Is the latest morality the best?

[Vera_Ljuba]

So we just want to know: when is it?

It is not easy to squeeze everything into post with a 6000 character limit. So I suggest to deal with the question in a piecemeal fashion. One step at a time.

(And I hope that another dismissal of “I’m getting bored with this” won’t be forthcoming.

The dismissal was due to the method you employed. You behaved like an “inquisitor”, by firing questions but avoiding a dialog. And I resent this kind of approach.

So, for the sake of advancing I propose a starting scenario, will give my take on it, and expect a direct answer from you. Once we have a resolution, we can advance. Sounds fair?

The scenario is this:

There is a person with a deathly condition. The painkillers are ineffective. According to the doctors she has only a few days to live. She is lucid, and expresses her desire to “be taken out of her misery” - or if you prefer - to be killed. She is unable to operate a Dr. Kevorkian - type of device. The method would be legal, so there can be no accusation of “murder”.

My answer in this event would be to comply with her wish. It is a hard decision to make, but I would respect her and her demand. Take that syringe with the deadly amount of pain-killer, and help her into the “hereafter”.

What would be your solution?

 

[edwest2]

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.

Enduring, bedrock values can never be dispensed with. Progressive is not the right word. It should be regressive.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Morality is universal. Men are men and women are women. Thanks for the link. All that Sex Education was for nothing, but makers of various pills, implants and other devices are making money.

amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1942475217/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Of course, the media has a role to play in marketing the message.

amazon.com/Snapping-American-Mind-Healing-Government/dp/194247508X/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?ie=UTF8&pd_rd_i=194247508X&pd_rd_r=MCZK4YFRSF0B02ME5EW6&pd_rd_w=YnPK0&pd_rd_wg=E5NQn&psc=1&refRID=MCZK4YFRSF0B02ME5EW6

This did not happen overnight. The poisoning of the West was gradual, and the poisoning of the Body of Christ.

Have hope. Pray. God is in this and ready to help all who call on Him.

Ed

 

[belorg]

A naive statement… Killing is never loving. Euthanasia is out of hand in Holland and this is already happening with abortion.

A young dancer hurt her foot and would not be able to dance again so she requested euthanasia and it was done. I s that really “loving”? Really moral?

I don’t have enough information to comment on this.

 

[edwest2]

It is not easy to squeeze everything into post with a 6000 character limit. So I suggest to deal with the question in a piecemeal fashion. One step at a time.

The dismissal was due to the method you employed. You behaved like an “inquisitor”, by firing questions but avoiding a dialog. And I resent this kind of approach.

So, for the sake of advancing I propose a starting scenario, will give my take on it, and expect a direct answer from you. Once we have a resolution, we can advance. Sounds fair?

The scenario is this:

There is a person with a deathly condition. The painkillers are ineffective. According to the doctors she has only a few days to live. She is lucid, and expresses her desire to “be taken out of her misery” - or if you prefer - to be killed. She is unable to operate a Dr. Kevorkian - type of device. The method would be legal, so there can be no accusation of “murder”.

My answer in this event would be to comply with her wish. It is a hard decision to make, but I would respect her and her demand. Take that syringe with the deadly amount of pain-killer, and help her into the “hereafter”.

What would be your solution?

This scenario is unfair.

euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html

Ed

 

[Cheiron]

A naive statement… Killing is never loving. Euthanasia is out of hand in Holland and this is already happening with abortion.

A young dancer hurt her foot and would not be able to dance again so she requested euthanasia and it was done. I s that really “loving”? Really moral?

I don’t have enough information to comment on this.

I don’t have enough information either and I searched for the case in both English and Dutch news sources. I’d like to see some evidence as well.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The dismissal was due to the method you employed. You behaved like an “inquisitor”, by firing questions but avoiding a dialog.

I asked you a question in post #82 and you still have not answered.

So who is avoiding dialogue?

 

[PRmerger]

It is not easy to squeeze everything into post with a 6000 character limit. So I suggest to deal with the question in a piecemeal fashion. One step at a time.

The dismissal was due to the method you employed. You behaved like an “inquisitor”, by firing questions but avoiding a dialog. And I resent this kind of approach.

So, for the sake of advancing I propose a starting scenario, will give my take on it, and expect a direct answer from you. Once we have a resolution, we can advance. Sounds fair?

Of course.

But firstly you need to answer the questions that were posed to* you* first. (See previous pages on this thread).

That’s…fair, right?

(Incidentally, how is it that you can use the term “fair”, which is, of course, subjective, while objecting to the words “moral” and “immoral”, which you also claim are subjective?

Again, I don’t really think you’ve thought your position through very well.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But firstly you need to answer the questions that were posed to* you* first. (See previous pages on this thread).

What are those questions - presented by YOU, which I did not answer? I am not interested in conducting conversations with just anyone and not interested in answering questions which are off-topic. To the best of my recollection, I answered all your questions. But I may have overlooked some, inadvertently.

You asked me a specific question, and I suggested to explore one step at a time. Not because I am reluctant, but because the problem is complex. Can’t be more accommodating than that.

The ball is in your court. My question was simple. What would you do in the stipulated and very narrowly defined scenario? There are two possible answers: 1) you would comply with her request, or 2) you would deny her request? And, of course… the most important part: “WHY”?

 

[PRmerger]

What are those questions - presented by YOU, which I did not answer?

How about: what it is about suffering that’s NOT terminal that makes you say–you can’t kill this person?

And what about the one about whether it’s permissible for a mom to make a decision for a child who’s terminally ill and suffering?

And what if the father disagrees?

Also, what about the one where you said you’re not an absolutist but then said “I advocate the right of everyone to make decisions regarding their own life”–Isn’t that an absolute statement? And if not, what are the exceptions?

 

[PRmerger]

The scenario is this:

There is a person with a deathly condition. The painkillers are ineffective. According to the doctors she has only a few days to live. She is lucid, and expresses her desire to “be taken out of her misery” - or if you prefer - to be killed. She is unable to operate a Dr. Kevorkian - type of device. The method would be legal, so there can be no accusation of “murder”.

My answer in this event would be to comply with her wish. It is a hard decision to make, but I would respect her and her demand. Take that syringe with the deadly amount of pain-killer, and help her into the “hereafter”.

What would be your solution?

I would take her out of her misery: I would give her painkillers. There is enough pharmacological knowledge that we have the ability to, if not totally eliminate the pain, mute it.

I would never kill someone in that condition.

Just like I would never kill someone in this condition, (even if their mother asked me to):

And, I hope and pray, you wouldn’t even consider doing such a profane thing either.

Why? Because human life is so precious that there is nothing that could induce me to take it from an innocent person.

 

[truetofaith]

It is not easy to squeeze everything into post with a 6000 character limit. So I suggest to deal with the question in a piecemeal fashion. One step at a time.

The dismissal was due to the method you employed. You behaved like an “inquisitor”, by firing questions but avoiding a dialog. And I resent this kind of approach.

So, for the sake of advancing I propose a starting scenario, will give my take on it, and expect a direct answer from you. Once we have a resolution, we can advance. Sounds fair?

The scenario is this:

There is a person with a deathly condition. The painkillers are ineffective. According to the doctors she has only a few days to live. She is lucid, and expresses her desire to “be taken out of her misery” - or if you prefer - to be killed. She is unable to operate a Dr. Kevorkian - type of device. The method would be legal, so there can be no accusation of “murder”.

My answer in this event would be to comply with her wish. It is a hard decision to make, but I would respect her and her demand. Take that syringe with the deadly amount of pain-killer, and help her into the “hereafter”.

What would be your solution?

To avoid a few more days of pain, you would let her be thrown into hell for eternity and also yourself ?
That’s ridiculous!

Oh, my solution would be to let God take her, when He in His Infinite Wisdom knows is her time to die.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Now we are having a good conversation. Thank you for the opportunity. That is what I was hoping for. So I am going to give answers for all your current questions. And if you have more… just bring them on. No evasion here!

How about: what it is about suffering that’s NOT terminal that makes you say–you can’t kill this person?

I would not. As long as there is a reasonable hope for recovery, AND as long as it is her wish to keep on her fight, I would support her in every way possible. But, then again, I would support her decision to commit suicide or demand to be euthanized, if that would be her desire. Let me be clear. I respect the decisions of lucid, rational adults to make reasoned decisions for themselves, even if I do NOT happen to agree with that decisions - as long as those decisions do not affect others. That is what I consider a loving and caring approach.

But, of course, nothing is ever simple. Our decisions might affect others. If the sufferer’s decision to be euthanized adversely affects others (loving relatives) that is the sole problem of the decision making sufferers.

And what about the one about whether it’s permissible for a mom to make a decision for a child who’s terminally ill and suffering?

SMALL children cannot make reasoned decisions for themselves, and we acknowledge this fact when we allow the parents to make the decisions for them - even I extreme cases.

And what if the father disagrees?

They have to come to a conclusion among themselves.

Also, what about the one where you said you’re not an absolutist but then said “I advocate the right of everyone to make decisions regarding their own life”–Isn’t that an absolute statement? And if not, what are the exceptions?

Be careful about the usage of “absolute”. It was a very short post, without going into details. Obviously I was referring to lucid, rational adults, who are recognized to be able to make decisions for themselves. Not an “absolute” declaration, which would be: “anyone and everyone, even the mentally impaired, or the ones under the age of reason should be allowed to make decisions about themselves”.

That is why one must be careful about using the “universal operator - ∀” (as opposed to the “existential operator - Ǝ”). it can lead to all sorts of logical problems.

I would take her out of her misery: I would give her painkillers. There is enough pharmacological knowledge that we have the ability to, if not totally eliminate the pain, mute it.

Since your profile shows that you are a nurse, you must be aware that people can develop a tolerance against pain medication, so that the medication will become ineffective. The only medication that will be effective will also terminate the life of the sufferer. So when you administer the necessary amount of morphine (for example) you are also aware of the fact that it WILL result in death… even if your intent was only to suppress the pain. You know… the paradigm of the “foreseen, but unintended consequences”.

I would never kill someone in that condition.

Which is just another way to say: “I would let them be in horrible pain, without the hope of recovery”. I have no problem with this approach, even though I disagree with it. To allow someone to suffer against her wishes is cruel and wicked - in my opinion, of course.

Why? Because human life is so precious that there is nothing that could induce me to take it from an innocent person.

And here we reach the final point. Life is neither desirable nor “precious” per se. Good, pleasurable, loving, pleasant life is “precious”, while painful, suffering life is not. In my opinion, of course.

 

[PRmerger]

Now we are having a good conversation.

I would not. As long as there is a reasonable hope for recovery, AND as long as it is her wish to keep on her fight, I would support her in every way possible. But, then again, I would support her decision to commit suicide or demand to be euthanized, if that would be her desire.

So even if it’s NOT terminal–it’s always about the wishes of the person.

That is what your position is?

So a single woman who wants to die because she had to have her uterus removed at age 30 and can’t bear children…you would help her in her decision?

She is clearly lucid and rational.

Yes? You would give her a lethal injection (or assist her in her wishes)?

But, of course, nothing is ever simple. Our decisions might affect others. If the sufferer’s decision to be euthanized adversely affects others (loving relatives) that is the sole problem of the decision making sufferers

Why would this be different for a terminal person vs a nonterminal person?

SMALL children cannot make reasoned decisions for themselves, and we acknowledge this fact when we allow the parents to make the decisions for them - even I extreme cases.

Wow. So a mom has the right to kill her child. Infanticide?

That’s what you are proposing?

 

[PRmerger]

Be careful about the usage of “absolute”. It was a very short post, without going into details. Obviously I was referring to lucid, rational adults, who are recognized to be able to make decisions for themselves. Not an “absolute” declaration, which would be: “anyone and everyone, even the mentally impaired, or the ones under the age of reason should be allowed to make decisions about themselves”.

But this is an absolute to you: lucid rational adults should be allowed to make decisions about themselves.

Do you agree with that statement or is there an exception to it?

Since your profile shows that you are a nurse, you must be aware that people can develop a tolerance against pain medication, so that the medication will become ineffective. The only medication that will be effective will also terminate the life of the sufferer.

Did you read the article I cited?

Pain tolerance doesn’t mean that pain medication won’t work. There are numerous options for those who are in pain and have been on pain medication for a long time.

And killing them shouldn’t be one of them.

So when you administer the necessary amount of morphine (for example) you are also aware of the fact that it WILL result in death… even if your intent was only to suppress the pain.

If your intent is to suppress the pain, then you shouldn’t need to administer the lethal dose.

That seems pretty obvious.

You know… the paradigm of the "foreseen, but unintended consequences

But clearly you are intending it.

You can’t say, “There’s nothing wrong with intending to kill the person” and then say, “I don’t intend to kill the person.”

Which is your position, Vera?

“It’s perfectly fine to intend to kill a terminally ill suffering person!”

Yes, or no?

Life is neither desirable nor “precious” per se.

Well, that is the position of despondence taken by some, sadly.

Good, pleasurable, loving, pleasant life is “precious”, while painful, suffering life is not. In my opinion, of course.

So, again, it’s curious to me, Vera, the double standard you’re espousing (again).

"I don’t use some words because they’re subjective (like “moral” and “immoral” but then I do use some words which are subjective (like “fair” and “good” and “pleasant”)

Which is it, Vera?

Please pick a standard and stick with it.

 

[PRmerger]

To allow someone to suffer against her wishes is cruel and wicked - in my opinion, of course.

Again! Cruel and wicked. Subjective words.

Why not simply use “moral” and “immoral”, prefaced or postscripted with, “in my opinion”.

That would be the consistent thing, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Now we are having a good conversation.

Wha???

Is this another use of subjective language?

 

[inocente]

Morality subject to popular opinion :tsktsk:

Did that wagging finger give your game away? Do you want to dictate to me what’s right and wrong? I want people to decide for themselves.

UDHR Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

*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.*

I just meant that a culture where people are free to openly discuss moral questions is going to lead to better informed decisions about the right thing to do.

I’m all for “objective moral standards”, only trouble is one person tells me doing X is objective, another says Y is objective. At the end of the day I still have to decide for myself what’s the right thing to do.

 

[inocente]

“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.

Yes, the fog of war. I was thinking a range of factors. We know more now. Soldiers who might have been put in front of a firing squad for cowardice in WWI are now treated for PTSD. Then, after Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan we’re a lot less likely to just run off to war thinking our leaders know what they’re doing and have God on their side. And with the internet it’s much harder for generals to manage propaganda. These, imho, are all advances.

 

[goout]

Did that wagging finger give your game away? Do you want to dictate to me what’s right and wrong? I want people to decide for themselves.

We all want people to make decisions. We do make decisions. Fact of life.
That’s not the point. Here’s the point:
Morality that is subject to popular opinion is not morality at all, as it’s decision making is out of reference to the objective good. It merely sways in the breeze with popular opinion and vague notions of happiness and “what is best for people”.
Another name for popular opinion is “might makes right”. Similar to what you said here:

inocente:
Then morality is at a peak when more people evaluate human acts,

Maybe what you are trying to say is that moral behavior reigns to a greater degree when more people evaluate human acts in accordance with the objective good…
More people evaluating human acts does not necessarily equate to sound morality. If the “more” is iinclined toward evil, then good does not result. And obtaining “the good” is the aim of morality.

UDHR Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

I just meant that a culture where people are free to openly discuss moral questions is going to lead to better informed decisions about the right thing to do.

I’m all for “objective moral standards”, only trouble is one person tells me doing X is objective, another says Y is objective. At the end of the day I still have to decide for myself what’s the right thing to do.

You have to make a decision, true.
Purely personal decisions without reference to moral authority are just personal decisions, they are not necessarily moral.