17 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeVery good, I think this is progress. Of course the claims I made above require arguments in their support. I didn't provide those arguments. In fact, I believe that were a Catholic to honestly consider the atrocities committed during the Inqusitions and the Crusades, he would come to the conclusion that they could not be morally justified, because they are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ. Similarly, I think that the atrocities committed by various regimes run contrary to my own moral views, even if those regimes happen to believe some of the same things I believe, e.g., that euthanasia is permissible under certain circumstances. What I did by bringing up the Inquisitions and the Crusades is to slander you by linking you with those who committed those atrocities. But such a link surely isn't sufficient to justify the conclusion that your moral view allows for those types of atrocities. Similarly, merely linking my views on euthanasia with those of the Nazis is insufficient to justify the conclusion that my moral view allows for the creation of a "Culture of Death".
Bbarr: "You are correct, I think the Catholic Church is dogmatic and irrational. They use the "Bible Thumping Machine" and the "Infallible Pope Machine". This is why they committed the atrocities known as the Crusades and the Inquisition, respectively." Bbarr.
Bbarr, I've got a problem, or maybe WE've got a problem:
Whenever I state things like ...[text shortened]... understand my (our?) problem with your attitude towards the way the debate is proceeding ?
17 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarrI'm sending you a message on this one.
Very good, I think this is progress. Of course the claims I made above require arguments in their support. I didn't provide those arguments. In fact, I believe that were a Catholic to honestly consider the atrocities committed during the Inqusitions and the Crusades, he would come to the conclusion that they could not be morally justified, because they are ...[text shortened]... o justify the conclusion that my moral view allows for the creation of a "Culture of Death".
17 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou ask:
Bbarr: "The Stoics and Epicureans in ancient Greece practiced euthanasia, as have many other cultures throughout human history. In order for you to justify this claim, you'd have to show the policy of euthanasia in each (! IvanH) culture where it has been adopted led to an increase in pain and suffering." Bbarr
Why do you ask me to support my claim ...[text shortened]... e. Well, it shouldn't really matter to me eather ... or should it, being a Christian ?
Why do you ask me to support my claim with arguments when you state a few sentences later that it is irrelevant to your claim?
Response: These are two sepearte objections I'm making. The first objection is to the following claim that you made:
"Now look at all the attempts (experiments) in history of mankind that tried to releave pain and suffering by introducing killing, no matter what kind of method they used, including the methods used by the Roman Catholic Church, have ended in more suffering and more pain."
But this means that you think that everytime a culture implemented a policy supporting euthanasia, that policy ended up increasing suffering. Why should I believe this? What evidence can you provide for thinking this is true? You are giving me an empirical argument about the effects on societies of policies like ones that support euthanasia. The discussion here is on euthanasia, not other forms of killing (like the death penalty, for instance). You are presenting an argument against my view that euthanasia is sometimes justified by pointing out that, historically, all cultures have suffered more suffering by implementing a policy supporting euthanasia. I'm asking you: What evidence can you provide is support of this claim? If you think it is impossible to show that this has always been the case, then you must admit that you aren't justified in claiming that this has always been the case. You can't claim both that 1)policies supporting euthanasia inevitably lead to increased suffering and 2) it is a mission impossible to show that policies supporting euthanasia have inevitably lead to suffering. What I'm doing here is pointing out a defect in your argument. This is a defect you would have to fix if you wanted to argue this point against someone who thinks that euthanasia is justified because it decreases suffering. I don't think these are the grounds that justify euthanasia, however, which brings me to my second objection.
My second objection is that even if, hypothetically, you could provide the evidence requested above, it still wouldn't matter as far as my position is concerned. It doesn't matter because I don't think that actions are morally right or morally wrong because of their effects on the amount of suffering or happiness that exists among the society. Views according to which actions are morally right or morally wrong in virtue of their effects on suffering or happiness are called 'Utilitarian'. Your argument above would be a good one to raise against a Utilitarian, and that is why I pointed out that in order to make it really strong, you would have to show that, as a matter of fact, policies supporting euthanasia inevitably lead to increased suffering.
You ask
Let's suppose it was relevant to the discussion: How in the world would I be able to support that claim ? A project like that takes years and years to realise. Maybe it will even fail in view of the fact that nothing is being recorded in that field. Especially not by the Stoics and the Epicurians themselves, in the same way the "Pro Choice" advocates of abortion will not produce records of the suffering of the people involved including the mother, the father, the family and above all the victim itself, especially in the case of late abortions .....
Besides that I have to prove this for each (!!) civilisation ... all right !!
Response:
Exactly correct. This is a project that would at least take many years of painstaking research to complete. And given the lack of historical data it seems likely that it is impossible to complete. But this means that you can't justifiable claim that "all the attempts (experiments) in history of mankind that tried to releave pain and suffering by introducing killing, no matter what kind of method they used...have ended in more suffering and more pain." But you did claim that, Ivanhoe, in your post a little while back. So you are admitting that you made a claim about the effects of implementing a policy supporting euthanasia that you can't possibly show to be correct.
You ask:
But it is all, in your view, irrelevant to the subject of the discussion ....
So what is the relevance of your question ?
and why is this irrelevant .... because you are not a Utilitarian. It does not matter in the first place. Well, it shouldn't really matter to me eather ... or should it, being a Christian ?
Response: It shouldn't matter to you either, because you are a Christian. Christian moral theories generally consider some actions to be wrong no matter what. The commandments, for instance, are not to be followed only if they increase happiness and decrease suffering. They are commandments, after all, not merely suggestions. From a Christian perspective, it shouldn't matter at all if, for instance, torturing a prisoner would save lives. Torture runs contrary to the teachings of Christ, and as such it is wrong even though it may prevent great suffering in the future. We both have moral theories according to which actions are right or wrong because of the type of actions they are, not because of their effects on happiness or suffering. In other words, we both have moral theories according to which some actions are forbidden, they are against the moral law, regardless of whether they have nice effects.
17 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have no problem with first or second trimester abortions. I have no problem with a third trimester abortion if the mother didn't consent to the pregnancy, e.g., she was raped, or a victim of incest. I also have no problem with a third trimester abortion if the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk.
Bbarr: "Treating someone merely as a means to the satisfaction of your own ends under any circumstance is something I think is wrong."
Does this mean that you disapprove of late abortion ?
17 Nov 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWell, we have come to some agreement here: We both are not utilitarians !
You ask:
[b]Why do you ask me to support my claim with arguments when you state a few sentences later that it is irrelevant to your claim?
Response: These are two sepearte objections I'm making. The first objection is to the fol ...[text shortened]... ainst the moral law, regardless of whether they have nice effects.[/b]
As far as my claim about the reduction or increase of suffering when somebody commits suicide yes or no is concerned: Maybe I cannot prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, but maybe Pyrrho is willing to discuss this with you on the Forums, for everybody to follow.
On the other hand my claim just remains to be proven, so it is a hypothesis, right ? It remains to be seen whether this is true yes or no. By the way I think that the opposite can't be proven either, also because of practical reasons. ( We are not omniscient, pity but true )
All right, I failed to justify my claim ! Claiming the opposite by utilitarians seems therefore also not justifiable in practise because of the same reasons.Right ? This sets my mind at ease !
Yes, you are correct that the moral teachings of the church are not utilitarian. However I dó think that it might be important to know the effects of actions if you are forced to choose between to evils. That is a practical problem and it happens all the time in life ... and in politics.
17 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarr
I have no problem with first or second trimester abortions. I have no problem with a third trimester abortion if the mother didn't consent to the pregnancy, e.g., she was raped, or a victim of incest. I also have no problem with a third trimester abortion if the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk.
Late abortion can be regarded as performing early euthanasia, claiming that this is the right of the woman.
So, you do not agree with the "Pro Choice" movement that wants to go all the way, including late abortion ?
17 Nov 03
I have no doubt that there are times when a suicide increases total suffering. Suicides can ruin whole families. I happen to think, however, that these suicides are most often the one's that would be ruled out by the constraints I place on the right to die. For instance, no mentally ill person would have the right to die, nor would children. I would think that it is the suicides of these people that cause the most suffering to others.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Well, we have come to some agreement here: We both are not utilitarians !
As far as my claim about the reduction or increase of suffering when somebody commits suicide yes or no is concerned: Maybe I cannot prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, but maybe Pyrrho is willing to discuss this with you on the Forums, for everybody to follow.
On the other ...[text shortened]... vils. That is a practical problem and it happens all the time in life ... and in politics.
You're correct about the utilitarian having to show that the implementation of the policy supporting euthanasia would increase happiness. They wouldn't have to show that it has done this in the past, if they could provide reasons to think that the present situation is substantially different than the historical cases. But if they thought that euthanasia increased happiness based on inductive evidence from prior cases where a society had implemented such a policy, then they should certaintly provide such evidence when questioned. These practical considerations you mention are often brought up in discussions of Utilitarianism; it is one of the general failings of the view that it is almost always impossible to determine what the widespread effects of any action would be on the general happiness.
17 Nov 03
Bbarr: "I believe that were a Catholic to honestly consider the atrocities committed during the Inqusitions and the Crusades, he would come to the conclusion that they could not be morally justified, because they are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ." Bbarr
Of course they can never be justified. As a matter of fact the substitute head of the Catholic Church, the Pope, has recently officially asked for forgiveness for these and other crimes committed by members of the Catholic Church throughout history. He also asked the Jewish people and God forgiveness for the involvement of members of the Roman Catholic church in discrimination of Jewish people, the involvement in pogroms and the Shoah. I have never met a Roman Catholic in my life who claimed these atrocities were justified and if I would meet one I would be having a very thorough conversation with that person.
The policy of reconciliation with the Jewish people implemented by this pope is one of the fundaments of his pontificate.
17 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, the 'Pro-Choice' movement is composed of people with differing views. Some consider my views extreme because I'm prepared to support a woman's right to choose well into the second trimester of her pregnancy. There are times when I think that men really shouldn't even participate in this discussion, that we should let the women decide for themselves, given that they are the ones who deal with the physical and emotional effects of pregnancy and the consequences of terminating a pregnancy. Alas, this will never be the case here in the U.S. But, to answer your question, I do not agree with those who would not restrict in any way third trimester abortions.
Late abortion can be regarded as performing early euthanasia, claiming that this is the right of the woman.
So, you do not agree with the "Pro Choice" movement that wants to go all the way, including late abortion ?
19 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "Treating someone merely as a means to the satisfaction of your own ends under any circumstance is something I think is wrong." Bbarr.
Well, the 'Pro-Choice' movement is composed of people with differing views. Some consider my views extreme because I'm prepared to support a woman's right to choose well into the second trimester of her pregnancy. There are times when I think that men really shouldn't even participate in this discussion, that we should let the women decide for themselve ...[text shortened]... estion, I do not agree with those who would not restrict in any way third trimester abortions.
Bbarr "Some consider my views extreme because I'm prepared to support a woman's right to choose well into the second trimester of her pregnancy." Bbarr
How do you make these two ends meet ?
19 Nov 03
1 edit
Originally posted by tradPrad: "Regarding the "right to die".
Good day to all.
First let me ask you not to turn this private. Though I don't usually contribute much to debates I do read them. One may learn much just by watching other people argue, I for one try to validate each side with my own. Those ...[text shortened]... his definition, could you tell me the current state of it?
Trad
I believe everyone has/should have that right. After all we are not asked to come to this world, we are forced, why would/should you force me to stay? I can go down in flames, becoming an alcoholic, beating my wife, drugs, messing up my kids, or I can go down nicely and just kill myself." Prad
Well Trad and Bbarr, here we can see what I consider to be the Slippery Slope in action: In reality all the restrictions will be removed eventually and the euthanasia discussion will result in a "Right to die for all".
You Bbarr did not make any objections to Prad's post or posts going in the same direction. You've stated that you were an opponent to such irrational reasonings, but how come you do not make any objections as you promised in one of your posts when people would come forward to propose this very idea and want to remove all restrictions ?
Maybe you missed these posts and therefore I want to draw your attention to this.
19 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think that in order to be a person, a thing must have the capacity for mentality. In other words, I think that in order to be a person, a thing must be able to reflect upon its own mental states, it must have a self-concept. Prior to the third trimester of a pregnancy, a fetus doesn't have these capabilities, so the fetus is not a person, but rather a potential person. I think the mother's right to decide what happens with her own body outweighs the whatever considerations tell in favor of allowing a merely potential person to continue gowing inside of her. THis is especially true if the mother didn't consent to getting pregnant in the first place (e.g., she was raped, the victim of incest, the victim of faulty contraceptives, etc.). Once the fetus has become aware of itself I think the situation changes, but this doesn't happen until much later in the pregnancy, judging by the research of developmental psychologists (and this is a point I will not debate). THis is why I support the widespread availability of the 'abortion pill', because the earlier a pregnancy is aborted the less chance you're killing an actual person.
Bbarr: "Treating someone merely as a means to the satisfaction of your own ends under any circumstance is something I think is wrong." Bbarr.
Bbarr "Some consider my views extreme because I'm prepared to support a woman's right to choose well into the second trimester of her pregnancy." Bbarr
How do you make these two ends meet ?