Hypocrites!

[Donkey1499]

I LOVE the US, which is one of the reason why I think it is vital that we take the US back from the greedy corporations that run it and the corrupt politicians that terrorize the rest of the world for the nauseating comforts of the rich. And first off, I COME from a very wealthy family -- and I see the friends that my parents have and it makes me sick how they excrete out money while laughing in the faces of people who don't have anything -- these are people that they've STOLEN from in reality. It is the Capitalist structure that needs a thourough overhaul. And it was a catastrophic decision to give corporations MORE rights than that of a live human in the US. And this is really the big evil. This is what needs to be changed the most and everything else will fall into place.

I was thinking about leaving the US at one point after the idiot was 's'-elected, but then I realized how difficult even that was! It's now practically a CRIME to even go to MEXICO for chrissakes! But I would never turn my back on this country -- and as soon as we change some things, this country will then live up to it's motto.

Yes, ALOT of things nned to be changed. But I still wouldn't lay all of the capitalist problems on the Bush Admin. And yes, I know that Bush panders to the wealthy, but so do other politicians and celebs.

 

[steen]

I explained what the purposes were in the example.

You didn't provide evidence that it was PURPOSE.

And I can tell that you didn't do too well in biology.

Really funny, as that is basically my field and I am doing well in it.

So if you don't understand where it explains purpose, then look it up yourself. I ain't got time to drive the short bus to school.

Ah, the typical copout of the one caught in a falsehood.

 

[Donkey1499]

Well, I'm sticking to the point that EVERYTHING has a purpose and that all organisms rely on each other for survival, one way or another.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Have you READ Brave New World?

Mufasta Mond is the "Controller" who KNOWS he's discriminatory and advocates it anyway--Singer aspires to be the world "Controller" through deception and the apathy of individuals distracted by trivial "happiness."

HORRORSHOW!

Yes. I have read Brave New World. It's an excellent hypothetical fantasy society, and if it could be constructed, it ought to, since in maximizes the good. Brave New World was not a bad society. Nearly the entire society was happy, productive individuals and workers. THere was no hate, no anger, no poverty, no sadness. It was pure joy. Nothing objectively bad is happening to anyone.

In the following interview, Singer demonstrates that he sees egalitarian as a goal, but at a cost to some. That is by definition, contradictory.

It's only a contradiction when you contort what he's saying. He states outright he's not an egalitarian, and that true egalitarianism is not only unpragmatic, but naturally impossible. He's stressing that you can only try to take egalitarainism so far, and that practical limit is equality of consideration for all sentient beings based on their gradations of personhood.

It's not a contradiction, since equality of consideration is based on the same principle of personhood. It's not a contradiction to treat all humans equally, but not treat a bacterium equal to a human--because...as Singer states correctly, true egalitarianism is impossible. A bacterium is in no way equal to a sentient creature.

Egalitarianism only goes so far as looking at each other's needs and preferences, and then maximizing them. If some people get screwed--well, that's the way Utilitarianism works. It tries to minimize that, however.

Point one: How does your death enhance your life? How does the death of the severely disabled child enhance the life of the severely disabled child—life and death are mutually exclusive. CONTRADICTION!

Singer “claims” it should be the parents choice...but this statement reveals that he believes parents must make the “right” choice, or others should do it for them.

Now here is where you are being dishonest, which explains your conclusion of "contradiction." Death isn't supposed to enhance life, but prevent future suffering that would be worse than living. Contrary to what you think, tHere are many ways in which death is an improvement over continued life, and many WANT that death, instead of that hypothetical life contnuation. Contrary to what you may believe, death is not the worst that can happen to you. THere are fates far worse than death to the extent that death can be a blessing. Imagine being tortured every day, all day or dying and ending that pain. Now imagine being trapped in a body where you cannot move, cannot talk, and cannot do anything. Now imagine that all you can do is feel pain and suffering silently, and then finally lapse into a coma and die. People rather die all the time than live in this type of degenerate state or slightly better where their life is torturous, where their minds are gone, and where they are puking all day. Many would also rather not have their families destroy themselves at their expense either. There are many examples of single daughters who destroyed their entire careers at the expense of keeping an 80 year old sick mother alive. Their lives were ruined so an old, dying woman could have a few more years tacked on. That's wrong. The scales are not balanced in the old woman's favour.


Now let us look at a newborn. Singer mentions various diseases that are so terrible that the chances of baby survival are SLIM! These babies live several months of pain and anguish, and then die. Do you know how they die? They are dehydrated to death or denied medical treatment, becaues it is not worth giving treatment to severely ill babies who likely won't survive. It's not a just use of resources. It's triage. Singer's solution isn't something new; it's merely active Euthanasia in a world that fasely thinks Passive Euthanasia is something different.

Singer “claims” it should be the parents choice...but this statement reveals that he believes parents must make the “right” choice, or others should do it for them.

So what? There are extreme exceptions to any situation. The parents should make the choice, unless it is objectively obviously that they are making the wrong choice. If their baby is born with no brain, for example, it would be absurd to keep it alive or keep it alive if the doctor KNEW what type of misery was in store. IT should be up to the doctors and the parents, but in extreme cases, the doctor. Singer does not want the State interfering; it shouldn't.

When the disability is not visually apparent...Singer says there is a conflict between emotion and reason. To do what he considers appropriate one must divorce his emotions.

Ok. This paragraph is easy to understand, and it comes from a basic misunderstanding of Utilitarianism you have. Utilitarianism is not just "happiness" and emotions. It has three parts.

A. Equality of consideration
B. Factual Analysis
C. Maximization of happiness or preferences (Depending on the type)

First, you must remember that Singer is a Preference Utilitarian, which goes by more than just emotions. There is a difference between classical Hedonic Utility and Preferences. Look it up.

What he is essentially saying is that emotions themselves don't belong in the process of logic and calculation. This is true, since doing the opposite is a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotions." Emotions are important, but only insofar as the goal is concerned, not the process. For example, your emotions might easily cloud your judgement when calculating to the extent that you ignore the preferences of everyone else around you. Utilitarianism states you have to take into consideration equally the preferences/happiness of everyone else. Emotions can make you so flared up that you cannot think clearly enough to consider everyone else.

Emotions cannot replace facts and then analysis.

 

[George_Washington]

I LOVE the US, which is one of the reason why I think it is vital that we take the US back from the greedy corporations that run it and the corrupt politicians that terrorize the rest of the world for the nauseating comforts of the rich. And first off, I COME from a very wealthy family -- and I see the friends that my parents have and it makes me sick how they excrete out money while laughing in the faces of people who don't have anything -- these are people that they've STOLEN from in reality. It is the Capitalist structure that needs a thourough overhaul. And it was a catastrophic decision to give corporations MORE rights than that of a live human in the US. And this is really the big evil. This is what needs to be changed the most and everything else will fall into place.

I was thinking about leaving the US at one point after the idiot was 's'-elected, but then I realized how difficult even that was! It's now practically a CRIME to even go to MEXICO for chrissakes! But I would never turn my back on this country -- and as soon as we change some things, this country will then live up to it's motto.

I agree that we should help the poor more but I don't agree that we should completely end capitalism, if that's what you're suggesting. So far, capitalism has proven that it's worked better than marxism or fascism. People who have the guts to risk everything to start a business should be rewarded by society. I don't think we've actually given corporations more rights than humans, I don't think that's an accurate statement. Our corporate owners do the economy a great service by providing jobs to people. A single capitalist with a great idea can create jobs for thousands and that's a good thing.

 

[Felicity]

Yes. I have read Brave New World. It's an excellent hypothetical fantasy society, and if it could be constructed, it ought to, since in maximizes the good. Brave New World was not a bad society. Nearly the entire society was happy, productive individuals and workers. THere was no hate, no anger, no poverty, no sadness. It was pure joy. Nothing objectively bad is happening to anyone.

Well....this just says it all, doesn't it? Go swallow some Soma and take a "holiday"--or you must have already--even MOND says he'd PREFER life the original way, but it's just not practical--and HE'S on the top of the pyramid. You are truly loopy if you think that meaningless, drugged out, hyper sexual, godless (save the worship of youth/sport/distraction/and triviality) society is something to aspire to.:cuckoo: :crazy3:

Ok. This paragraph is easy to understand, and it comes from a basic misunderstanding of Utilitarianism you have. Utilitarianism is not just "happiness" and emotions. It has three parts.

A. Equality of consideration
B. Factual Analysis
C. Maximization of happiness or preferences (Depending on the type)

First, you must remember that Singer is a Preference Utilitarian, which goes by more than just emotions. There is a difference between classical Hedonic Utility and Preferences. Look it up.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and you are full of c.r.a.p.! You asked for a direct quote where the man said what I said he said--and there you got it--IN CONTEXT. Your trying to "explain" what he really means...is foolishness--it's his own words IN CONTEXT!

What he is essentially saying is that emotions themselves don't belong in the process of logic and calculation. This is true, since doing the opposite is a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotions." Emotions are important, but only insofar as the goal is concerned, not the process. For example, your emotions might easily cloud your judgement when calculating to the extent that you ignore the preferences of everyone else around you. Utilitarianism states you have to take into consideration equally the preferences/happiness of everyone else. Emotions can make you so flared up that you cannot think clearly enough to consider everyone else.

Yeah...and then he says...." there, I guess, that reason and emotion do come into some degree of conflict." Do you think he would suggest you give in to your emotions? Absolutely not! Because he advocates doctors doing away with ill babies if the parents won't do it. You can't DENY it--it's right there in his OWN WORDS--maybe you SHOULD go buy his textbook, so you know what he REALLY stands for instead of trying to manipulate his crazy notions to fit the crazy notions you accept. He's no hero--he's WARPED--and absolutely contradictory. Even HE doesn't live up to his own standards. He pays boffo bucks to have his Alzheimer’s afflicted mother taken care of--and SHE doesn't fit his definition of "person." AND he advocates people living on $30,000 and giving the rest away, but HE doesn't do it. He's a lying, hypocrite. period.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Well....this just says it all, doesn't it? Go swallow some Soma and take a "holiday"--or you must have already--even MOND says he'd PREFER life the original way, but it's just not practical--and HE'S on the top of the pyramid. You are truly loopy if you think that meaningless, drugged out, hyper sexual, godless (save the worship of

HEre comes your crazy "godless" nonsense. God != good. It's not loopy at all. It's an excellent, ethical society. Hyper sexual? Not bad. Godless? not bad. Drugged out? Hardly--people are very clear-minded. THey have to be to do their jobs. THey do it for fun. There's nothing worng with alloing people to have and use recreational drugs. Soma has no major impairment side-effects when not using it. It cannot if everyone is using it, because then nothing would get done.

Mond is one man. The majority are quite happy. I don't find it meaningless; it's quite beautiful. Doing so would be the ultimate happy, good society.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and you are full of c.r.a.p.! You asked for a direct quote where the man said what I said he said--and there you got it--IN CONTEXT. Your trying to "explain" what he really means...is foolishness--it's his own words IN CONTEXT!

No, you know nothing about what you are talking; nothing he says is in contradiction to the philosophy of Utilitarianism. You have failed to show any contradiction. In context, he meant what I said. If you don't know that Singer is a Preference Utilitarian, then you're got some research to do. You also need to realize that in his comments on the baby being killed by the doctor, those are "bizarre" rare occurances. Those are life-boat situations, and they aren't ethically relevant to ethicists. He is also not saying any policy should be made to force parents to abort or kill their disabled children. It's up to the parents, unless, of course, they too are not of sound mind.

It has nothing at all to do with wht he declares the "right decision." There are cases in which parents do not have the facts. When they don't have the facts, he is saying they ought not make a decision. This is the essence of Utilitarianis---Facts---analysis---decision that maximizes the good (happiness and preferences).

Yeah...and then he says...." there, I guess, that reason and emotion do come into some degree of conflict." Do you think he would suggest you give in to your emotions? Absolutely not! Because he advocates doctors doing away with ill babies if the parents won't do it. You can't DENY it--it's right there in his OWN WORDS--maybe you SHOULD go buy his textbook, so you know what he REALLY stands for instead of trying to manipulate his crazy notions to fit the crazy notions you accept. He's no hero--he's WARPED--and absolutely contradictory. Even HE doesn't live up to his own standards. He pays boffo bucks to have his Alzheimer’s afflicted mother taken care of--and SHE doesn't fit his definition of "person." AND he advocates people living on $30,000 and giving the rest away, but HE doesn't do it. He's a lying, hypocrite. period.

This is a huge, logically fallacious paragraph on your part. You commit the Fallacy of Red Herring by bringing up his mother and his "donation" scheme. Why? You assume that because someone does not do everything he says that he idea is wrong. That's fallacious thinking; it does not logically follow. You can have a Nazi who says you ought not murder homosexuals, but then does so anyway. His actions do not invalidate his normative statement. This fallacy is evident b

I will school you on some facts related to his mother: First, you don't know the whole story, so you are just going to strawman him some more by your lack of facts. I notice you are cut/pasting the arguments against him without even thinking about them at all. That's evident. As he states clearly in his interview, Singer has a sister, and his sister wants to keep the mother alive. According to Utilitarianism, you cannot take into consideration only YOUR preferences, rather the preferences of everyone who is related and invovled. Since the mother is incompetent, the decision is up to Singer and his Sister. He cannot ethically overrule what his sister and other relatives want, therefore, his decision must be guided by equality of consideration. His mother is relatively incompented and is of little direct concern--it's singer vs sister. He says if the decision were only up to him, he would have had mommmy euthanized. So, in the end, your criticism is a gross misunderstanding of utilitarianism, a red herring, as well as a completely LIE!

Secondly, the fact that he doesn't donate all his money is irrelevant to the notion that you should donate as much as you can. Singer donates 20+% of his salary to the poor. If you read his essay, he states that his normative conclusion is not set in stone. You work towards it, but not everyone can, since human nature is greedy. However, the greed of human nature does not override the ethics.

Nothing he said was contradictory.

Yeah...and then he says...." there, I guess, that reason and emotion do come into some degree of conflict." Do you think he would suggest you give in to your emotions? Absolutely not! Because he advocates doctors doing away with ill babies if the parents won't do it. You can't DENY it--it's right there in his OWN WORDS--maybe you SHOULD go buy his textbook, so you know what he REALLY stands for instead of trying to manipulate his crazy notions to fit the crazy notions you accept. He's no hero--he's WARPED--and absolutely contradictory.

Deny what? I didn't deny anything in the first place that had any relevance to what I am talking about. Stop strawmanning what I say. I never denied anything about emotions and reason comming into conflict, and none of that invalidates Singer's Position that you should look at the facts and then try to maximise the good. I expressly told you what Utilitarianism says you ought to do.

A. logically analyse the facts
B. Make a decision of how to best maximize preferences. Are you so ****ing stupid that you cannot understand that?

I know what he stands for; you don't. You are making a caricature of his position and then knocking it down, and anyone who defends his work is "the great satan" according to you. He is never saying reason should give way to emotions; you look for the facts and then, on that, make the greatest objective maximization of preferences. Sometimes, people are not clear-minded. He admits this in his essays, which you haven't read. The physician knows what type of state the child will be in. If the mothers refuse that information, they are not valid decision-makers because they are not informed.

In Utilitarianism, the wishes of people who are uninformed or maliciously acting are ignored in a calculus, but this is very rare, as Singer points out. For example if the parents refused to give their 3 year old medicine, and thus let it die, even though they knew immense suffering would take place or the child would die, there is no rational reason to adhere to their ignorant or malicious desires. Neither factually ignorant or malicious concerns are concerns of Utilitarian calculus.

Singer does not advocate as policy forcing parents to kill their children at all either.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Now, if you want to talk about contradictions, then that is interesting, becaues many contradictions in modern ethics come not from actually following the original, isolated theories, but from melding them together.

Modern Ethicists try to mix and match theories, and then you run into contradictions when you do that. For example, modern utilitarianism is often blended with "personhod" concepts and "deontology," which ends up limiting what Utilitarianism really ought to be.

As well, when you take something to teh polar extreme, you tend to get situations that do the opposite of what the theory was intended to promote. You might want ot maximize preferences or happiness, but in doing so,t hat opens to the door for potential violations of human rights, unless, of course you restrict it.

Deontology has somep roblems as well, especially the Categorical Imperative of Kant. It is absolutist, which leads to some of the same unacceptable consequences of extreme Utilitarianism.

 

[Chevalier]

No. THere is no hypocrisy. A fetus doesn't have moral personhood. A dog has a far greater level of awareness than an early fetus.

I would disagree not on the ground of awareness but on the issue of personhood and I would question the threshold of moral consideration. Is awareness the definition of moral consideration? And does that mean late term abortions are killing life if the dog's awareness is least common denominator in determining moral consideration.

It may be that the topic fascinates me so much because my cat opted to help with this project by running across the keyboard a few times and playing with the screen’s moving imagery. Perhaps, given her exercise of something I can only call “free will,” I am the one playing and Simba is the one working. Certainly, she thinks the roles are reversed. At what point does something become a person?

Contemporary ethicists, philosophers and theologians tend to look for the lowest common denominator when defining personhood: what must we have in common in order “to be” considered a person? The anthropocentric perspective says human beings, Homo sapiens, are the only true persons. With the possible exception of God (not all anthropocentrists accept a personal God), human beings are the only persons.

Biocentrists argue that the title of personhood could be bestowed to sentient animals, some even basing sentience solely on the basis of capacity to feel pain. From this perspective, it is possible even earth worms and amoeba deserve to be called persons. Actually for many biocentrists, the title of “person” gives way to the more legal-sounding descriptive, “beings of moral consideration,” as this avoids the anthropological connection centuries of usage attach to the word “person.”

The irony is that Western personhood is a concept originally “fleshed-out” in an attempt to understand the perichoretic onto-relation between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is important reading the Bible, particularly in reference to the eschaton, that the New Testament writers struggled to put words to the experience of resurrection, in part because the category of personhood was not precisely, explicitly available. Paul’s struggle in 1 Corinthians 15 effectively demonstrates this. The seed and wheat, spiritual body and person of dust and image in heaven all point to Paul struggling to express the reality that our whole being will be raised, because of the personal relationship we share with God through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit.

What then does this say about personhood? Some Native American traditions offer an understanding of the glorified “body,” when brought to the Great Spirit and appearing in the “great beyond,” our bodies are composed of a conglomeration of all the living entities we have eaten. I am not sure I entirely subscribe to this image of God’s kingdom, but it does shed light on Torrance’s understanding of “person.” Personhood is defined in significant part by the relationships we engage in.

Let me say that this relational qualification of “person” does not grow out of a “least common denominator” explanation for personhood. In fact, from the philosophical perspectives, personhood is more defined by “distinction from” than “relation to” other people, species, and creation. Degrees and differentiation have segregating effect in the defining of personhood when a lowest common factor is sought, in fact the terminology implies a threshold of quality, a barrier for membership. Sadly, the threshold in some parts of human history has not merely been anthropocentric but gender, race, culture, intellect, age, handicap-based or economic status within the human family.

Ultimately, the “least common denominator” approach to understanding personhood defines a person in distinct autonomy, by separation from other beings. Relationships are extrinsic to being. This gives birth to insipient relational dualism. It allows us to separate what we do from who we are, in a way that James 2:18 criticized. It is an extrapolation of this understanding of personhood that allows people to do wicked things to each other and say, “Nothing personal, it’s just business.” The biblical witness does not view relationships with other beings in such an impersonal way.

Instead, a relational qualification of personhood grows out of the biblical witness to God’s salvific plan, but is not expressed directly in the Bible. This fits directly into your comparison about the magic eye. It is upon the indwelling of God’s presence in our lives, through our participation in the reality of the whole of the biblical witness, as revealed through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and the ultimate self-revelation in Jesus Christ, that a biblical view of personhood emerges. It is from the entirety of God’s Trinitarian activity that we truly comprehend, as far as our categorical limitations allow, personhood. This scope is not limited to Old or New Testament witness, and in fact we must incorporate both or the understanding of personhood, especially as defined in the perichoretic co-activity of the Trinity, is incomplete.

…the ‘I AM’ of Yahweh and the ‘I AM’ of the Lord Jesus were brought together within the threefold manifestation of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that not only deepened the Old Testament understanding of the Being of God as profoundly ‘personal,’ but forced the church in giving explicit expression to the implicitly Trinitarian self-revelation of God to develop the theological concept of the ‘person.’

What, then, is a person? On surveying the Bible for the word Trinity, it quickly becomes obvious that the Trinity is not explicitly mentioned. There are many places where Trinitarian activity is clearly evident, but generally in the “differentiated” activity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus and the Holy Spirit do things that only God can do. In light of that, from the “least common denominator” model of personhood, it would seem the Bible advocates tri-theism or Modalism rather than Triunity and to an extent that is what the ancestors of our faith struggled mightily with.

If tri-theism were the answer then the autonomy of persons would mitigate against the “I AM” statements of John, especially the words of John 14:10, “Don’t you know that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” Even beyond that are the words of John 14:20, that carry this mutual indwelling even to those who follow Jesus. If tri-theism and extrinsic relationships, expressed in the least common denominator model, define personhood this mutuality and indwelling constitutes a profound violation of personhood. Indeed, the pneumatological activity involved in the prophets and New Testament church becomes de-personalizing from the perspective of extrinsic relationship. The answer is found in a return to the broader biblical witness.

The biblical witness leads us to understand that there is one God, and yet there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit: which one is God? They all are the one God so how can there be three? The key to understanding lies in the role relationship plays between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even this statement is problematic, because if relationship is between the parties, it is extrinsic, leading to above dilemmas in understanding “person.” If however relationships are intrinsic and constitutive, a part of being “person” is relationship. By this we mean God is Father precisely in relationship to the Son. The reciprocal is true as well and likewise the Spirit is the Spirit in relation to the others.
The relations between the father, Son and Holy Spirit are not just modes of existence but hypostatic interrelations which belong intrinsically to what Father, Son and Holy Spirit coinhere in themselves and in their mutual objective relationships with and for each other.

If then, we receive our personhood from God through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit is that not setting the bar for least common denominator at God-hood? Not at all, rather it is saying that God chooses to draw creation into “onto-relationships” with God, in effect saying, all parts of creation are worthy of moral consideration, not because of a human standard of personhood, but because of the divine nature of love. God looked down at creation and proclaimed, “It is very good.” Personhood becomes a barrier in human relationships, but the divine sui generis personhood breaks down barriers.

What does this say to human beings then? First, we are not the arbiters of personhood; we are not the arbiters of moral consideration: God is! We are persons only through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit. There certainly is also an ethical element to it. What does it say if part of who we are is rooted in the relationships we engage in? The “doing” and “being” dualism is not as sharp as we presume.

From this understanding, I am ethically opposed to abortion except in the case where the life of the mother is endangered, beyond normal birthing complications (it ain't an easy process). I am also opposed to the death penalty and any form of involuntary euthenasia. There is no hypocricy in it, though many who do not like the witness of faith see in this witness for life something less.

 

[Donkey1499]

I would disagree not on the ground of awareness but on the issue of personhood and I would question the threshold of moral consideration. Is awareness the definition of moral consideration? And does that mean late term abortions are killing life if the dog's awareness is least common denominator in determining moral consideration.

It may be that the topic fascinates me so much because my cat opted to help with this project by running across the keyboard a few times and playing with the screen’s moving imagery. Perhaps, given her exercise of something I can only call “free will,” I am the one playing and Simba is the one working. Certainly, she thinks the roles are reversed. At what point does something become a person?

Contemporary ethicists, philosophers and theologians tend to look for the lowest common denominator when defining personhood: what must we have in common in order “to be” considered a person? The anthropocentric perspective says human beings, Homo sapiens, are the only true persons. With the possible exception of God (not all anthropocentrists accept a personal God), human beings are the only persons.

Biocentrists argue that the title of personhood could be bestowed to sentient animals, some even basing sentience solely on the basis of capacity to feel pain. From this perspective, it is possible even earth worms and amoeba deserve to be called persons. Actually for many biocentrists, the title of “person” gives way to the more legal-sounding descriptive, “beings of moral consideration,” as this avoids the anthropological connection centuries of usage attach to the word “person.”

The irony is that Western personhood is a concept originally “fleshed-out” in an attempt to understand the perichoretic onto-relation between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is important reading the Bible, particularly in reference to the eschaton, that the New Testament writers struggled to put words to the experience of resurrection, in part because the category of personhood was not precisely, explicitly available. Paul’s struggle in 1 Corinthians 15 effectively demonstrates this. The seed and wheat, spiritual body and person of dust and image in heaven all point to Paul struggling to express the reality that our whole being will be raised, because of the personal relationship we share with God through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit.

What then does this say about personhood? Some Native American traditions offer an understanding of the glorified “body,” when brought to the Great Spirit and appearing in the “great beyond,” our bodies are composed of a conglomeration of all the living entities we have eaten. I am not sure I entirely subscribe to this image of God’s kingdom, but it does shed light on Torrance’s understanding of “person.” Personhood is defined in significant part by the relationships we engage in.

Let me say that this relational qualification of “person” does not grow out of a “least common denominator” explanation for personhood. In fact, from the philosophical perspectives, personhood is more defined by “distinction from” than “relation to” other people, species, and creation. Degrees and differentiation have segregating effect in the defining of personhood when a lowest common factor is sought, in fact the terminology implies a threshold of quality, a barrier for membership. Sadly, the threshold in some parts of human history has not merely been anthropocentric but gender, race, culture, intellect, age, handicap-based or economic status within the human family.

Ultimately, the “least common denominator” approach to understanding personhood defines a person in distinct autonomy, by separation from other beings. Relationships are extrinsic to being. This gives birth to insipient relational dualism. It allows us to separate what we do from who we are, in a way that James 2:18 criticized. It is an extrapolation of this understanding of personhood that allows people to do wicked things to each other and say, “Nothing personal, it’s just business.” The biblical witness does not view relationships with other beings in such an impersonal way.

Instead, a relational qualification of personhood grows out of the biblical witness to God’s salvific plan, but is not expressed directly in the Bible. This fits directly into your comparison about the magic eye. It is upon the indwelling of God’s presence in our lives, through our participation in the reality of the whole of the biblical witness, as revealed through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and the ultimate self-revelation in Jesus Christ, that a biblical view of personhood emerges. It is from the entirety of God’s Trinitarian activity that we truly comprehend, as far as our categorical limitations allow, personhood. This scope is not limited to Old or New Testament witness, and in fact we must incorporate both or the understanding of personhood, especially as defined in the perichoretic co-activity of the Trinity, is incomplete.

…the ‘I AM’ of Yahweh and the ‘I AM’ of the Lord Jesus were brought together within the threefold manifestation of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that not only deepened the Old Testament understanding of the Being of God as profoundly ‘personal,’ but forced the church in giving explicit expression to the implicitly Trinitarian self-revelation of God to develop the theological concept of the ‘person.’

What, then, is a person? On surveying the Bible for the word Trinity, it quickly becomes obvious that the Trinity is not explicitly mentioned. There are many places where Trinitarian activity is clearly evident, but generally in the “differentiated” activity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus and the Holy Spirit do things that only God can do. In light of that, from the “least common denominator” model of personhood, it would seem the Bible advocates tri-theism or Modalism rather than Triunity and to an extent that is what the ancestors of our faith struggled mightily with.

If tri-theism were the answer then the autonomy of persons would mitigate against the “I AM” statements of John, especially the words of John 14:10, “Don’t you know that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” Even beyond that are the words of John 14:20, that carry this mutual indwelling even to those who follow Jesus. If tri-theism and extrinsic relationships, expressed in the least common denominator model, define personhood this mutuality and indwelling constitutes a profound violation of personhood. Indeed, the pneumatological activity involved in the prophets and New Testament church becomes de-personalizing from the perspective of extrinsic relationship. The answer is found in a return to the broader biblical witness.

The biblical witness leads us to understand that there is one God, and yet there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit: which one is God? They all are the one God so how can there be three? The key to understanding lies in the role relationship plays between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even this statement is problematic, because if relationship is between the parties, it is extrinsic, leading to above dilemmas in understanding “person.” If however relationships are intrinsic and constitutive, a part of being “person” is relationship. By this we mean God is Father precisely in relationship to the Son. The reciprocal is true as well and likewise the Spirit is the Spirit in relation to the others.
The relations between the father, Son and Holy Spirit are not just modes of existence but hypostatic interrelations which belong intrinsically to what Father, Son and Holy Spirit coinhere in themselves and in their mutual objective relationships with and for each other.

If then, we receive our personhood from God through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit is that not setting the bar for least common denominator at God-hood? Not at all, rather it is saying that God chooses to draw creation into “onto-relationships” with God, in effect saying, all parts of creation are worthy of moral consideration, not because of a human standard of personhood, but because of the divine nature of love. God looked down at creation and proclaimed, “It is very good.” Personhood becomes a barrier in human relationships, but the divine sui generis personhood breaks down barriers.

What does this say to human beings then? First, we are not the arbiters of personhood; we are not the arbiters of moral consideration: God is! We are persons only through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit. There certainly is also an ethical element to it. What does it say if part of who we are is rooted in the relationships we engage in? The “doing” and “being” dualism is not as sharp as we presume.

From this understanding, I am ethically opposed to abortion except in the case where the life of the mother is endangered, beyond normal birthing complications (it ain't an easy process). I am also opposed to the death penalty and any form of involuntary euthenasia. There is no hypocricy in it, though many who do not like the witness of faith see in this witness for life something less.

#1: Can you sum this up in a sentence? (Or no more than a paragraph). I'm a simpleton when it comes to big words. I have a Florida education, so that should be your hint.

#2: Technocratic Utilitarian will just call all of which you've written in the above quote a "fallacy". He's done it to me while I was "trying" to prove God's existence. (You should read my posts on the "Should Evolution Be Taught in Schools" Thread.) My last few posts prove that there is the possibility of a Creator Force. But it can't exactly say that it's the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I wouldn't call what he said a fallacy. He brings up some interesting considerations.

From this understanding, I am ethically opposed to abortion except in the case where the life of the mother is endangered, beyond normal birthing complications (it ain't an easy process). I am also opposed to the death penalty and any form of involuntary euthenasia. There is no hypocricy in it, though many who do not like the witness of faith see in this witness for life something less.

You bring up good points. Personally, I agree with Utilitarian views of moral consideration. I think things which can genuinely suffer deserve consideration, and things which are self-aware. Things that can have and formulate preferences (to live, to be somewhere, to do something etc). It is much worse to kill a 12 year old than it is to kill a 2 day old, in my opinion, because that 12 year old has formulated preferences and an understanding of what/who he is. According to sociologists and psychologists, you don't really form an identity untill 2 years old, but you become aware you are a being before that (well before).

I don't think that if because something is not a person you should mistreat it; not at all. I think you should try to minimize any unnecessary pain, even if it's not on a level of suffering. You shouldn't kill a baby if you don't have to. It's only acceptable to kill it, even though it's not self-aware, if you are trying to avoid net misery and suffering. Some people think the worst thing that can happen is death, but I disagree.

I find it interesting that you believe that abortion should be allowed if the life of the mother is in danger. Why do you believe this? I don't disagree with you, but I just want to investigate this further.

I could never understand it when people say they are against abortion, but then for it in life-danger situations, because primarily, the motivation for being against abortion is "sanctity of human life." If it's wrong to kill the life of the child, why does the life of the child not count when the mother is in danger? Does the "human life" no longer matter then that so mattered before? I thought human life was supposedly absolute and inalienable as a right? If it's inalienable, how can one permit it to be killed in "some" cases, but not others? It's still being deprived of rights, according to pro-lifers.

 

[Chevalier]

I find it interesting that you believe that abortion should be allowed if the life of the mother is in danger. Why do you believe this? I don't disagree with you, but I just want to investigate this further.

I could never understand it when people say they are against abortion, but then for it in life-danger situations, because primarily, the motivation for being against abortion is "sanctity of human life." If it's wrong to kill the life of the child, why does the life of the child not count when the mother is in danger? Does the "human life" no longer matter then that so mattered before? I thought human life was supposedly absolute and inalienable as a right? If it's inalienable, how can one permit it to be killed in "some" cases, but not others? It's still being deprived of rights, according to pro-lifers.[/QUOTE]

I agree with pro-lifers in terms of my position being a departure from the pro-life stance. But there is a case where the death of the unborn child still in the womb does occur. In that case, the dead unborn child if left in the mother can begin to decay if it is later in the pregnancy because the body doesn't always spontaneously abort in this case. The life of the mother is in danger from such decaying matter, the soul is already resting in the kingdom, and yet the procedure is still an abortion. Hence for the mother's sake, for her life and well-being, in that case, rare as it is, I understand the necessity of abortion.

Simply said, I am against abortion and the death penalty, but I cannot be the final arbiter of these things except for my person. I must trust in God and the legal process of the nation I live in. To that end (forgive the apparent absurdity of this statement) I have decided I will never have an abortion nor will I put a woman in the situation where she would have to choose. Having lost my fiance to cancer three years ago, that part is easy. Nor will I ever condemn a person to death or engage in that activity.

But let me further say, there is a broader social implication to abortion than simply the child. If I am opposed to abortion in a society is and will be legal of necessity, then I must work within the social fabric to help people escape some of the situations where it seems sexuality is the only option of escape from unholy home lives. I must work to create a better society and options for people who are desparate for something to love and be loved by. My critique of the right to life community is not an ethical one, but of practice. I do not think we offer any better alternatives and so if we would reduce the number of abortions (1.1 million annually is too many) then we must provide an environment where better choices can be made to begin.

 

[Felicity]

. It's an excellent, ethical society. Hyper sexual? Not bad.

except that when one becomes particularly attracted to one other....they get reported and punished.

Godless? not bad.

except that the human need for spiritual expression has to be manifested in a Solidarity Service that culminates in group sex (and poor Bernard has to have sex with the girl with a mono-brow).

Drugged out? Hardly--people are very clear-minded. THey have to be to do their jobs. THey do it for fun. There's nothing worng with alloing people to have and use recreational drugs. Soma has no major impairment side-effects when not using it. It cannot if everyone is using it, because then nothing would get done.

Ahhhh...Linda? Ahhh...the near riot when John gets in the way of the soma ration distribution. Ahhhh...Bernard uses it to get nerve, and to endure things he finds distasteful.

Mond is one man. The majority are quite happy. I don't find it meaningless; it's quite beautiful. Doing so would be the ultimate happy, good society.

Mond talks about SEVERAL—HUNDREDS of people who have moved to remote locations to live life as it was originally. In the book several major characters ache to be REAL. Bernard, Hemholtz, even Lenina struggles with dawning awareness. Those that accept whole heartedly their lives are the tragic ones—Linda especially!

You need to re-read the book.

No, you know nothing about what you are talking; nothing he says is in contradiction to the philosophy of Utilitarianism.

I’m not saying he is contradicting his philosophy; I’m saying the philosophy itself has inherent contradictions!

You have failed to show any contradiction. In context, he meant what I said. [:2rofll: ] If you don't know that Singer is a Preference Utilitarian, then you're got some research to do. You also need to realize that in his comments on the baby being killed by the doctor, those are "bizarre" rare occurances. Those are life-boat situations, and they aren't ethically relevant to ethicists.

Yeah...and it’s repulsive no matter how “bizarre” or “rare.”

He is also not saying any policy should be made to force parents to abort or kill their disabled children. It's up to the parents, unless, of course, they too are not of sound mind.

Yeah....having “religious convictions” proves one to not be of “sound mind?” Right—he’s saying it should be done unrestricted and according to the judgment of the “elite” and according their own preference. heck, if those parents aren’t of “sound mind,” why not knock them off too while you’re at it—that way they wouldn’t be able to pass on their bad genes.

As he states clearly in his interview, Singer has a sister, and his sister wants to keep the mother alive. According to Utilitarianism, you cannot take into consideration only YOUR preferences, rather the preferences of everyone who is related and invovled. Since the mother is incompetent, the decision is up to Singer and his Sister. He cannot ethically overrule what his sister and other relatives want, therefore, his decision must be guided by equality of consideration. His mother is relatively incompented and is of little direct concern--it's singer vs sister. He says if the decision were only up to him, he would have had mommmy euthanized. So, in the end, your criticism is a gross misunderstanding of utilitarianism, a red herring, as well as a completely LIE!

http://reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml
“When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today.”


That’s what the interview actually says....it DOESN’T say his sister wants to keep mom alive; it says Singer isn’t the only one making decisions—that is neither admission nor denial. Also note the word “might” in the last sentence—that too is not a definitive remark.

Secondly, the fact that he doesn't donate all his money is irrelevant to the notion that you should donate as much as you can. Singer donates 20+% of his salary to the poor. If you read his essay, he states that his normative conclusion is not set in stone. You work towards it, but not everyone can, since human nature is greedy. However, the greed of human nature does not override the ethics.

This is also what the article said concerning his charity:
“He insisted that he was doing far more than most and hinted that he would increase his giving when everybody else started contributing similar amounts of their incomes.”

That is so lame and childish...if he really believed in his own assertions he would do it himself despite what “anyone else” was doing.

Deny what? I didn't deny anything in the first place that had any relevance to what I am talking about. Stop strawmanning what I say.

You know what...your freshman logic class language isn’t impressing anyone...bandying about “red herring” and “strawman” and “fallacious” may seem impressive to you, but you have to use the terms right to make an impression on others. There are plenty of sites on-line that can help you understand Logical fallacies” and what they actually are. Find them. They may help you avoid looking like a fool.

I know what he stands for; you don't. You are making a caricature of his position and then knocking it down, and anyone who defends his work is "the great satan" according to you.

See, now that there would be a strawman. I never said, “anyone who defends his work is "the great satan" “ at all—you are making an assumption and falsely attributing an argument to me.

Anyway... I don’t have to make a caricature of Singer—he is already a joke.

He is never saying reason should give way to emotions; you look for the facts and then, on that, make the greatest objective maximization of preferences. Sometimes, people are not clear-minded. He admits this in his essays, which you haven't read. The physician knows what type of state the child will be in. If the mothers refuse that information, they are not valid decision-makers because they are not informed.

What don’t you understand? This is what I said:

Yeah...and then he says...." there, I guess, that reason and emotion do come into some degree of conflict." Do you think he would suggest you give in to your emotions? Absolutely not! Because he advocates doctors doing away with ill babies if the parents won't do it. You can't DENY it--it's right there in his OWN WORDS--maybe you SHOULD go buy his textbook, so you know what he REALLY stands for instead of trying to manipulate his crazy notions to fit the crazy notions you accept.

If emotions and reason are in conflict, what would Singer tell you to do? The contradiction of advocating “happiness”....(which he clearly does here):

http://reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml
SINGER: It's in fact a tougher question for a utilitarian or a consequentialist like myself, who regards happiness or satisfaction of preferences as the ultimate value.

...and denying emotion in favor of clinical “reason”....

we have this emotional appeal to the cute, helpless baby, but the knowledge perhaps that this baby will actually never grow up to be able to play and laugh and enjoy life......there, I guess, that reason and emotion do come into some degree of conflict.

is a CONTRADICTION in the Utilitarian ideal!

Singer does not advocate as policy forcing parents to kill their children at all either.

no...doctor’s should do it for them and then lie to the parents. THAT is what he thinks.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

except that when one becomes particularly attracted to one other....they get reported and punished.

Which is very rare. People get punished here too. It's a small prince to pay for near Utopia. Such minor crap is silly.

except that the human need for spiritual expression has to be manifested in a Solidarity Service that culminates in group sex (and poor Bernard has to have sex with the girl with a mono-brow).

There is little human need for spiritual expression. The Bokonofsky process and hatchery conditioning largely bred it out of humans. That's preferable. Further, soma is Christianity w/out tears.

Ahhhh...Linda? Ahhh...the near riot when John gets in the way of the soma ration distribution. Ahhhh...Bernard uses it to get nerve, and to endure things he finds distasteful.

I guess you shouldn't get in the way of soma distribution. Soma is the life blood of society. It's much like today if you were to stand in front of bars or stores preventing people from getting consuming. Brave New World is a mass consumption society. It's great.

Mond talks about SEVERAL—HUNDREDS of people who have moved to remote locations to live life as it was originally. In the book several major characters ache to be REAL. Bernard, Hemholtz, even Lenina struggles with dawning awareness. Those that accept whole heartedly their lives are the tragic ones—Linda especially!

You need to re-read the book.

You do realize that Bernard and linina are alphas and betas? They are independents. THey were made that way. Most of society does not consist of alphas and betas. Furthermore, Linda and Bernard, as well as some other major characters are rare. The process didn't work well on them.

In Brave New World's society, the process doesn't always work flawlessly. For those who don't want to be part of the society or for those the process does not work on, have reservations, where they belong.
False. I need not re-read the book. I understand it perfectly.

I don't have to re-read anything. I already know about the reservations. That's a small price to pay for a heavenly society.

I’m not saying he is contradicting his philosophy; I’m saying the philosophy itself has inherent contradictions!

And you're wrong. It's imbecilic to think that you, some netgirl from nowhere USA, came up with something that the rest of mainstream academia didn't notice. Yous imply don't comprehend the theory, so you strawman it and then knock it down.

Yeah...and it’s repulsive no matter how “bizarre” or “rare.”

It's not repulsive at all. It's a good idea. It's only repulsive you to, but...much of academia will disagree with you.

Yeah....having “religious convictions” proves one to not be of “sound mind?” Right—he’s saying it should be done unrestricted and according to the judgment of the “elite” and according their own preference. heck, if those parents aren’t of “sound mind,” why not knock them off too while you’re at it—that way they wouldn’t be able to pass on their bad genes.

True. Being religious is not rational at all. It's beliving in a magic sky pixi that doesn't exist and taking orders from people who don't exist. People who listen to God are like schizophrenics--they talk to people who aren't there. They would be the first people I would medicate.

I will just ignore the latter portion of your statement, since it's a complete strawman hyperbole. It has no merit in this conversation.

That’s what the interview actually says....it DOESN’T say his sister wants to keep mom alive; it says Singer isn’t the only one making decisions—that is neither admission nor denial. Also note the word “might” in the last sentence—that too is not a definitive remark.

You're a moron AND illiterate. Look at what the god-damn sentence is saying. He's saying outright he is not the only one who is able to make decisions for his mother. He has a sister you idiot. That means, prima facie, that he cannot just pull the damn plug whenever he feels like it. You can't be that stupid. His mother is still alive, and under Utilitarianism, you take into consideration ALL points of view that are relevant. If the sister didn't want her alive, and if in other interviews he states she probably wouldn't be had it not been for the sister, it is reasonable to assume that the sister is an influence on Singer.

regardless, this is a Red Herring. His personal actions are irrelevant. Refer to my Nazi example for your own education. This paragraph you quoted is just what the hell I said. Stop lying or learn to read, or both.

This is also what the article said concerning his charity:
“He insisted that he was doing far more than most and hinted that he would increase his giving when everybody else started contributing similar amounts of their incomes.”

That is so lame and childish...if he really believed in his own assertions he would do it himself despite what “anyone else” was doing.[/quoite]

Being the ignorant little twerp you are, you still don't acknowledge your fallacy.

1. This is a red herring, thus irrelevant to normative suggestions. Do you comprehend that, or do I need to put that into baby terms for you?

2. He already donates 20-30% of his income. He does way more than lazy ass whiney tards like you do.

You know what...your freshman logic class language isn’t impressing anyone...bandying about “red herring” and “strawman” and “fallacious” may seem impressive to you, but you have to use the terms right to make an impression on others. There are plenty of sites on-line that can help you understand Logical fallacies” and what they actually are. Find them. They may help you avoid looking like a fool.

I know what they are, and I use them correctly. You know about as much of logic as you know of Utilitarianism--and that's next to nothing.
I said you committed 2 red herrings, and 2 red herrings you used. There is no debate about this.

What is a red herring?

Red Herring:
This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

How does this apply?

1. We are talking about personhood and his claims for justified abortion and infantacide, and you, like a ****ing retard, bring up totally unrelated issues that don't logically disprove any of his claims. Observe, retard:


Your claims:
1. He doesn't donate enough money to charity.
2. He doesn't kill his mother!

Application:

Both of these points are irrelevant. The fact that he does not do everything he says does not invalidate what he says. They do not disprove the normative claims of Singer based on Utilitarianism. These are both Red Herrings.

Example: A nazi says it's wrong to kill jews, but does so anyway. The fact that he ignores his own rules does not invalidate the rule. Now kiss my ass you troll.

See, now that there would be a strawman. I never said, “anyone who defends his work is "the great satan" “ at all—you are making an assumption and falsely attributing an argument to me.

Anyway... I don’t have to make a caricature of Singer—he is already a joke.

You are claiming he is sick and his work is sick, and by association, anyone who follows it is bad and sick. Singer is not a joke. You're just a moron. You are claiming he's a joke based on your retarded analysis of Utilitarianism, which is inaccurate in the first place. Eveyrthing you say is a distortion

If emotions and reason are in conflict, what would Singer tell you to do? The contradiction of advocating “happiness”....(which he clearly does here):
Quote:

Emotions and reason only come into conflict when getting the facts. Prior to knowing the facts, you use reason. THere is no contradiction, since the preferences criterion only applies after you analyse and get the facts. You don't comprehend how Utilitarianism works, dumbass.

is a CONTRADICTION in the Utilitarian ideal!

NO IT ISN'T! There are two parts to every Utilitarian calculation. 1. Analysis and gathering of facts. 2. Calculating preferences. The second does not apply to the first. If you actually studied Utilitarianism you wouldn't lay such a turd of logic.

no...doctor’s should do it for them and then lie to the parents. THAT is what he thinks.

If that does the greater good, yes. THere's nothing wrong with that. Utilitarianism only values the opinions of people who know the facts.

 

[Fantasea]

I think things which can genuinely suffer deserve consideration, and things which are self-aware. Things that can have and formulate preferences (to live, to be somewhere, to do something etc). It is much worse to kill a 12 year old than it is to kill a 2 day old, in my opinion, because that 12 year old has formulated preferences and an understanding of what/who he is. According to sociologists and psychologists, you don't really form an identity untill 2 years old, but you become aware you are a being before that (well before).

I don't think that if because something is not a person you should mistreat it; not at all. I think you should try to minimize any unnecessary pain, even if it's not on a level of suffering. You shouldn't kill a baby if you don't have to. It's only acceptable to kill it, even though it's not self-aware, if you are trying to avoid net misery and suffering. Some people think the worst thing that can happen is death, but I disagree.

How humane. You make it sound just like a horse with a broken leg being mercifully put down.

I find it interesting that you believe that abortion should be allowed if the life of the mother is in danger. Why do you believe this? I don't disagree with you, but I just want to investigate this further.

I could never understand it when people say they are against abortion, but then for it in life-danger situations, because primarily, the motivation for being against abortion is "sanctity of human life." If it's wrong to kill the life of the child, why does the life of the child not count when the mother is in danger? Does the "human life" no longer matter then that so mattered before? I thought human life was supposedly absolute and inalienable as a right? If it's inalienable, how can one permit it to be killed in "some" cases, but not others? It's still being deprived of rights, according to pro-lifers.

Each of the lives involved is of equal value. Given the state of modern medicine, the chances of the mother’s life being in danger is miniscule. Even in situations such as that, it is rarely an “either or” situation. However, it makes a wonderfully emotional talking point.

You may cite examples of expectant mothers who refused radiation therapy because it would have adversely affected their unborn child. However these few heroic women stand in stark contrast to the more than three thousand who each day choose to abort a child.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

How humane. You make it sound just like a horse with a broken leg being mercifully put down.

Youn are right; it is humane. It's euthanasia, which means "good death." In Utilitarianism you act in the interest of maximizing utility, which can be either happiness or preferences, depending on the type of utilitarianism you are using. They're not the same, regardless of what that idiot felicity thinks.

In Utilitarianism, you must consider the interests and preferences of all relevant parties. The parents, the family members, the person making the decision, as well as the target of the decision.

If the target is going to have a very bad, painful life, based on statistics, you should put it out of its misery, unless, of course, it has little chance of living in pain. You have also to take into consideration cost. If the cost of rasing a child that will require absurdly expensive treatments, there is no reason you have to sacrifice your livelyhood, preferences for a newborn, since the newborn is not a person anyway. It's less bad to kill it.

The proper thing to do if the disease were not so much painful, rather just too expensive would be would be to give it to someone who would want the child and the expense. It should be up to the parents.

THe key, however, which felicity ignorantly ignores, is that before you make a decision, you must accumulate the facts via objective professionals (doctors), and then make a decision that takes into account the pain/suffering of all parties, including the newborn. THere is no contradiction, because emotions only conflict if you are using them in the gathering/analysis process. You use reason and empiricism to figure out how to maximize happiness, and you cannot only think of yourself. This is what Singer means when he says emotion/reason can conflict. If you only go by your emotions, and you don't look at the facts, you won't really know how to maximize happiness/preferences. You will be blinded by your personal feelings and ignore the feelings of others. If you do that, someone else needs to step in, evaluate the situation, and make the decision for you. There's no contradiction, and that's perfectly ethical.

Each of the lives involved is of equal value. Given the state of modern medicine, the chances of the mother’s life being in danger is miniscule. Even in situations such as that, it is rarely an “either or” situation. However, it makes a wonderfully emotional talking point.

You may cite examples of expectant mothers who refused radiation therapy because it would have adversely affected their unborn child. However these few heroic women stand in stark contrast to the more than three thousand who each day choose to abort a child.

So you would be against abortion hypothetically if the mother's life was in danger? And no, each of the lives isn't equal in value--they are only equal prima facie in terms of moral consideration. No human is equal to another human, either mentally or biologically.

 

[Donkey1499]

>sigh< Poor, poor Old Yeller. Shot because he had rabies. What a damn shame...

 

[Felicity]

Which is very rare. People get punished here too. It's a small prince to pay for near Utopia. Such minor crap is silly.

There is little human need for spiritual expression. The Bokonofsky process and hatchery conditioning largely bred it out of humans. That's preferable. Further, soma is Christianity w/out tears.

I guess you shouldn't get in the way of soma distribution. Soma is the life blood of society. It's much like today if you were to stand in front of bars or stores preventing people from getting consuming. Brave New World is a mass consumption society. It's great.

You do realize that Bernard and linina are alphas and betas? They are independents. THey were made that way. Most of society does not consist of alphas and betas. Furthermore, Linda and Bernard, as well as some other major characters are rare. The process didn't work well on them.

In Brave New World's society, the process doesn't always work flawlessly. For those who don't want to be part of the society or for those the process does not work on, have reservations, where they belong.
False. I need not re-read the book. I understand it perfectly.

I don't have to re-read anything. I already know about the reservations. That's a small price to pay for a heavenly society.

As you suggested in your PM, I await the new thread to discuss BNW...I'm sure it will be interesting since you seem to have missed the ENTIRE point of the novel.

And you're wrong. It's imbecilic to think that you, some netgirl from nowhere USA, came up with something that the rest of mainstream academia didn't notice. .

This "netgirl" could be your mother, son, (albeit a "young" mother )....but to point....I didn't come up with the "contradictions" angle regarding Singer. Donald DeMarco has written a whole book on the "Architects of the Culture of Death"--Singer is among the several people discussed.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586170163/qid=1089153031/sr=1-1/002-0548121-1249628

It's not repulsive at all. It's a good idea. It's only repulsive you to, but...much of academia will disagree with you.

The lunatic fringe of the already lunatic world of academia...

True. Being religious is not rational at all. It's beliving in a magic sky pixi that doesn't exist and taking orders from people who don't exist. People who listen to God are like schizophrenics--they talk to people who aren't there. They would be the first people I would medicate.

You worship something. It may not be a higher power you look to--but it is worship.

You're a moron AND illiterate. Look at what the god-damn sentence is saying. He's saying outright he is not the only one who is able to make decisions for his mother. He has a sister you idiot. That means, prima facie, that he cannot just pull the damn plug whenever he feels like it. You can't be that stupid. His mother is still alive, and under Utilitarianism, you take into consideration ALL points of view that are relevant. If the sister didn't want her alive, and if in other interviews he states she probably wouldn't be had it not been for the sister, it is reasonable to assume that the sister is an influence on Singer.

Nice...:roll: You know...in the debate world that's called ad hominem attack. It usually is indicative of a debater that feels he is on shaky ground and so resorts to name-calling to deflect from the inadequacies of his argument.

Anyway, It is an ASSUMPTION on your part when you claim it's all about his sister's wishes and Singer gives no evidence either way...why not? What can we assume from his evasiveness? Geez...I wonder what would happen if his wife or son were in a compromised position....

Being the ignorant little twerp you are, you still don't acknowledge your fallacy.

Twerp...I've always thought that was a funny word.... Ad hominem....you know what I think that means concerning your position...

1. This is a red herring, thus irrelevant to normative suggestions. Do you comprehend that, or do I need to put that into baby terms for you?

2. He already donates 20-30% of his income. He does way more than lazy ass whiney tards like you do.

MORE? Wow...you've really outdone yourself!

Both of these points are irrelevant. The fact that he does not do everything he says does not invalidate what he says. They do not disprove the normative claims of Singer based on Utilitarianism.

It proves when push comes to shove, he's not a purist and he is a hypocrite.

****ing retard,.....Now kiss my ass you troll. .....You're just a moron. .....dumbass.

You're :sinking:
Nonetheless.....I accept your apology

 

[Felicity]

Utilitarianism is a major contributor to the culture of death that promotes such human travesties as abortion and euthanasia.

Technocratic Utilitarian specifically endorses Preference Utilitarianism (Peter Singer's brand of Utilitarianism). And I've got some questions for anyone who adheres to this philosophy:


In Preference Utilitarianism, how does one address these questions?

1. What preference is the one I go with when I have changed my mind—the original preference, or the current preference? And how do I know my preference won’t change again?

2. What do I do if my preference today is that I had made a better choice yesterday?

3. How does PU deal with the element of “surprise?” For example: “I am surprised by how much pleasure that action brought me—It was not my preference.”

4. What do you do when your preference is in conflict with another’s preference and both have a reasonable stake in the issue. I prefer my son not marry that woman, or I prefer my wife not give our baby up for adoption.

5. What happens when I have no actual preference, but someone else prefers I make a specific decision, but then that person changes his mind?

6. What if a person for whom you are responsible has a preference that is not detrimental, but in conflict with your preference?


You may be able to aswer each individual question whith what you think, but the answers will not remain consistant. The lack of consistency makes the philosophy arbitrary and thus unreliable.

Interesting paper: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Valu/ValuRonn.htm

 

[steen]

#2: Technocratic Utilitarian will just call all of which you've written in the above quote a "fallacy". He's done it to me while I was "trying" to prove God's existence. (You should read my posts on the "Should Evolution Be Taught in Schools" Thread.) My last few posts prove that there is the possibility of a Creator Force. But it can't exactly say that it's the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.

While there always is a "possibility" of anything supernatural, there is no evidence for it.

 

[steen]

How humane. You make it sound just like a horse with a broken leg being mercifully put down.Each of the lives involved is of equal value. Given the state of modern medicine, the chances of the mother’s life being in danger is miniscule. Even in situations such as that, it is rarely an “either or” situation. However, it makes a wonderfully emotional talking point.

Given that nearly 500 women die yearly in the US alone from pregnancy complications, your claim rings hollow.

 

[Fantasea]

Given that nearly 500 women die yearly in the US alone from pregnancy complications, your claim rings hollow.

Evidently your math skills are in a class with your logic.

When five hundred is compared to a million and a half, miniscule is an accurate descriptor.

 

[steen]

Evidently your math skills are in a class with your logic.

When five hundred is compared to a million and a half, miniscule is an accurate descriptor.

The number is factual, and per each YEAR, where you nowe provide a 30+ year number in comparison, once again showing how truly dishonest you are.

And yto the women dying, it IS a big deal even though you don't care about women anyway. So once again, the prolife misogynistic hatemongering is exposed.

 

[Fantasea]

The number is factual, and per each YEAR, where you nowe provide a 30+ year number in comparison, once again showing how truly dishonest you are.

And yto the women dying, it IS a big deal even though you don't care about women anyway. So once again, the prolife misogynistic hatemongering is exposed.

The comparison is less than 500 per year to approximately 1,500,000 per year. The total number of abortions since Roe v. Wade is nearly fifty million, as you very well know.

I was right about your math and logic being in the same class. :doh

 

[sissy-boy]

>sigh< Poor, poor Old Yeller. Shot because he had rabies. What a damn shame...

If they'd have done the same for YOUR rabies we'd simply call it 'mercy killing'....hahhah!!

You know there is ONE way for you to be put out of your misery. MOVE to a total theocracy like Iraq or Afghanistan! I think you'd be very happy there with people who think like you. HELL you might even get a position in OFFICE!!