Is the latest morality the best?

[Vera_Ljuba]

So there are some things that you find to be immoral as a means of alleviating suffering.

I am very careful avoiding the label “moral” and “immoral”, because these terms and their usage are highly subjective.

Good. That puts you one step closer to Catholicism.

I am not against Catholicism, so this remark was unnecessary - though there is nothing wrong with it per se.

So, what are some of those things which you would not do to alleviate suffering?

(Curious, though, that it does include killing?)

I already enumerated the situations where the “steps” are acceptable to alleviate suffering - and some of those include killing. No need to repeat them. Why beat the dead horse?

Are you still of the same position, Vera? The intent of giving medication is not to kill but rather to alleviate the pain and suffering?

As far as I am concerned, the intent to kill as the final means to stop unnecessary suffering is perfectly OK. Again, repeat, unnecessary suffering and no other method remaining. I simply offer you a “Get out of Jail free” card, (which I find hypocritical), to allow you to pretend that your intent was to stop the suffering and not to end the life.

Let me explain in a crystal clear fashion. The situation involves a terrorist, who wants to detonate a dirty bomb in the middle of New York. The only way to stop him is to shoot AND kill him. I would not hesitate to pull the trigger. My defense would be: “I pulled the trigger AND intended to kill him, because that was the only option to stop him”. You might say: “My only intent was to stop him to detonate that bomb. I did not intend to kill him, it was only a foreseen, but unintended consequence of stopping the terrorist”. This kind of “defense” is pure hypocrisy. You perform an action with a foreseen consequence and the try to deny the intent simply does not wash.

Why not own up and say, “yes I did it, if there would have been any other way, I would have chosen it, but there was no other way. I am not happy about it, but sometimes we have to play the cards which are dealt”… What is wrong with intellectual honesty?

1. how does one know when someone is “in terminal condition”?

The best medical knowledge - which is not infallible, but the best we can hope for.

1. would you say that it was immoral for a person to want to end her suffering by taking her life when she wasn’t terminal? Let’s say she was a quadriplegic with no terminal diagnosis, but wanted to end her life. Would you advocate for her right to do so?

I advocate the right of everyone to make decisions regarding their own life.

1. why does it have to be a "terminal condition? If you want to alleviate suffering, then why shouldn’t it be permissible for any type of suffering?

Again, whatever the affected person decides should be respected. That is elementary “respect”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I advocate the right of everyone to make decisions regarding their own life.

I take it you would not advocate the right of everyone to take an innocent’s life?

A child in the womb clearly is not suffering and has not expressed the desire to die.

So do you object to abortion as a savage practice?

 

[PRmerger]

I am very careful avoiding the label “moral” and “immoral”, because these terms and their usage are highly subjective.

Fair enough.

I am not against Catholicism, so this remark was unnecessary - though there is nothing wrong with it per se.

Ok.

I already enumerated the situations where the “steps” are acceptable to alleviate suffering - and some of those include killing. No need to repeat them. Why beat the dead horse?

I feel as if you have gotten in over your head on this thread, Vera.

You posted some things without really thinking them through…and now you wish to avoid the logical conclusions of what you have asserted.

This is not bad. It is simply a bad paradigm you’ve embraced.

You wish to alleviate suffering.

That is a good thing.

You also realize, rightfully, that there are some times when it would be immoral (or, perhaps in your semantics, distasteful?) to kill to alleviate suffering.

So we just want to know: when is it?

You haven’t really articulated this (because, as I said, you weren’t prepared when you made your original comments), so think about it and then come back and let us know.

(And I hope that another dismissal of “I’m getting bored with this” won’t be forthcoming. Please examine your arguments and then come back and defend them in a cogent and coherent manner so we can consider them and perhaps change our points of view.)

 

[meltzerboy]

Chesterton paraphrased:

“I am really growing weary of those who say the morality of Thursday must be superior to the morality of Tuesday.”

A remark given by a poster in another thread is that we live in the best of moral times, and just before the thread was closed he challenged me to find a better century for morals.

I think just about any century since the rise of Christianity would be morally superior to the last century.

Your thoughts?

I think most historians would agree with the poster who said “we live in the best of moral times.” It may not seem so to us, possibly because we live in the midst of the present, not the past, and are thus more aware of its imperfections; but the facts prove that prior eras were more bloodthirsty and depraved than our own, with more violence, murder, and war.

At the same time, I do not believe that the latest morality, in the sense of the latest fad, is necessarily superior to that which came before. On the contrary, as in most things, it is often worse.

 

[edwest2]

This prompts so many questions!

1. how does one know when someone is “in terminal condition”?
2. would you say that it was immoral for a person to want to end her suffering by taking her life when she wasn’t terminal? Let’s say she was a quadriplegic with no terminal diagnosis, but wanted to end her life. Would you advocate for her right to do so?
3. why does it have to be a "terminal condition? If you want to alleviate suffering, then why shouldn’t it be permissible for any type of suffering?

Regarding question 1). Any qualified doctor would be able to show the patient’s condition is terminal, meaning death is imminent. I’ve seen it. I know the procedure.

Ed

 

[PRmerger]

As far as I am concerned, the intent to kill as the final means to stop unnecessary suffering is perfectly OK. Again, repeat, unnecessary suffering and no other method remaining.

But why is killing ok, (that is, “moral”, although you wish to avoid that word), in this situation but not when there is horrific suffering that’s NOT terminal?

You keep repeating what your standard is “When someone is terminal and there’s horrible suffering and no other method”…but you haven’t give reasons why, nor why other situations wouldn’t be “perfectly ok” (that is, moral) to mercy kill.

Why not other times and other situations?

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding question 1). Any qualified doctor would be able to show the patient’s condition is terminal, meaning death is imminent. I’ve seen it. I know the procedure.

Ed

Imminent is different than terminal.

Brittany Maynard was given the diagnosis of “terminal”, from what I understand, but her death was definitely NOT imminent.

 

[edwest2]

Regarding “end of life decisions,” I suggest reading the information published by the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

ncbcenter.org/publications/end-life-guide/

Ed

 

[PRmerger]

I advocate the right of everyone to make decisions regarding their own life.

This sounds like an absolute?

Yes?

 

[edwest2]

Imminent is different than terminal.

Brittany Maynard was given the diagnosis of “terminal”, from what I understand, but her death was definitely NOT imminent.

If you enjoy arguing, that’s fine. From the Medical Dictionary:

"terminal condition
"A condition caused by injury, disease or illness from which, to a reasonable degree of "medical probability, a patient cannot recover, and in which
"(1) The patient’s death is imminent, or
“(2) The patient is in a persistent vegetative state”

Ed

 

[PRmerger]

If you enjoy arguing, that’s fine. From the Medical Dictionary:

"terminal condition
"A condition caused by injury, disease or illness from which, to a reasonable degree of "medical probability, a patient cannot recover, and in which
"(1) The patient’s death is imminent, or
“(2) The patient is in a persistent vegetative state”

Ed

Then Brittany Maynard was not terminal.

 

[truetofaith]

Re: Is the latest morality the best? The answer seems to be…NO !

 

[goout]

Re: Is the latest morality the best? The answer seems to be…NO !

In the context of Vera’s proposition, it’s not even morality.
Morality is the evaluation of human acts in relation to an objective good.
In this case, the objective good can’t even be recognized. The only good proposed is the vague “eliminate suffering”, which leaves the door open for any sort of perversion pursuant to what someone subjectively proposes as “elimination of suffering”, including killing to end suffering.

This kind of “morality” is shown to reap tragic consequences all through the 20th century.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think most historians would agree with the poster who said “we live in the best of moral times.” It may not seem so to us, possibly because we live in the midst of the present, not the past, and are thus more aware of its imperfections; but the facts prove that prior eras were more bloodthirsty and depraved than our own, with more violence, murder, and war.

At the same time, I do not believe that the latest morality, in the sense of the latest fad, is necessarily superior to that which came before. On the contrary, as in most things, it is often worse.

As you say, the matter is difficult. How do we accurately assess the morals of one century against the morals of another?

However, if the last century (from 1916-2016) can be measured in any way historical or logical, one is hard pressed to argue that modern morals have improved over ancient or medieval morals. Certainly some conditions of modern life and technology have improved certain aspects of life, but technology is no guarantee of morals. Judging by advances in nuclear weapons technology, we may be on the verge of doing in the human species along with a few others. If we end up doing just that, the case is closed against the progress of modern morality. Even if we don’t do that, the technology of abortion has resulted in 45 millions of babies ripped untimely from their mother’s wombs in the United States along over the last fifty years. This is nothing for the liberal progressives to brag about.

 

[edwest2]

The question is very broad but the answers are obvious if we take the time to look.

Abortion is a good example. It is never a good to kill a human being.

Wars, on a smaller scale than World War II, are still occurring.

Error about the “best” way to live is still occurring, especially regarding the family, which has been dragged through the mud for decades.

Sexual immorality is not a good thing. It’s not about freedom either.

I lived through the entire nuclear weapon/ICBM period and did not lose a minute of sleep over it. As a boy, I lived through the threats to human extinction. While the threat of nuclear war persists, the US, at least, realized in the 1950s that even one “limited” nuclear exchange would have massive consequences going beyond the immediate destruction.

Ed

 

[inocente]

Morality is the evaluation of human acts in relation to an objective good.

Then morality is at a peak when more people evaluate human acts, for instance by taking part in discussions like this.

We could wonder whether so many men would have gone off to WWI and WWII shouting their country right or wrong if there had been more of the discussions we have these days.

 

[goout]

Then morality is at a peak when more people evaluate human acts, for instance by taking part in discussions like this.

Morality subject to popular opinion :tsktsk:

We could wonder whether so many men would have gone off to WWI and WWII shouting their country right or wrong if there had been more of the discussions we have these days.

Conversation is good when you have two parties conversing.
When one party is not conversational (Nazi Germany) then you don’t have a discussion.

In short, discussion takes place between reasonable parties, and when one is not reasonable, objective moral standards should be acted on and protected.

 

[o_mlly]

…]
Abortion is a good example. It is never a good to kill a human being. …]

Error about the “best” way to live is still occurring, especially regarding the family, which has been dragged through the mud for decades.

Sexual immorality is not a good thing. It’s not about freedom either. …]

Morality, perhaps like politics, is all local. In the U.S.A. in the past 30 years our culture regarding sexual immorality has gone from punishing, to tolerating, to celebrating, to tax subsidized funding of evil behaviors.

Fact checkers can have at it but I tend to think what I read at thetruthwins.com/archives/100-facts-about-the-moral-collapse-of-america-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe to be true. Pray for us.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Morality, perhaps like politics, is all local. In the U.S.A. in the past 30 years our culture regarding sexual immorality has gone from punishing, to tolerating, to celebrating, to tax subsidized funding of evil behaviors.

Fact checkers can have at it but I tend to think what I read at thetruthwins.com/archives/100-facts-about-the-moral-collapse-of-america-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe to be true. Pray for us.

Yes, and a very clear sign of the times and refutation of the notion that, according to many progressives, traditional values can be safely dispensed with.

 

[edwest2]

Then morality is at a peak when more people evaluate human acts, for instance by taking part in discussions like this.

We could wonder whether so many men would have gone off to WWI and WWII shouting their country right or wrong if there had been more of the discussions we have these days.

“Truth is the first casualty of war.” The Americans had their Office of War Information that censored anything they found demoralizing or in violation of “National Security.” That was WW II. In WW I, the British public thought their boys were doing well. But that was not true.

My father told me this when representatives of the local draft came by his village: “You went. There was nothing to say.”

Of course, the ground was fertilized by stories of impending attacks by the enemy, by whichever side. For example, the British declared war on Germany shortly after their attack on Poland since Poland was an ally. The British could do little at the time to stop it.

World War II was just a repeat of World War I with more modern weapons. The Fall of France is still a mystery.

Ed