Euthanasia Question

[elts1956]

It sounds as if the nurse was instructing you to poison your mother.

There is a very fine line to walk here. As I understand the situation, the committing of the act of euthanasia in an instance like this depends on an individual’s intention. One is allowed to give a strong enough dose of pain killers such as morphine, that will assure alleviating pain. But how much to give would be a problem unless one knew the dosage in advance. I would imagine it would be very easy to go over the line in the sand with this, especially if one is not experienced in giving medications.

And yes, sometimes giving medication for pain does hasten the death of a person in a weakened condition. So which do you choose for someone, the pain, or the possibility of an earlier death?

 

[Squishy]

It was considered fine by whom? You? The slaves? The slave owners?

I was mearly using this to demonstrate the changing moral climate that we live in. It was once deemed acceptable to keep slaves, this obviously for good reasons is now not the case.

 

[Squishy]

And since morality is not relative (a truth) society needs to conform its laws with morality. Not the other way around. Actually the other way around is impossible since morality does not conform to society. Would you say it is possible for society to have laws which are corrupt?

You say that morality is a truth. But different cultures have a different idea of morality. I would assume that you claim that only yours is accurate. Just as they do the same. So exactly who does society which is a mix of many different cultures and beliefs derive its morality from ?

This is the same as anything goes as long as I feel okay with it.

Thats not really what i was trying to get accross here. I was trying to say. That allowing someone to kill them selves in a pain free way. Is more simple than killing them in the same way. Mainly because the act of killing someone can easly have an alteriar(sp) motive. For example killing someone who does not nesseserly wish to die.

 

[mapleoak]

I was mearly using this to demonstrate the changing moral climate that we live in. It was once deemed acceptable to keep slaves, this obviously for good reasons is now not the case.

You are confused in that moral good never changes. Slavery was as wrong then as it is now.

 

[Squishy]

You are confused in that moral good never changes. Slavery was as wrong then as it is now.

squishy:

The legal system changes and adapts to the times that we live in though. Which is why i think it would be acceptable for assisted suicide to be regulated in a similer way.

Regadless of how you percieve slavery. At one point it was legal. And a very widespread pratice. This is just one example of the legal system adapting of the moral climate in society.

 

[mapleoak]

You say that morality is a truth. But different cultures have a different idea of morality. I would assume that you claim that only yours is accurate. Just as they do the same. So exactly who does society which is a mix of many different cultures and beliefs derive its morality from ?

From the CCC:

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.55 Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597

Even our forefathers knew this to be true when they proclaimed “certain truths to be self evident”.

No matter how it is spun, murder is wrong, always has been, no matter what culture or belief system. Moral truth does not change. Legal systems do. Once again, do you believe it is possible for a society’s laws to be corrupt?

 

[Squishy]

From the CCC:
Even our forefathers knew this to be true when they proclaimed “certain truths to be self evident”.

No matter how it is spun, murder is wrong, always has been, no matter what culture or belief system. Moral truth does not change. Legal systems do. Once again, do you believe it is possible for a society’s laws to be corrupt?

Odd. I was waiting for you to define for me what exactly you mean by societys laws being corrupt. But i obviously didnt post that reply, sorry.

If you can tell me what you mean by corrupt laws i will happly answer

 

[Squishy]

From the CCC:
Even our forefathers knew this to be true when they proclaimed “certain truths to be self evident”.

What is the CCC ?

 

[magdelaine]

Odd. I was waiting for you to define for me what exactly you mean by societys laws being corrupt. But i obviously didnt post that reply, sorry.

If you can tell me what you mean by corrupt laws i will happly answer

Corrupt law = the law that allows slavery, in your example.

 

[Squishy]

Corrupt law = the law that allows slavery, in your example.

But where do you take the uncorrupt version from ?

 

[magdelaine]

But where do you take the uncorrupt version from ?

Moral truth, as very succinctly defined by mapleoak.

 

[Squishy]

Moral truth, as very succinctly defined by mapleoak.

Which gets us precisly nowhere. You claim that their is a moral truth based on religious teachings. What i have been trying to point out. Is almost anyone can make that claim, and by your own reasoning you have to accept it. The only reason that you dont is because of your own religious view. Which not everyone shares. Which is why the idea of moral truth doesnt work.

 

[magdelaine]

Which gets us precisly nowhere. You claim that their is a moral truth based on religious teachings. What i have been trying to point out. Is almost anyone can make that claim, and by your own reasoning you have to accept it. The only reason that you dont is because of your own religious view. Which not everyone shares. Which is why the idea of moral truth doesnt work.

Goodness, did you read her posts?

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

It’s not a religious belief to know that every human being has a conscience. Stealing, for example, is something every toddler knows is wrong; without specifically being taught. Where did this knowledge come from?? Or do you deny it’s there at all?

 

[Squishy]

Goodness, did you read her posts?

It’s not a religious belief to know that every human being has a conscience. Stealing, for example, is something every toddler knows is wrong; without specifically being taught. Where did this knowledge come from?? Or do you deny it’s there at all?

Here is another problem. You are making statements that have no basis. Every toddler knows its wrong to steal without being taught, is just not true. Toddlers will often steal toys/sweets ect from others untill they are taught that it is wrong. Society excerts pressures on us as we grow and mature. And as i have been saying these are very flexable and change all the time.

As regarding denying moral law. Please show me some evidence to the country, and i will certainly evaluate it.

 

[magdelaine]

Here is another problem. You are making statements that have no basis. Every toddler knows its wrong to steal without being taught, is just not true. Toddlers will often steal toys/sweets ect from others untill they are taught that it is wrong. Society excerts pressures on us as we grow and mature. And as i have been saying these are very flexable and change all the time.

As regarding denying moral law. Please show me some evidence to the country, and i will certainly evaluate it.

A quick search on natural law pulled up this short description that does not have a necessarily religious perspective. A quote:

It is interesting to note that virtually everyone seems to have some knowledge of natural law even before such knowledge is codified and formalized. Even young children make an appeal to “fair play,” demand that things be “fair and square,” and older children and adults often apply the “golden rule.” When doing so, they are spontaneously invoking the natural law. This is why many proponents of the natural law theory say it is the law which is “written upon the hearts of men.” These are examples of what is called “connatural knowledge,” that is, a knowledge which:

* follows on the "lived experience" of the truth;
* is the living contact of the intellect with reality itself;
* is not always given expression in concepts;
* may be obscure to the knower;
* is overlaid with elements from the affective or feeling side of man's nature.

You should at least read it so you can know what it is we are referring to when we say “natural law”; and you can explain why you think it isn’t true.

 

[mapleoak]

Regadless of how you percieve slavery. At one point it was legal. And a very widespread pratice. This is just one example of the legal system adapting of the moral climate in society.

And this would confirm my statement that you believe the law of the land to be the ultimate moral authority. This regardless of how that law came to be, whether through the dictates of a tyrant, majority rule, or even through the deliberations of elected representatives.
Next question, if the rulers decided you were no longer needed, would you hand yourself over to your demise? After all, it would be perfectly legal.

 

[mapleoak]

Odd. I was waiting for you to define for me what exactly you mean by societys laws being corrupt. But i obviously didnt post that reply, sorry.

If you can tell me what you mean by corrupt laws i will happly answer

Definition of corrupt drawn from dictionary.com:

**

–adjective

1.guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: *a corrupt judge. *2.debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society. 3.made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.4.infected; tainted.5.decayed; putrid

Therefore a law characterized by the above adjective.
Examples of a corrupt laws which agree with the above definition perfectly:
Legalized Abortion
Legalized Slavery
Legalized Euthanasia
Legalized Contraception
Legalized Murder
Legalized Extermination
Legalized Theft
.
.
.
All of these marked by a serious violation of Natural Law. Before I can comment further, I would suggest learning about natural law as suggested by another poster above before trying to argue that there 'aint no such thing.

 

[elts1956]

Which gets us precisly nowhere. You claim that their is a moral truth based on religious teachings. What i have been trying to point out. Is almost anyone can make that claim, and by your own reasoning you have to accept it. The only reason that you dont is because of your own religious view. Which not everyone shares. Which is why the idea of moral truth doesnt work.

Would it be a Natural Law for one person to another? Or does this seem wrong to you?

 

[elts1956]

Which gets us precisly nowhere. You claim that their is a moral truth based on religious teachings. What i have been trying to point out. Is almost anyone can make that claim, and by your own reasoning you have to accept it. The only reason that you dont is because of your own religious view. Which not everyone shares. Which is why the idea of moral truth doesnt work.

Would it be a Natural Law for one person to another? Or does this seem wrong to you?

Sorry…
What I meant was…Would it be a Natural Law for two people of the same sex to marry one another? There is a Natural Law and I don’t think homosexual marriages/unions fit in any place.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry…
What I meant was…Would it be a Natural Law for two people of the same sex to marry one another? There is a Natural Law and I don’t think homosexual marriages/unions fit in any place.

Right. In my opinion, giving marriage licenses to homosexuals is somewhat like giving driving licenses to blind people. At best, it’s pointless and insulting - at worst, it’s stupid and dangerous.

Marriage is for the purpose of limiting sex to one man and one woman who are committed to one another for life, for the purpose of bringing children into the world and raising them up to be good citizens.

By definition, persons of the same sex can’t have actual sex (since the matching body part is missing), and are unable to reproduce.