Here's something for all you people who think its OK to kill the comatose...

Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
…
4
5
6
7

Here's something for all you people who think its OK to kill the comatose...
Tweet Topic Started: Nov 16 2012, 01:04 AM (2,662 Views)
Klaus	Nov 19 2012, 12:49 AM Post #101
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 19,403 Group: Members Member #350 Joined: May 21, 2006	ivorythumper Nov 18 2012, 06:15 PM Klaus Nov 18 2012, 03:56 PM Would you accept such an organ for you, or a child of yours? Also, according to your own definition, the donors were not dead, hence you should consider this a kind of assisted suicide and be totally against it! That is not avoiding the question -- it is properly answering it. It is none of my business if someone wants to off themselves and give me their kidney, anymore than if I get an inheritance from a relative who commits suicide. I wonder what the relatives of somebody who donated his organs would say if the receiver would say that. You claim to be a defender of humanity, yet you are sometimes grossly inhuman. Quote: BTW, you have this bizarre penchant for assuming and categorically stating what my moral obligations are in very specific cases, which completely ignore the complexities of relationships, hierarchy of goods, human freedom and charity. I wonder if you live your own existence with as much self judgment as you demand of others? Many of your ethical positions lead to rather indefensible conclusions. There are these rare moments when I hope that even you will realize the absurdity of your claims by demonstrating their bizarre consequences. I should know better, of course. Somewhat more seriously, the only self judgment I demand of yours is consistency. I am just observing that you make extreme ethical claims on one hand, but - knowing that you'd be considered a weirdo otherwise - you don't go through with it. I assume that at least 95% of adults in the Western world would agree to "brain dead = dead" - otherwise it wouldn't be the indisputed de facto definitions in many countries. If you have such a large majority against you, it certainly doesn't necessarily mean that you are "wrong" (whatever that means when it comes to ethics), but it should at least make you reconsider your point of view.
	Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman


ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 01:07 AM Post #102
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	sue Nov 18 2012, 09:27 PM Ok, so you would accept a donated organ, understood. Would you also donate such an organ, is that something you would have in your living will? I am not an organ donor. Quote: Quote: I wonder if you live your own existence with as much self judgment as you demand of others? I would toss that back at you, and wonder at your reply. Probably more self judgment than I demand of others -- in most of these conversations I would just settle for internal consistency in others. How about you?
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 01:41 AM Post #103
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	Klaus Nov 19 2012, 12:49 AM I wonder what the relatives of somebody who donated his organs would say if the receiver would say that. You claim to be a defender of humanity, yet you are sometimes grossly inhuman. Good grief, how is that inhuman? Do you think I would ever say that to the face of someone's family who donated the organ? Once again you jump to all sorts of bizarre judgments, Klaus. Quote: Quote: BTW, you have this bizarre penchant for assuming and categorically stating what my moral obligations are in very specific cases, which completely ignore the complexities of relationships, hierarchy of goods, human freedom and charity. I wonder if you live your own existence with as much self judgment as you demand of others? Many of your ethical positions lead to rather indefensible conclusions. There are these rare moments when I hope that even you will realize the absurdity of your claims by demonstrating their bizarre consequences. I should know better, of course. You have yet to demonstrate any such thing. Conversely, you had to run away when I adopted your materialism in its logical conclusion, and you couldn't even defend the idea of empathy or being nice or love or moral obligation, but rather got all mushy about "a whole new universe of approaches to ethics opens up". You call that rigorous thought? And then you suddenly became weirdly aggressive and lied about me: "time and again you accuse others in this forum of behaving highly unethical, committing the most horrendous crimes (killing babies!), " I have never accused anyone on the forum of actually killing a baby or committing any crime. You lied plain and simple, Klaus. And then you got all pompous about giving me a taste of my own medicine. FFS, don't be a prat. either make an argument based on real principles or don't, but don't get all butt-hurt and think you need to teach anyone anything. Quote: Somewhat more seriously, the only self judgment I demand of yours is consistency. I am just observing that you make extreme ethical claims on one hand, but - knowing that you'd be considered a weirdo otherwise - you don't go through with it. I assume that at least 95% of adults in the Western world would agree to "brain dead = dead" - otherwise it wouldn't be the indisputed de facto definitions in many countries. If you have such a large majority against you, it certainly doesn't necessarily mean that you are "wrong" (whatever that means when it comes to ethics), but it should at least make you reconsider your point of view. There is nothing inconsistent about my position. You may think it extreme --indeed moral obligation and human life accorded from the extremes of conception to natural death is extreme. But the principle is solid. It really doesn't matter that many people think "brain dead is dead" when it is a utilitarian construct. I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is obvious that the reason it is accepted in many countries is the basically utilitarian world view of modern governance and a legal postivistic jurisprudence. That is hardly an intellectual challenge. Try for a change to argue against my principles and my assertions. Show me why there is NO difference between a body that has no vital functions to process nutrients, hydration or oxygen (my definition of death) and one that can do this but is whatever "brain dead" means for you when it can do these things. The fact that we have two different types of things (known as different types by their difference in operation) means that it is just sloppy thinking to call them both "dead" in the same sense of the word. And if death means no longer animate, return to room temperature, begin to decompose, and all the other things that dead bodies really do, then your definition of death is insufficient. In fact it is obviously insufficient since we don't take bodies of those who are "brain dead" and just bury them or cremate them -- we actually stop the feeding or poison them so that they really die. The fact that I don't put up with such crap ethics that are divorced from both reality and the human perception of reality is hardly an indictment. And such an example as how we treat the "brain dead" as opposed to the really dead only shows the inconsistency of your own position. You presumably wouldn't dream of cremating a self breathing patient in PVS, would you? If not, then you must answer why not if you think that person is dead.
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


apple	Nov 19 2012, 04:13 AM Post #104
one of the angels Posts: 21,162 Group: Moderators Member #24 Joined: April 19, 2005	ivorythumper Nov 18 2012, 09:53 AM John D'Oh Nov 18 2012, 09:30 AM Well, if I'm ever in this situation, I hope somebody uses a nice soft pillow. I was reading about Israel Sharon, who a doctor claimed was effectively dead, but whose son claims is responsive after 6 years in a coma. To be honest, I hope for Sharon's sake that it's the doctor who is right. The thought of being stuck in a body that can't communicate for 6 solid years and being conscious strikes me as absolutely horrific. we have a lot of people who have awoken from long term comas -- perhaps you should ask them if they'd rather be dead if you're really interested in statistical predictions. If one believes in heaven there is no reason to want to be alive on earth. Why not just enjoy the elation of heavenly euphoria without the expense of food and shelter? I guess that is why I am not so wrapped up with the idea of dying.. (unless I am destined for hell )
	it behooves me to behold


Klaus	Nov 19 2012, 04:49 AM Post #105
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 19,403 Group: Members Member #350 Joined: May 21, 2006	ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 01:41 AM Klaus Nov 19 2012, 12:49 AM I wonder what the relatives of somebody who donated his organs would say if the receiver would say that. You claim to be a defender of humanity, yet you are sometimes grossly inhuman. Good grief, how is that inhuman? Do you think I would ever say that to the face of someone's family who donated the organ? Once again you jump to all sorts of bizarre judgments, Klaus. OK, so you'd take the organ and lie to the family about what you really think. Nice! Quote: Quote: Somewhat more seriously, the only self judgment I demand of yours is consistency. I am just observing that you make extreme ethical claims on one hand, but - knowing that you'd be considered a weirdo otherwise - you don't go through with it. I assume that at least 95% of adults in the Western world would agree to "brain dead = dead" - otherwise it wouldn't be the indisputed de facto definitions in many countries. If you have such a large majority against you, it certainly doesn't necessarily mean that you are "wrong" (whatever that means when it comes to ethics), but it should at least make you reconsider your point of view. There is nothing inconsistent about my position. You may think it extreme --indeed moral obligation and human life accorded from the extremes of conception to natural death is extreme. But the principle is solid. It really doesn't matter that many people think "brain dead is dead" when it is a utilitarian construct. I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is obvious that the reason it is accepted in many countries is the basically utilitarian world view of modern governance and a legal postivistic jurisprudence. That is hardly an intellectual challenge. The definition of death has nothing to do with positivism or utilitarism. I understand that you like to rant about utilitarism, but here it is not applicable at all. You could argue that donating organs or saving money by "turning off the devices" is good from the perspective of utilitarism, but that's not at all what motivates my (and presumably many other's) definition of death. Also, positivism seems to be a completely orthogonal concept. In fact, I for one do not consider myself an ethical positivist. Quote: I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is interesting to see how you manage to decompose the world into labels (such as "utilitarian"). The reason why one should reconsider one's conception of something if a large majority of others disagree with it is that there is a high likelihood that one is wrong and that the others have a point. It is arrogant to think that one belongs to a small minority of humans with a sound ethical system. Quote: Try for a change to argue against my principles and my assertions. Show me why there is NO difference between a body that has no vital functions to process nutrients, hydration or oxygen (my definition of death) and one that can do this but is whatever "brain dead" means for you when it can do these things. The fact that we have two different types of things (known as different types by their difference in operation) means that it is just sloppy thinking to call them both "dead" in the same sense of the word. And if death means no longer animate, return to room temperature, begin to decompose, and all the other things that dead bodies really do, then your definition of death is insufficient. Of course there is a difference, otherwise we wouldn't argue about it In common language use, the two notions of death we discuss are often not clearly differentiated, but in principle there should be separate words for it, say, "dead A" vs "dead B". I can tell you exactly why I consider a brain-dead person to be dead: Because the brain is what constitutes all higher behavior of a human, that what we call the "identity" of that person. The rest of the human has no more significance than a plant [larry]except for tits[/larry]. You, on the other hand, have picked some rather arbitrary body functions in your definition. Why food, or oxygen? Why not, say, the ability to smell? Also, as Moonbat already pointed out, it is easily conceivable that people who are dead according to your definition might still be able to talk to you. If you want to accuse somebody of sloppy thinking, consider a mirror! It is likely that we will some day be able to keep a brain alive in-vitro. Why don't you spare as the embarrassment of having to correct your ethical narrative when its failure has become blatantly obvious by reconsidering it now, when you'd probably still get away with a few frowns only
	Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman


John D'Oh	Nov 19 2012, 04:59 AM Post #106
MAMIL Posts: 53,812 Group: Members Member #276 Joined: October 19, 2005	"butt hurt"? "pratt"? God, I feel like I've gone back in time about 35 years to the time when Simpson accused Grovelly-Matthews of stealing his pen and they ended up being sent to Mr. Jenkins office. It was a shame really, since Simpson was mid-way through writing a thesis on the pointless of existence and it's application to stealing candy from the tuck-shop, and I wanted to analyse his conclusions before reaching a conclusion regarding the ethical justification for stealing a bar of Milky Way ("the sweet you can eat between meals without ruining your appetite") and whether this would be permitted within the Kantian framework I had committed to uphold as part of my job as milk-monitor for form 3B. As I believe we said at the time 'ya boo sucks to you with knobs on, Grovelly-Matthews!'
	What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?


Dewey	Nov 19 2012, 06:10 AM Post #107
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 17,117 Group: Members Member #74 Joined: April 19, 2005	There are any number of abstract ideological, philosophical, or theological systems which are perfectly internally consistent and logical, but which, when applied to the concrete reality of human existence, creates appalling results when measured against their effect on human beings. In fact, I believe that any thought system that is absolutely internally consistent will, by definition, create such horror at some point when applied in the concrete. I think this is the case because, consistent with my own beliefs, we are not truly "human," in the complete sense that we have been designed/intended for, outside of relationship with one another. It is only in the reality of that relationship that we can more fully understand the world and ourselves. And a large part of the importance of that relationship is the check that it places on the over-abstraction and systematization of our beliefs which would create such problems. In the matter of this thread, I think it's wonderful if modern medicine enables us to communicate with anyone who still has some brain function, in order to understand their wishes. And if they are able to express their wishes in that way, then out of respect for them and for human dignity in general, we should obey those wishes - whether they wish to continue to live through mechanical existence, or whether they wish to be allowed to die. However, not everyone in these situations is going to be able to exercise that kind of communication, whether due to their physical condition or merely the local technological ability to engage in such communication. This means that the ethical question of what to do in these situations will remain. Personally, I believe that it is cruel and inhumane to allow a person who has had irreversible, profound brain damage to this point to be continued on in this grossly substandard quality of life. I believe that it's cruel to the patient, and more often than not, also cruel to the patient's family, on grounds of both emotional health as well as financial well-being for those remaining family members. I believe that it is a perfectly moral and ethical decision on the part of a person to execute a Living Will, informing health care staff that they do not wish to be kept alive through mechanical means if two doctors agree with the diagnosis of such an irreversible decline into that substandard existence. In particular, believe that this is absolutely, utterly compatible with Christian ethics. I believe that this is also true if the person has assigned their healthcare decisions to a HCPOA. In my opinion, it is absolutely consistent with Christian ethics if the HCPOA decides that it is more compassionate to allow the person to die by removing them from mechanical ventilation, or even nutrition and hydration. I believe these things for two basic reasons. The first reason is a general concept. In this existence we are forced into making decisions without complete and perfect data. We may never know in a given moment if a person with a GCS of 3 has any real personal consciousness remaining that more advanced medical technology may some day be able to tap into. But we still have to make a decision regarding our care, or the care of a loved one whose care has been entrusted to us. Given that we have to forge ahead with the information available to us, the best information we have is that a person in this condition is really no longer alive in any meaningful sense of the word, and it is perfectly acceptable and ethical to proceed based on that understanding. The second reason is more faith-based. I believe that the most significant aspect of our having been created in the image of God is our ability to give and receive love - to act with compassionate intent toward others, and to be able to graciously accept that same compassionate intent when shown to us. Similar to the inseparable linkage of love within God's very triune nature itself, The single most important aspect of our humanity is love. It is not the preservation of our physical life on this earth. To use that as the most important definition of our humanity, or the single most important definition of our morality or ethics, actually becomes a form of idolatry - we end up worshiping earthly, physical existence - which as Christians we acknowledge is only one chapter of our actual life - more than we worship our Creator, who personally exhibited the reality that physical earthly existence is important, but not ultimately something to be preserved at all cost. Golgotha shows us that human life is precious, but not sacred, or to be preserved at any and all other cost. There are reasons for which ending physical life are the most compassionate expression of love. As D'Oh has pointed out, anyone who believes in life after this life should not be excessively worked up over moving from this life to the next. Of course, that doesn't mean that we take a callous view toward life. But we must also take a realistic view toward it as well, and move ahead, with the best information available, and in the spirit of love for the human being - not merely physical, earthly life. Jesus was occasionally chastised for bending, and sometimes outright breaking, tenets of the Law found in the Scriptures. In one famous episode, he and his disciples were criticized for harvesting grain - thereby working - on the sabbath (Mark 2, Matthew 12). Jesus' answer was to quote the scriptures, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice;" and saying that "the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath." I think that the same principle applies here. If we believe that it is more merciful to allow our loved one to die, than to "sacrifice" him/her on the altar of supposed abstract theological correctness - no matter how internally, logically consistent - then we are operating contrary to Christ's example.
	"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14


Renauda	Nov 19 2012, 06:54 AM Post #108
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 10,507 Group: Members Member #505 Joined: September 5, 2007	ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 01:41 AM It really doesn't matter that many people think "brain dead is dead" when it is a utilitarian construct. I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is obvious that the reason it is accepted in many countries is the basically utilitarian world view of modern governance and a legal postivistic jurisprudence. All the more reason to be utilitarian in these ethical questions. It really doesn't matter.



ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 08:23 AM Post #109
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	apple Nov 19 2012, 04:13 AM ivorythumper Nov 18 2012, 09:53 AM John D'Oh Nov 18 2012, 09:30 AM Well, if I'm ever in this situation, I hope somebody uses a nice soft pillow. I was reading about Israel Sharon, who a doctor claimed was effectively dead, but whose son claims is responsive after 6 years in a coma. To be honest, I hope for Sharon's sake that it's the doctor who is right. The thought of being stuck in a body that can't communicate for 6 solid years and being conscious strikes me as absolutely horrific. we have a lot of people who have awoken from long term comas -- perhaps you should ask them if they'd rather be dead if you're really interested in statistical predictions. If one believes in heaven there is no reason to want to be alive on earth. Why not just enjoy the elation of heavenly euphoria without the expense of food and shelter? I guess that is why I am not so wrapped up with the idea of dying.. (unless I am destined for hell ) There are all sorts of reasons that if one believes in Heaven one should still take full advantage of life on earth while we are given our earthly existence. Chiefly, is the idea that while on earth we can glorify God by our lives -- after death we no longer can glorify God, he glorifies us. So we do this by praise, by worship, by loving others, by acquiring virtue, by sacrifice, and by offering our present suffering in conjunction with the sufferings of Christ. This is the way of sainthood. No doubt it is folly to the unbeliever, but it is how the Christian makes sense of suffering and how God uses suffering for his plans and purposes, which is our salvation and that of the whole world. I'm not worried about you, meam malum -- you are an amazingly loving Christian who has borne nobly immense suffering. I doubt that can come from anywhere but a deep and profound faith in Christ, the merits of your baptism and the continued work of the Holy Spirit in your life. As dark as your struggle has been, I see the light of Christ burning brightly in you. Pray for a poor sinner like Ivorythumper.
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 08:24 AM Post #110
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	Renauda Nov 19 2012, 06:54 AM ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 01:41 AM It really doesn't matter that many people think "brain dead is dead" when it is a utilitarian construct. I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is obvious that the reason it is accepted in many countries is the basically utilitarian world view of modern governance and a legal postivistic jurisprudence. All the more reason to be utilitarian in these ethical questions. It really doesn't matter. I understand your point of course, but if it really doesn't matter than it doesn't matter. But if it matters, then it only really matters according to my world view, not yours. Right?
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


Klaus	Nov 19 2012, 08:46 AM Post #111
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 19,403 Group: Members Member #350 Joined: May 21, 2006	ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 08:24 AM I understand your point of course, but if it really doesn't matter than it doesn't matter. But if it matters, then it only really matters according to my world view, not yours. Right? It doesn't matter
	Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman


Axtremus	Nov 19 2012, 08:51 AM Post #112
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 35,700 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: April 18, 2005	ivorythumper So we do this by praise, by worship, by loving others, by acquiring virtue, by sacrifice, and by offering our present suffering in conjunction with the sufferings of Christ. Is there scriptural support within the Judeo-Christian tradition that suggests that all the above can no longer be done after one departs from the earth and enters the heaven? Just curious.



Renauda	Nov 19 2012, 08:57 AM Post #113
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 10,507 Group: Members Member #505 Joined: September 5, 2007	ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 08:24 AM Renauda Nov 19 2012, 06:54 AM ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 01:41 AM It really doesn't matter that many people think "brain dead is dead" when it is a utilitarian construct. I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is obvious that the reason it is accepted in many countries is the basically utilitarian world view of modern governance and a legal postivistic jurisprudence. All the more reason to be utilitarian in these ethical questions. It really doesn't matter. I understand your point of course, but if it really doesn't matter than it doesn't matter. But if it matters, then it only really matters according to my world view, not yours. Right? All the same you've at last convinced me once and for all that the utilitarian ethic and legal positivist jurisprudence is the way to deal with life's moral dilemmas. Although it doesn't matter, thank you.



ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 09:10 AM Post #114
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	Klaus Nov 19 2012, 04:49 AM ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 01:41 AM Klaus Nov 19 2012, 12:49 AM I wonder what the relatives of somebody who donated his organs would say if the receiver would say that. You claim to be a defender of humanity, yet you are sometimes grossly inhuman. Good grief, how is that inhuman? Do you think I would ever say that to the face of someone's family who donated the organ? Once again you jump to all sorts of bizarre judgments, Klaus. OK, so you'd take the organ and lie to the family about what you really think. Nice! Cheap rhetorical gamesmanship, Klaus. Show me where I ever said I wouldn't be truly grateful and wouldn't express that if possible. You insisted "you should consider this a kind of assisted suicide and be totally against it!" I simply said that was their business. I don't believe in micromanaging other people's moral decisions. But here in this exchange it is plainly obvious that you do think you can micromanage other people morally, or you would not be trying to chide me. This just again shows the opportunistic inconsistency of your view, Klaus -- the supposedly tolerant liberal who winds up being the most judgmental of others. Try mercy and compassion and empathy for a change -- you know, all that stuff you preach but don't practice.... Quote: Quote: Quote: Somewhat more seriously, the only self judgment I demand of yours is consistency. I am just observing that you make extreme ethical claims on one hand, but - knowing that you'd be considered a weirdo otherwise - you don't go through with it. I assume that at least 95% of adults in the Western world would agree to "brain dead = dead" - otherwise it wouldn't be the indisputed de facto definitions in many countries. If you have such a large majority against you, it certainly doesn't necessarily mean that you are "wrong" (whatever that means when it comes to ethics), but it should at least make you reconsider your point of view. There is nothing inconsistent about my position. You may think it extreme --indeed moral obligation and human life accorded from the extremes of conception to natural death is extreme. But the principle is solid. It really doesn't matter that many people think "brain dead is dead" when it is a utilitarian construct. I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is obvious that the reason it is accepted in many countries is the basically utilitarian world view of modern governance and a legal postivistic jurisprudence. That is hardly an intellectual challenge. The definition of death has nothing to do with positivism or utilitarism. I understand that you like to rant about utilitarism, but here it is not applicable at all. You could argue that donating organs or saving money by "turning off the devices" is good from the perspective of utilitarism, but that's not at all what motivates my (and presumably many other's) definition of death. Also, positivism seems to be a completely orthogonal concept. In fact, I for one do not consider myself an ethical positivist. Legal positivism, Klaus. It is obvious that they define lawful death apart from natural death. That is about as clear a case of legal positivistic jurisprudence as one can imagine. So yes, it has everything to do with it -- death becomes defined unnaturally -- and it is utilitarian in that we see a living body and legally declare it dead, and for the purposes of either harvesting the parts, or to free up a hospital bed, or to save money, or to seek to avoid pain both for the family and supposedly for the patient. Mercy killing is a classical utilitarian position. Quote: Quote: I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is interesting to see how you manage to decompose the world into labels (such as "utilitarian"). The reason why one should reconsider one's conception of something if a large majority of others disagree with it is that there is a high likelihood that one is wrong and that the others have a point. It is arrogant to think that one belongs to a small minority of humans with a sound ethical system. There is virtually no likelihood that one is wrong if one understands the flaw in the position of the others who disagree with him. That's not arrogance, that's reason. But tell me again why on that basis you just don't become a Christian since there are over a billion with that ethical system? Or adopt natural law as your ethic since among atheists, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Christians, pagans and secularists there are and have been billions of people who essentially have followed it and continue to this day? Why does everyone need to reconsider their perspective, yet you don't? Tell me more about the consistency of your position, Klaus. Quote: Quote: Try for a change to argue against my principles and my assertions. Show me why there is NO difference between a body that has no vital functions to process nutrients, hydration or oxygen (my definition of death) and one that can do this but is whatever "brain dead" means for you when it can do these things. The fact that we have two different types of things (known as different types by their difference in operation) means that it is just sloppy thinking to call them both "dead" in the same sense of the word. And if death means no longer animate, return to room temperature, begin to decompose, and all the other things that dead bodies really do, then your definition of death is insufficient. Of course there is a difference, otherwise we wouldn't argue about it In common language use, the two notions of death we discuss are often not clearly differentiated, but in principle there should be separate words for it, say, "dead A" vs "dead B". I can tell you exactly why I consider a brain-dead person to be dead: Because the brain is what constitutes all higher behavior of a human, that what we call the "identity" of that person. The rest of the human has no more significance than a plant [larry]except for tits[/larry]. You, on the other hand, have picked some rather arbitrary body functions in your definition. Why food, or oxygen? Why not, say, the ability to smell? Also, as Moonbat already pointed out, it is easily conceivable that people who are dead according to your definition might still be able to talk to you. If you want to accuse somebody of sloppy thinking, consider a mirror! There is nothing arbitrary about my position -- humans that no longer can process the three things I mentioned cannot (or soon and irrevocably will not) be able to smell. Nor can they talk to you. Moonbat's claim is not easily conceivable, since once the body can no longer process anything there is no possibility for speech or thought. Speech requires voluntary moving parts, which is lacking in bodies than cannot oxygenate the cells in those muscles. Did you really not think through this? But again, I have to ask you why this quibble? Are you also looking for the supposedly ethical point at which you can treat a human being like a mere thing for some other purpose or good? How again is that not utilitarian? And why don't you answer why is it that we don't cremate a self breathing patient in PVS. Surely if you have a consistent, coherent and cogent position, that should be readily answerable. Why do you avoid it? Quote: It is likely that we will some day be able to keep a brain alive in-vitro. Why don't you spare as the embarrassment of having to correct your ethical narrative when its failure has become blatantly obvious by reconsidering it now, when you'd probably still get away with a few frowns only And this is supposed to be an intellectual challenge to my position? Good grief, Klaus. How exactly does this brain work if the cells cannot process glucose and ketones, let alone oxygenate? You should be more concerned about sparing yourself the embarrassment of announcing to us all that you can't even follow an argument.
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 09:17 AM Post #115
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	Axtremus Nov 19 2012, 08:51 AM ivorythumper So we do this by praise, by worship, by loving others, by acquiring virtue, by sacrifice, and by offering our present suffering in conjunction with the sufferings of Christ. Is there scriptural support within the Judeo-Christian tradition that suggests that all the above can no longer be done after one departs from the earth and enters the heaven? Just curious. There is the idea that the saints praise God in eternity -- what that means is veiled in apocalyptic language -- as if we all stand around a throne for ever shouting out "Glory". This is a poetic description at best - in heaven regardless of physicality (what we call "the glorified body"), there is no more chronos, it is all kairos (sacred time). It is more that we enter into love and are enveloped in pure ecstasy. Good beer and great sex is a pale and insufficient attempt to think about this though.
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


sue	Nov 19 2012, 09:18 AM Post #116
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 25,250 Group: Members Member #261 Joined: September 15, 2005	ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 01:07 AM Probably more self judgment than I demand of others -- in most of these conversations I would just settle for internal consistency in others. How about you? Far more self judgment. I'm the only one responsible for me, so I need to focus on that. As far as internal consistency in others, I am much happier seeing some willingness to change, some clear signs of empathy. I thank you for answering my question.



ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 09:22 AM Post #117
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	Renauda Nov 19 2012, 08:57 AM ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 08:24 AM Renauda Nov 19 2012, 06:54 AM ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 01:41 AM It really doesn't matter that many people think "brain dead is dead" when it is a utilitarian construct. I am no utilitarian and so I have no need to abandon anything or reconsider anything according to some deficient view of ethics. It is obvious that the reason it is accepted in many countries is the basically utilitarian world view of modern governance and a legal postivistic jurisprudence. All the more reason to be utilitarian in these ethical questions. It really doesn't matter. I understand your point of course, but if it really doesn't matter than it doesn't matter. But if it matters, then it only really matters according to my world view, not yours. Right? All the same you've at last convinced me once and for all that the utilitarian ethic and legal positivist jurisprudence is the way to deal with life's moral dilemmas. Although it doesn't matter, thank you. I doubt I had any part in convincing you of something you've been moving toward for a long time and regularly argued here.
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


Renauda	Nov 19 2012, 09:25 AM Post #118
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 10,507 Group: Members Member #505 Joined: September 5, 2007	I have to hand it you, you're one helluva promoter and salesman.



ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 09:39 AM Post #119
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	What I don't understand is why those who think utilitarianism is the best ethic are so willing to give up their liberties and self determination to the calculations of some governmental policy wonk. Every utilitarian policy calculation involves harming or limiting someone to achieve what is claimed to be a greater good for the collective. Is it that you never think that you'll be on the wrong end of the equation? Do you really think that these civil servants are all angels and perfect moral and rational beings, and incapable of being corrupted or making mistakes that actually harm you? And you've given up the only safeguard, which is an objective appeal to human dignity of the individual. It seems you are more than willing to reduce yourself to the state of a slave, a mere economic unit in the machine of the government. I don't get that at all.
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


Renauda	Nov 19 2012, 09:41 AM Post #120
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 10,507 Group: Members Member #505 Joined: September 5, 2007	Apparently so.



Moonbat	Nov 19 2012, 10:07 AM Post #121
Pisa-Carp Posts: 5,901 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: April 23, 2005	Quote: Quote: It is likely that we will some day be able to keep a brain alive in-vitro. And this is supposed to be an intellectual challenge to my position? Good grief, Klaus. It refutes your position. That is why when I've raised such notions in the past you've demanded to be allowed to avoid thinking about such things, on the somewhat confused grounds that they haven't happened yet.
	Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem


Axtremus	Nov 19 2012, 10:14 AM Post #122
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 35,700 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: April 18, 2005	ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 09:17 AM Axtremus Nov 19 2012, 08:51 AM ivorythumper So we do this by praise, by worship, by loving others, by acquiring virtue, by sacrifice, and by offering our present suffering in conjunction with the sufferings of Christ. Is there scriptural support within the Judeo-Christian tradition that suggests that all the above can no longer be done after one departs from the earth and enters the heaven? Just curious. There is the idea that the saints praise God in eternity -- what that means is veiled in apocalyptic language -- as if we all stand around a throne for ever shouting out "Glory". This is a poetic description at best - in heaven regardless of physicality (what we call "the glorified body"), there is no more chronos, it is all kairos (sacred time). It is more that we enter into love and are enveloped in pure ecstasy. Good beer and great sex is a pale and insufficient attempt to think about this though. Thanks for the explanation. (Again, staying within the confines of Judeo-Christian tradition.) If, instead of entering heaven, one goes to hell instead. In hell, would there be "chronos" or "kairos"? Would one be able to praise, worship, love, acquire virtue, offer suffering in conjunction with the suffering of Christ in hell?



ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 10:25 AM Post #123
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	Moonbat Nov 19 2012, 10:07 AM Quote: Quote: It is likely that we will some day be able to keep a brain alive in-vitro. And this is supposed to be an intellectual challenge to my position? Good grief, Klaus. It refutes your position. That is why when I've raised such notions in the past you've demanded to be allowed to avoid thinking about such things, on the somewhat confused grounds that they haven't happened yet. Not at all. It just shows that the argument doesn't consider the terms of my position. You even had to elide and ignore the part where I explained this to hold on to your position. Try again.
	The dogma lives loudly within me.


Moonbat	Nov 19 2012, 10:36 AM Post #124
Pisa-Carp Posts: 5,901 Group: Members Member #125 Joined: April 23, 2005	Ok, perhaps I've misunderstood. Considering advanced medical technology that allows us to keep arbitrary pieces of tissue alive, can you answer these 4 questions: Someone gets their arm cut off and the arm is attached to a machine that pumps in oxygenated blood, regulates homeostasis, glucose levels etc. such that the arm stays alive. 1) In this instance do we have two human beings or one human being? If the arm is then disconnected and 'dies' (though the rest of the chap is sitting there chatting about how much life without an arm sucks) has a human being died? 2) Now suppose the arm is kept connected and 'alive' but the chap suddenly stops chatting to you and has a massive heart attack, doctors call time of death, and he's buried. Has a human being died? Ok, suppose now we swap the arm for the brain. The chap has his brain removed from his body and attached to a machine that keeps the brain tissue alive, it also translate the nerve impulses that were headed down his spinal chord to muscles in legs and arms and voice boxes into the actions of a digital avatar on a screen and it translates signals from cameras and microphones and pressure sensors in the room to nerve impulses that would have come from his eyes and skin and ears into his brain, in this way he can see and hear you and you can see and hear him. His body is attached to a respirator and is otherwise motionless. 3) Do we have two human beings or one human being? So now if the body has the heart attack again is declared clinically 'dead' and is buried, but this time it has no effect on brain function and through his digital avatar he continues to chat about how interesting it is to be a disembodied brain and how if he wishes he can switch his input signals from the cameras that let him see you to virtual cameras that let him see a virtual world but he complains that the the virtual sky he sees above him doesn't quite do justice to the real one that he remembers. So in this instance has a human being died? And the final case: Suppose the body doesn't have the heart attack but instead someone knocks into the jar with the chap's brain smashing it onto the floor, his avatar instantly ceases talking and moving, all brain activity ceases, his brain cells die and nothing is ever heard from him again. 4) Has a human being died?
	Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem


ivorythumper	Nov 19 2012, 10:38 AM Post #125
I am so adjective that I verb nouns! Posts: 50,666 Group: Members Member #164 Joined: April 24, 2005	Axtremus Nov 19 2012, 10:14 AM ivorythumper Nov 19 2012, 09:17 AM Axtremus Nov 19 2012, 08:51 AM ivorythumper So we do this by praise, by worship, by loving others, by acquiring virtue, by sacrifice, and by offering our present suffering in conjunction with the sufferings of Christ. Is there scriptural support within the Judeo-Christian tradition that suggests that all the above can no longer be done after one departs from the earth and enters the heaven? Just curious. There is the idea that the saints praise God in eternity -- what that means is veiled in apocalyptic language -- as if we all stand around a throne for ever shouting out "Glory". This is a poetic description at best - in heaven regardless of physicality (what we call "the glorified body"), there is no more chronos, it is all kairos (sacred time). It is more that we enter into love and are enveloped in pure ecstasy. Good beer and great sex is a pale and insufficient attempt to think about this though. Thanks for the explanation. (Again, staying within the confines of Judeo-Christian tradition.) If, instead of entering heaven, one goes to hell instead. In hell, would there be "chronos" or "kairos"? Would one be able to praise, worship, love, acquire virtue, offer suffering in conjunction with the suffering of Christ in hell? Hell is the complete absence of God, who reveals himself as relationship and love. Love is relationship (Heaven is thus perfect relationship in eternal union with source of all Being). Hell is said to be complete isolation -- the complete opposite of knowing others and completely dwelling on oneself and one's lack of love and relationship that brought about the alienation. No redemption, no possibility for love because one has already made that decision to love self (isolation) rather than God and others (relationship). The radicalness of this state is one reason that the Church does not positively claim that anyone is actually is Hell, since few people are ever so entirely bereft of love and benevolent relationship that there is no operation of grace or God's love in their life. CS Lewis has an interesting passage in one of his books where the souls moving to hell are more and more atomic, more and more isolated, ever decreasing; whereas the saints in heaven are ever more growing in love and relationship, getting bigger and more luminous throughout eternity. Its all metaphor for something that defies analytical language, but I think its a very good metaphor.
	The dogma lives loudly within me.

Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
4
5
6
7