Originally posted by whodeyI think we only have to worry about what each others "moral positions" are in so far as they affect our behaviour, and even then, only in so far as we and our various behaviours impact on each other ~ whether we damage each other, deceive each other, or coerce each other (and the compromises that there inevitably be), which together form the basic elements of morality as they pertain to oiling the wheels of social interaction.
Morality is shaped by our perceived authority figures. hority figures that I look up to you disdain, and the ones I disdain you look up to. Why then would you care what my moral position is?
Originally posted by whodeyOur morality is first shaped during childhood and later refined by the society in which we live. Surround yourself with bankers or with Red Cross employees for a significant amount of time and your morality will most probably develop differently. I assume by "authority figures that I look up to" you mean God. If so, I don't disdain God, I believe there is no such thing as a god. I know, difficult to understand for theists.....
Morality is shaped by our perceived authority figures. Those perceived authority figures that I look up to you disdain, and the ones I disdain you look up to. Why then would you care what my moral position is?
As for science vs. religion, all I hear from atheists is how science guides their lives. They look to it to answer all their questions. So how does science answer this question, or does science not help you with this?
Regardless, I don't judge your morality on where you get it from, I judge it on the basis of what that morality entails. I don't care if Jesus tells you to kill all women or if you decided for yourself that that would be a good idea. It's equally bad.
I don't "look up" to authority figures, I do recognize that we need a system in which police, judges and government play a role. You do as well.
I am interested in what people consider immoral/unethical, regardless of how their morality was formed. The article that I posted contained a question of whether or not this procedure was unethical and I couldn't quite understand what would be unethical about it. Which is why i asked the question.
All you hear from atheists is how science guides their lives? Really? I think you're lying. I think you made that up and can't substantiate it. And you will just ignore it. I also think you lie when you say that atheists "look to it to answer all their questions". I don't think you can substantiate that claim at all. And besides, at other times you will simply say that all atheists look to government to solve their problems. Also a lie, also a claim that you can't substantiate.
So, would you consider such an operation unethical?
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatAnd I think you are lying to yourself.
All you hear from atheists is how science guides their lives? Really? I think you're lying. I think you made that up and can't substantiate it. And you will just ignore it. I also think you lie when you say that atheists "look to it to answer all their questions". I don't think you can substantiate that claim at all. And besides, at other times you will ...[text shortened]... lso a claim that you can't substantiate.
So, would you consider such an operation unethical?[/b]
We both know that if science could do such a thing as transplant a head, they would do so. Then people like me would be silenced in the back room for clinging to our stupid beliefs.
So the question is just another opportunity to bash religious folk for their beliefs, is it not?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFMany here think that coercion is just, so long as you have a perceived good outcome.
I think we only have to worry about what each others "moral positions" are in so far as they affect our behaviour, and even then, only in so far as we and our various behaviours impact on each other ~ whether we damage each other, deceive each other, or coerce each other (and the compromises that there inevitably be), which together form the basic elements of morality as they pertain to oiling the wheels of social interaction.
Take Obamacare, for example. Congressmen were essentially bought off to vote for it. The American people were lied to as they were told they could keep their own health care at the same or better rates.
In the end, such coercive methods are deemed "good" by people like Obama and those that support him, because for them the ends justify the means.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIn what way am I lying to myself?
And I think you are lying to yourself.
We both know that if science could do such a thing as transplant a head, they would do so. Then people like me would be silenced in the back room for clinging to our stupid beliefs.
So the question is just another opportunity to bash religious folk for their beliefs, is it not?
So what is your "stupid belief" with regards to transplanting a head? Do you think it's unethical?
I think there are quite a few things that "science" doesn't do, even though it could. Using prisoners for involuntary medical experiments for instance.
I am also interested in the relationship between a soul and the "new" body. Will the soul simply accept this new body, which formerly belonged to another soul?
Edit: notice by the way that you are now indeed ignoring your own claim about how you only hear from atheists how science guides their lives.
Originally posted by Great King RatIf scientist could do such a thing, they would. They would not be swayed by silly objections from religious folk. The thinking would be, let's find out for ourselves.
In what way am I lying to myself?
So what is your "stupid belief" with regards to transplanting a head? Do you think it's unethical?
I think there are quite a few things that "science" doesn't do, even though it could. Using prisoners for involuntary medical experiments for instance.
I am also interested in the relationship between a soul and ...[text shortened]... ed ignoring your own claim about how you only hear from atheists how science guides their lives.
Men are always drawn to the same apple tree.
Originally posted by whodeySo what is your "stupid belief" with regards to transplanting a head? Do you think it's unethical?
If scientist could do such a thing, they would. They would not be swayed by silly objections from religious folk. The thinking would be, let's find out for ourselves.
Men are always drawn to the same apple tree.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think they would be ridiculed by definition. Would depend on what the objection would be.
My only point here is, if there were objections they would be ridiculed, so why bother?
And you have never shied away from making all kinds of ridiculous statements. Why would this be any different?
So what do you find unethical about this procedure?
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatSo a person convicted of some crime where the punishment is beheading, if that head was attached to a new body and revived, would that be the end of it, even though the personality of the person who committed the crime is still active in a new body?
I don't think they would be ridiculed by definition. Would depend on what the objection would be.
And you have never shied away from making all kinds of ridiculous statements. Why would this be any different?
So what do you find unethical about this procedure?
Would he be beheaded again?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI would bet that this is not going to happen because it is against God's will in my opinion. So if this or if that in this case is an exercise in futility. 😏
So a person convicted of some crime where the punishment is beheading, if that head was attached to a new body and revived, would that be the end of it, even though the personality of the person who committed the crime is still active in a new body?
Would he be beheaded again?
Originally posted by RJHinds"it" being the process of attaching a head, presumably a head that has a brain that can work, to another body with the correct immune type and so forth?
I would bet that this is not going to happen because it is against God's will in my opinion. So if this or if that in this case is an exercise in futility. 😏
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, he wouldn't have gotten his punishment - death - so I would say reviving him would be illegal.
So a person convicted of some crime where the punishment is beheading, if that head was attached to a new body and revived, would that be the end of it, even though the personality of the person who committed the crime is still active in a new body?
Would he be beheaded again?
As such, a second beheading would be the appropriate response.