Spirituality
18 Feb 07
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateDon't be ridiculous.
So some life is less valuable than other life? I wonder if burgers made out of my neighbours kids would make it onto McDonald's $ menu? I'd like the zygote chocolate shake please.
You wait until they grow up. You get a lot more meat from them that way.
20 Feb 07
Lest I make a fool of myself...
My personal inclination would tend towards there being, divorced from any context, moral equivalence between saving the life of a born child and saving the life of an unborn child.
However, my personal actions would also be influenced by the legal situation, which sees a difference. While the law in at least some states of Australia now makes killing an unborn child an offence (because at common law, murder doesn't cover it), as far as I'm aware the law hasn't altered when it comes to self-defence or defence of others. I could be wrong on that - interesting question for legal research if I ever get thoroughly bored at work, it might depend on whether the offence of murder has been extended or whether an entirely new offence of killing an unborn child has been created.
Anyway...
To answer pretty well all of the hypothetical raised by no1, I would have to spend a lot more time wrestling the morality of killing a person to save anyone. How exactly am I supposed to prioritise any one life over another? What about multiple lives? What difference would it make to me if I knew (a) the potential victim; (b) the potential killer; (c) both? What if I was related to one or both?
These are fundamental questions that I would have to address before I could tell you who to save and when and how. And it's quite conceivable that I would come to the conclusion that I should refrain from acting to save an unborn child, let the law take its course, and wrestle with my conscience in the privacy of my own home.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI am talking morality as well as political strategy. Killing should be avoided when possible and especially when it accomplishes nothing whatsoever other than more people dying including potentially yourself.
I'm not asking about political strategy; I'm asking about the moral permissibility of the specific acts under the specific circumstances given. Please try to stay on-topic.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAddress the questions posed or leave the thread. I'm tired of such weaseling.
I am talking morality as well as political strategy. Killing should be avoided when possible and especially when it accomplishes nothing whatsoever other than more people dying including potentially yourself.
BTW, you really need to read a history book about John Brown; is there ANY subject you're not totally misinformed on?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateSure some life is less valuable than other life; I imagine even you occasionally use mouthwash that kills the germs that cause bad breath.
So some life is less valuable than other life? I wonder if burgers made out of my neighbours kids would make it onto McDonald's $ menu? I'd like the zygote chocolate shake please.
20 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI think it's laudable that you're interested in dialogue. But first, a few preliminaries:
I posted this in the Abortion thread and would like some dialogue from those who insist that a human being exists from the moment of conception:
http://www.armyofgod.com/JamesKopp.html
To wit: Abortionists murder helpless babies. Abortionists do not deserve legal protection.
Are the authorities who are only doing their job, keeping the abortio ...[text shortened]... the safety of unborn children?"
I'll post a few hypothethicals in the next post.
[I] would like some dialogue [with] those who insist that a human being exists from the moment of conception
A human being does exist from the moment of conception. Fact. It's not a matter of politics; it's not a matter of philosophy (not directly, anyway). It's basic zoology.
The question is whether that human being has rights. Or, to use the terminology of many pro-abortion philosophes, the question is whether that human being is a human 'person' - or should be treated as one.
To wit: Abortionists murder helpless babies. Abortionists do not deserve legal protection.
I disagree. Everyone deserves legal protection.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe key to both your hypotheticals would be in the application of the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) to these situations:
OK, remember that these examples take as a given that a human being/person exists from the moment of conception.
1) KellyTay is walking down the street and sees Woman A about to plunge a dagger into the head of one month old Baby B. He pulls a gun out and shoots Woman A, killing her but saving the life of Baby A.
Moral or immoral act?
2) Kelly ...[text shortened]... lthy baby. KellyTay has thus saved the "life" of the unborn "baby".
Moral or immoral act?
"A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:
1. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
So:
1) KellyTay is walking down the street and sees Woman A about to plunge a dagger into the head of one month old Baby B. He pulls a gun out and shoots Woman A, killing her but saving the life of Baby A.
Moral or immoral act?
There isn't sufficient information to make that judgment. I believe conditions (1) and (2) listed above holds, but (2)-(3) are unclear.
2) KellyTay finds out his pregnant neighbor is about to get an abortion. He waits for her outside the abortion clinic and right before she enters on the day of her appointment, puts a gun to her head and abducts her. He then holds her in his basement until she gives birth to a healthy baby. KellyTay has thus saved the "life" of the unborn "baby".
Moral or immoral act?
Immoral. Condition (3) (the evil effect is a means to the good effect) is violated.
Oh, and if you're serious about dialogue, I suggest you stop parodying the names of those who disagree with you.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauder3) IvanBlo finds out that a deranged school bus driver is going to drive his bus off a 1000 foot clift, killing all 50 six year olds on the bus. He gains this knowledge (which is accurate) just before the driver is about to start the engine of the bus. He shoots the bus driver, killing him but saving the lives of the 50 six year olds.
3) IvanBlo finds out that a deranged school bus driver is going to drive his bus off a 1000 foot clift, killing all 50 six year olds on the bus. He gains this knowledge (which is accurate) just before the driver is about to start the engine of the bus. He shoots the bus driver, killing him but saving the lives of the 50 six year olds.
Moral or immoral ...[text shortened]... pian, killing him but saving the "lives" of 50 unborn "babies".
Moral or immoral act?
Moral or immoral act?
Refer my post on PDE above for my response to your hypothetical (1).
4) Ivanblo's neighbor Dr. Slepian is on the phone with him from the Dr's kitchen. Dr. S says: "Boy, I have a busy week; I have to perform 50 abortions by Friday!"(which is true). Ivanblo pulls out a high powered rifle and shoots Dr. Slepian, killing him but saving the "lives" of 50 unborn "babies".
Moral or immoral act?
Refer my post for my response to your hypothetical (2).
20 Feb 07
1.) The No1moron in your neighborhood is a corrupt lawyer who'll do anything to make a $
He's walking in front of your house after you just finished cleaning and reloading your guns. Your hunting rifle "accidently" goes off and blows the pricks head off.
Moral act? .. or accident?
2. The No1moron is at it again. He's defending a known pedofile/murderer in a court of law and has bribed the Judge You follow him home and kneecap the bastard.
Immoral act? ... or justice?
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"Halsahammer"? 🙂
5) Halsahammer finds out that Muhummad Atta and a few associates are about to take over the plane that they are both on and crash it into a Children's Hospital, killing thousands of infants. Halsahammer performs his marital arts skills on the would be hijackers, killing them but saving the lives of thousands of children.
Moral or immoral act?
6) Ha ...[text shortened]... ff members but saving the "lives" of thousands of unborn "babies".
Moral or immoral act?
5) Halsahammer finds out that Muhummad Atta and a few associates are about to take over the plane that they are both on and crash it into a Children's Hospital, killing thousands of infants. Halsahammer performs his marital arts skills on the would be hijackers, killing them but saving the lives of thousands of children.
Moral or immoral act?
Insufficient information again. Is it HH's intention to kill the terrorists?
6) Halsahammer lives down the street from the only abortion clinic in his state which performs thousands of abortions per year. He plants a bomb in the abortion clinic, destroying it and killing 5 staff members but saving the "lives" of thousands of unborn "babies".
Moral or immoral act?
Still insufficient information. Does HH intend to kill the staff members? Also, is the destruction of the abortion clinic and its staff the last resort available to HH?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by jammerHow come he's not dead by the time 2) comes up? I thought he had his head blown off.
1.) The No1moron in your neighborhood is a corrupt lawyer who'll do anything to make a $
He's walking in front of your house after you just finished cleaning and reloading your guns. Your hunting rifle "accidently" goes off and blows the pricks head off.
Moral act? .. or accident?
2. The No1moron is at it again. He's defending a known pedofile/murderer ...[text shortened]... ibed the Judge You follow him home and kneecap the bastard.
Immoral act? ... or justice?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is not a fact; it is your opinion. I've shown that there is no scientific consensus on this issue numerous times by numerous cites.
I think it's laudable that you're interested in dialogue. But first, a few preliminaries:
[b][I] would like some dialogue [with] those who insist that a human being exists from the moment of conception
A human being does exist from the moment of conception. Fact. It's not a matter of politics; it's not a matter of philosophy (not dire ...[text shortened]... s do not deserve legal protection.[/b]
I disagree. Everyone deserves legal protection.[/b]
20 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour "Principle of Double Effect" is useless if it cannot reach a decision regarding the morality of an act before the blade of the dagger goes into the child. In fact, since we can never know if 2 holds for another it's completely useless EVER as a guide to our actions.
The key to both your hypotheticals would be in the application of the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) to these situations:
[quote]"A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:
1. that the action in itself from its very obj us about dialogue, I suggest you stop parodying the names of those who disagree with you.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou've cited scientist[s] saying there is no legal or philosophical consensus on when "human life" begins (which is true enough - but that's beside the point). Sticking purely to the science and treating human beings as any other species -- there is no debate whatsoever.
That is not a fact; it is your opinion. I've shown that there is no scientific consensus on this issue numerous times by numerous cites.
EDIT: And we can do the "war of biology textbooks" again, if you like. But I want you to show me one scientist who would apply a non-conception criterion for another species.