer it.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am essentially saying that he can believe something about himself but that it would be immoral of him to let someone die unnecessarily. Perhaps if I were a Jehovah's Witness I would agree with you and robbie about this.
That makes no sense. If Robbie genuinely believes he and others are immortal (and is entitled to believe so) then your scores are wrong. You are essentially saying he can believe one thing but must act another.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFmany people have been willing to die for principles they believed in FMF.
I am essentially saying that he can believe something about himself but that it would be immoral of him to let someone die unnecessarily. Perhaps if I were a Jehovah's Witness I would agree with you and robbie about this.
09 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not sure what you are trying to achieve with your deliberately absurd hypothetical but maybe the best answer - and perhaps the one you are hoping for - would meet it on its own absurdly hypothetical terms. So;
My questions were these:
1. Would you give blood if the person in question was in Africa and you had to fly here at your own expense to do so?
2. Do you do anything about the people starving in Ethiopia?
3. When does your moral responsibility to assist stop and why?
1. and 2. are yes/no questions. What you do in Indonesia is irrelevant. 3. requires more explanation, but you didn't answer it.
1. Sure, yes. Why not?
2. Not at the moment. So perhaps I will stop working against poverty here where I am and move to wherever it is you want me move to, and start working against poverty there. So, my hypothetical answer is 'no, but I will be very soon because it will make you think I understand morality'.
3. It doesn't stop. Why do I say that? Because I want to show you that my "understanding of morality is [not] very simplistic" but is 'very complicated' like you seem to be insinuating yours is.
There.
Now, I've asked you several times, but here it is again: Do you think it would be immoral for robbie to save someone's life by donating blood?
09 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFbecause they also are of the disposition that to take blood violates a biblical principle
How would the person you refuse to give the blood to be demonstrating that they are willing to die for principles they believed in?
which they hold dear, if they were a Jehovahs Witness that is.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI believe strongly that you can refuse to take a blood transfusion but would counsel you at your hospital bedside to reconsider. By the way, just to clear up a misconception you might be creating with your previous post when you said "many people have been willing to die for principles they believed in", I do not and have not ever suggested you should to be killed for the principles you believe in.
because they also are of the disposition that to take blood violates a biblical principle
which they hold dear, if they were a Jehovahs Witness that is.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFOnly the first question is partly hypothetical. Why do you find any of the questions absurd?
I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with your deliberately absurd hypothetical but maybe the best answer - and perhaps the one you are hoping for - would meet it on its own absurdly hypothetical terms. So;
1. Sure, yes. Why not?
So if I send you a list of people desperately needing blood transfusions in Africa, are you coming? See, its not nearly as hypothetical as you would like it to be. Its a real life dilemma, just as the thread title says.
2. Not at the moment. So perhaps I will stop working against poverty here where I am and move to wherever it is you want me move to, and start working against poverty there.
Who said I want you to do anything? Why do you keep assuming I want a particular answer then acting like you are terrified of the answer you think I want?
So, my hypothetical answer is 'no, but I will be very soon because it will make you think I understand morality'.
Now you are just lying outright.
3. It doesn't stop. Why do I say that? Because I want to show you that my "understanding of morality is [not] very simplistic" but is 'very complicated' like you seem to be insinuating yours is.
So, are you morally wrong for not currently helping the starving people in Ethiopia? If you helped them but failed to help those in India would you still be morally wrong?
To what extent do you measure the above to morally wrongs on a scale compared to say helping the starving person who lives next door?
If you measure them differently, then why?
Now, I've asked you several times, but here it is again: Do you think it would be immoral for robbie to save someone's life by donating blood?
No, I don't think it would be immoral for robbie to save someone's life by donating blood. I don't think he thinks it would be immoral either. I think he considers it against Gods wishes (sinful). This is not the same thing as immoral at all.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieare you drawing an equal sign between christian martyrs who died at the hands of a nutjob like nero rather than abandon christianity and you who refuse to save a loved one because of an almost pagan belief that another's blood in your veins would damn you?
many people have been willing to die for principles they believed in FMF.
really, man?
09 Feb 12
did anyone post this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
Scriptural interpretation
Dissident Witnesses say the Society's use of Leviticus 17:12 to support its opposition to blood transfusions[97][98] conflicts with its own teachings that Christians are not under the Mosaic law.[99][100] Theologian Anthony Hoekema claims the blood prohibited in Levitical laws was not human, but animal. He cites other authors[101] who support his view that the direction at Acts 15 to abstain from blood was intended not as an everlasting covenant but a means of maintaining a peaceful relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. He has described as "absurd literalism" the Witnesses' use of a scriptural prohibition on eating blood to prohibit the medical transfusion of human blood.