 |
Comments |
|
 | Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 9:47:54 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Mike
E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net
He's a more persistent man than I. I love life and savor its every morsel, but if I ever became debilitated to the point where I couldn't go to the bathroom on my own, for example, that would be it for me. The only question would be exactly how to end it all. If possible, I'd like to volunteer to carry a bomb across enemy lines and make sure I took a few of the baddies with me on my way out, as my final gift to family, friends, and country. If no such opportunity existed, perhaps just skydive sans parachute and enjoy the beauty of one last glorious view. |
|
| Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 12:39:54 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: John Venlet
E-mail: john_venlet(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.improvedclinch.com
Hi, Diana.
"Of course, many Christians do not live by such dark principles. They are kind, decent people, loathe to see anyone suffering from such a tragic condition. They might even support stem-cell research, and even assisted suicide. To that extent, their values are more American -- loving science, seeking happiness, and upholding individual rights -- than Christian."
I'm pleased you ended your post on this subject with the above thoughts. Those Christian individuals who do live, as you say, "by such dark principles" are, I think, in the extreme fundamentalist minority. It is important to recognize this fact, as any arguments one may offer against religion loses its effectiveness when shotgunned, rather than rifled. I state this from my personal experiences within the evangelical, though extremely conservative, Dutch Christian Reformed church.
I would offer the same caution to Dr. Peikoff, rephrasing his statement just slightly, rifling it, changing the words "or religion" to dogmatic religion.
Thanks for posting on this.
John Venlet |
|
| Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 12:49:16 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
John -- Dr. Peikoff is right. Ultimately, people must choose between religion and America. The squishy middle will not be able to stop the fundamentalists: despite some sense of life differences, they agree on fundamentals. The "American" Christians can only abet the theocratic Christians, even if they dislike them.
It's either-or -- just as in _Atlas Shrugged_. You can't have America and Christianity too -- meaning, you can't have a rational, egoistic, worldly culture and a rights-respecting government with a dominant ideology of mysticism, faith, sacrifice, and submission to God. |
|
| Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 19:55:15 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Thomas Shoebotham
E-mail: tbshoe25(at)yahoo.com
Just remember that this:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1957079,00.html
is regarded as the ideal in Christianity. All the self-inflicted suffering is regarded by Christians as something to be admired, and speeding his path to sainthood. |
|
| Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 22:57:58 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Ryan M
Wow, here's a particularly interesting quote from the end of that article:
"Other eye-opening details of the new book include the fact that in 1981 John Paul forgave his would-be assassin as he was rushed to the hospital after being shot in St. Peter's Square. At first, he believed the gunman had been a member of the left-wing Italian terrorist organization the Red Brigades. (He was in fact a Turkish nationalist named Mehmet Ali Agca, who last week was released from prison.) Also, beyond the self-flagellation, John Paul sought to move closer to God by sleeping on the hard floor of his papal bedroom. The physical suffering he inflicted on himself may in fact help propel him to sainthood faster than anyone before him." |
|
| Friday, January 29, 2010 at 8:27:55 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)gmail.com
All I know about Tony Judt is that he spent his whole academic career arguing that Israel has no right to exist. He also blames Israel for all of the Mid East conflicts (including the ones where Israel magically hypnotized various Arab countries into invading her -- crafty Jews!). I don't wish disease, deformity, or death on the ideological enemies of civilization; that would grant them too much importance in my life. But I will also won't pity them, either.
Oh -- someone said they'd like to be sent with a bomb into enemy territory if they ended up like Judt. That sounds good to me! Give me an explosive vest and wheel me into Hamas headquarters. Sweet. |
|
| Friday, January 29, 2010 at 9:41:31 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Mike
E-mail: michaelbahr(at)cox.net
@ Don -
That was me. I basically refer to that in the abstract -- i.e. let's say it was wartime (as it currently is, though nobody wants to admit it) and I found out I was terminally ill. I would volunteer for an ultra-high-risk mission where there is a good chance of success if the agent doesn't expect to have to make it back out. Carrying a bomb into an enemy hideout is one good example. The terrorists have found it an effective means, but they're letting perfectly healthy young people self-immolate on the promise of an imaginary afterlife. That twisting of principles negates any good that might come of the act. |
|
| Friday, January 29, 2010 at 16:43:42 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
Wow -- this is an incredible distortion of Christianity! Attacking a fictionalized Christianity hurts your position. |
|
| Friday, January 29, 2010 at 17:51:23 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: O'newbie
Jean,
What's the real Christianity? Enlighten us. |
|
| Friday, January 29, 2010 at 19:11:33 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
O'Newbie,
These are the distortions I referenced:
"Christianity regards suffering like that of Mr. Judt as not merely noble and elevated, but positively divine."
Ummmm, no it doesn't. Here's what the catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Illness and suffering have always been among the gravest problems confronted in human life." Well, clearly the Catholic Church (which makes up the biggest group of Christians in the world) regards sufering as a grave problem, not "noble and elevated". From pope John Paul ll: "It can be said that man suffers whenever he experiences any kind of evil." Again, that hardly expresses the view that suffering is noble or elevated!
"It's not good to live fully, happily, robustly according to Christianity: it's good to suffer and die."
That's not true. From the Catholic catchism (from St. Augustine): "We all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated." Since illness and suffering are seen as problems (the lack of a good, ie health), the assertion is incorrect.
"They might even support stem-cell research". Christians do support most stem cell research -- but simply not embryonic stem-cell research. Since most (all?) of the the successful research has been through adult stem-cell research or cord blood, this would hardly seem to be "anti-science". Though embryonic stem cells have been purported as holding great medical promise, reports of actual clinical success have been few. Instead, scientists conducting research on embryonic stem cells have encountered significant obstaclesâ€"including tumor formation, unstable gene expression, and an inability to stimulate the cells to form the desired type of tissue. I don't think a person needs to be a Christian to have objections to embryonic stem-cell research. From the catechism of the Catholic Church: "Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits."
"To that extent, their values are more American -- loving science, seeking happiness, and upholding individual rights -- than Christian".
Another distortion -- the list of Christian scientists is quite long throughout history. As for happiness: "Happiness is called man's supreme good, because it is the attainment or enjoyment of the supreme good." -- Summa Theologica
As for individual rights: from Rerum Novarum (pope Leo Xlll): "Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."
From the catechism of the Catholic Church "Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality."
Though my sources listed above are largely Catholic, the Orthodox Churches would subscribe to the same view. Those two groups, then, constitute the vast majority of the world's Christians. So, most Christians don't hold the views that are being attributed to it. |
|
| Friday, January 29, 2010 at 21:18:49 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: O'newbie
Jean,
Your answers are unsatisfactory because they all have escape hatches. All the supposed arguments you have given in favor of the Christian defense of "self-love" and "happiness" depend on how Christianity defines and views those terms. I don't have time to go into it here, but a full, *contextual* understanding of Christianity from its metaphysics on down - and with all the life-hating quotes you need from the mouth of Christ himself - shows that Christianity destroys the very possibility of happiness and self-love.
I highly recommend the book "The Mind of the Bible Believer" by Edmund D. Cohen. This book can be difficult and Cohen is something of a Kantian, but it still is the best expose of the real anti-life view of New Testament Christianity that I have read. Cohen uses the term "logocide" to refer to the Christian destruction of language. So, when Christians (and the New Testament in particular) refer to such terms as "love", "life", "happiness", "justice", "honor", and many others they are actually destroying totally the meaning and context of these words. They rip from the context that they have meaning and apply them in the Christian context of life after death or "eternal life in Christ" or other such nonsense. This is the total destruction of language.
If Christianity stood for happiness then when Christianity had total power over Europe it should have been a time of unimaginable happiness. However that time is known as the "Dark Ages" which was anything but happy. |
|
| Friday, January 29, 2010 at 22:18:32 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
O'Newbie,
I'm past my bedtime, and won't be able to respond in detail until tomorrow afternoon or Sunday, but I did want to address your final item.
"If Christianity stood for happiness then when Christianity had total power over Europe it should have been a time of unimaginable happiness. However that time is known as the "Dark Ages" which was anything but happy."
The term "Dark Ages" was coined by a Christian writer, Petratch, and it referred to cultural achievements, not the happiness of the population. You simply have no evidence for any claim of the state of happiness of those living then. Certainly they were in a period of social decline following the fall of the Roman Empire, but humans have the capacity to be happy despite external difficulties.
The expanded period of time often thought of as the Dark Ages (from fall of Roman Empire to Reformation -- or at least Renaissance) was promulgated by the Reformers, who obviously desired to see themselves as bringers of light. However, most modern historians no longer hold to this time frame, given the achievements of the Medieval period (Dante, Aquinas, Robert Grosseteste, Albertus Magnus, John Philoponus, Roger Bacon, Chaucer.....). |
|
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 8:42:48 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Ah yes, Catholicism is a religion of happiness here on earth! Now ... the only question is how to explain away those pesky revelations that Pope John Paul II flagellated himself to feel closer to God:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100126/wl_nm/us_vatican_johnpaul
http://www.slate.com/id/2242715/
Of course, he was a mere dilettante in the art of self-destruction and self-hatred compared to the medieval Catholic saints like St. Francis of Assisi. When the Catholic Church comes to regard those saints as twisted, degraded, vicious people rather than blessed moral ideals, then I'll consider whether the Catholic Church might value life on earth.
I could multiply examples, but I just don't see the point. |
|
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 10:10:47 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
It should be noted that every one of the people Jean mentions lived sometime after 1200 AD (if I am not mistaken).
Modern historians consider 500-800AD the dark Ages, and consider 1000-1300 the "high middle ages" after which things start shading into the renaissance then the enlightenment. But Jean convicts her own argument here--the people she is referring to were among those who started the process of *ending* the Age of Faith and ushering in reason as its replacement. The real dispute is over the *date* the process happened, and that argument will continue forever because some people insist that they must be able to draw a line: "Before this date was the middle ages and no one used reason and religion ruled the roost and there was no progress, after this date was the renaissance and everyone used reason and it ruled the roost and progress was rapid." Whatever line is chosen someone will come along and say "the middle ages weren't a total loss, look someone invented X at such and such time, and someone else did Y and... etc."
(I'll have to say I disregard absolutist statements that absolutely *no* progress happened in such-and-such timespan such as "the middle ages" [whatever the hell that phrase might mean to the speaker]--though there may well have been counteracting greater losses. I might possibly consider Western Europe 500-800 AD to be an exception to my blanket condemnation of blanket condemnations though.)
Certainly many if not all of Jean's examples were religious, but the knowledge of the day was inadequate to support completely abandoning that worldview, and many tried to use reason to prop up Christianity--an effort that continues to this day (with sometimes absolutely laughable results). Now, why would that even be necessary if faith were a valid means of cognition? |
|
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 13:24:36 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
Steve, no, not all of the people I mentioned lived after 1200. So much for that claim....I could have added more to the pre-1200 list (why is that your line?), but I thought a few examples were enough to illustrate my point (which was that the expanded time frame given to the Dark Ages in the past was no longer the prevailing view of modern historians).
You are correct: most modern historians consider 500-800 years the "Dark Ages", but I would expand it to include much of the 400s, though obviously the effect of collapse of the Roman Empire did not affect all areas at the same time.
I think you have an incorrect idea of what point I was trying to make. I was addressing the assertion made by O'Newbie that the Dark Ages weren't happy. First, in addressing his argument, I wished to establish the time frame of the Dark Ages so that we were both on the same page; and secondly I wished to point out that the term "Dark Ages" referred to the cultural achievements (or lack of) during that period, not the happiness of the population. O'Newbie offered no evidence for his assertion of unhappiness. I'm not making any assertions that they were happy: I have no evidence to make any assertions at all on the subject. |
|
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 13:44:41 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: O'newbie
Jean,
Your trafficking in non-sequitors and non-essentials. Its irrelevant whether or not people in the Dark Ages were happy or not. Humanity has the ability to smile and jest even during the most brutal of times. The question is does Christianity stand for human happiness objectively defined - does it stand for happiness on this earth?
Good luck proving that it does. |
|
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 13:48:16 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
Diana,
Research has indicated a link (I am not saying a causal relationship, but a correlation) between happiness and religious belief: religious people (observant and engaged religious people, at any rate), in general, are happier.
Whether that makes Catholicism, as you say, "a religion of happiness here on earth", I don't know. I know people who "flagellate" themselves for athletic purpose (I have marathon runners in mind), and I wouldn't offer that as evidence that athletes are unhappy. So the pope flagellating himself may represent a similar dynamic.
I won't pretend to know much about St.Farncis of Assissi (I don't), but I have never gotten the impression that he was known to be morose or depressed. I do know that he gave up material possessions, but I can undertand that that could be quite liberating in some circumstances. |
|
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 14:07:34 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
O'Newbie,
You wrote that I was "trafficking in non-sequitors and non-essentials. Its irrelevant whether or not people in the Dark Ages were happy or not."
You were the one making the claim that the Dark Ages were unhappy, and presumably you made that assertion because you thought it had some relevance. It's an unsupportable assertion, so you might be feeling a little embarrassed to have made it, but don't pin it on me. |
|
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 16:52:49 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: O'newbie
Sound and fury Jean. Answer me this, is Christianity true? If so, how do you know? |
|
| Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 21:34:21 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
"Sound and fury"? You made an unsupported, irrelevant assertion. (Hell, you were the one who brought up the Dark Ages!) I corrected it. You then accuse me of "trafficking in non-sequitors and non-essentials" and now I'm just sound and fury (presumably signifying nothing, if you are aware of the literary allusion). Conversation with you on this or any topic is likely to be unprofitable -- one can't have a reasonable discussion with those who aren't interested in being reasonable. |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 1:26:42 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: O'newbie
Jean,
Is Christianity true? If so, by what means do you know? |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 9:51:12 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
O'Newbie,
So, no apologies? You're just going to ask me questions, and I'm supposed to think you are able to converse reasonably, despite your insults? Well, hope springs eternal.....
In answer to your question, I have "issues", shall we say, with both atheism and Christianity.
I have dismissed Islam altogether, as my personal research into its history suggests that Muhammed merely put together his own hodge-podge of the Judaism and Christianity he came in contact with. Also, there is a degree of arbitariness in the Muslim conception of Allah that is inhospitable to reason -- that is, Allah can contradict himself, because his will is over all.
Some aspects of Christianity (though I will allow not all) have the same problem, though I see it the problem as springing from a different source than Islam. This is especially true of some of the fundamentalist Christian groups.
Buddhism strikes me as a sort of "Star Wars" religion -- may the Force be with you! In its extreme detachment, it reminds me a bit of Stoicism, but with the added negative of all personality being "absorbed", if you will, into a great impersonal force. Why do we have such strongly individual personalities, if only to lose them in some vast nothingness?
The various pagan and Hindu religions, with their multiple gods, don't make sense as their multiplicity rules out the one conception of god that does make sense (as Aquinas puts it).
Atheism seems to have many of the characteristics of religion, which raises some questions. Mostly, though, I have problems with the whole question of the origin of life -- that would take some time to explain, so I won't do it now. Also, there seems to be something self-destructive about it as well (as the death of Europe seems to suggest). |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 13:42:00 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: O'newbie
Jean,
Your answers tell me everything I need to know about you. You are not worth conversing with. |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 16:34:28 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
Your comments tell me a great deal about you and your worldview as well. It is interesting: in my particular search (and it is a search with an end purpose, not an endless dilly-dallying without making a decision) to the answers to these kinds of questions (is there a god; how did life begin; what satisfies the human search for happiness; etc., etc.), I have encountered a range of responses and personalities. These are revealing in and of themselves, apart from the content. I have gone on Christian forums of various kinds, and in general (possibly because they want to make converts)they are kind and polite. (The one exception has been Baptists -- there's something about their outlook on life that leads many of them to write with great emotion, in ALL CAPS, which is the written equivalent of shouting.) Atheists have been a mixed bag. Some atheists (generally the philosophically sloppy ones)tend to be polite, but not always interested in discussing the subject in any depth. Religious atheists, like you, tend to be rude -- which can be a disguise for a lack of ability to engage an argument. Though it might just be that your rudeness is the result of you having a bad day, the evidence suggests that maybe you aren't able to engage reasonably in a discussion.
You answered my post (in which I provided clear examples of texts from the sources one could reasonably regard as authoratative), with unsupported assertions: First, you simply stated that words like "happiness", "love", etc. mean something different for Christians than it does for the rest of us, thereby rendering the quotes I offered meaningless. But, you need to give me clear examples -- saying so don't make it so, laddie. Then you go off to make assertions about the happiness in the Dark Ages, an assertion you have no evidence for. |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 17:20:40 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Sajid
E-mail: sajid1760(at)yahoo.com
@ Jean:
"Though my sources listed above are largely Catholic, the Orthodox Churches would subscribe to the same view. Those two groups, then, constitute the vast majority of the world's Christians. So, most Christians don't hold the views that are being attributed to it."
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Diana's portrayal of Christianity is a gross distortion. How then do you explain the resistance of Christians to euthanasia in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the suffering caused by terminal diseases like cancer? Also, how do you explain the resistance of Christians toward abortion in spite of the fact that child birth can, in certain situations, be detrimental to the health of the mother. Moreover, a child could be diagnosed with a disease like Down's syndrome or just be unwanted it it were a result of rape or a failure in birth control. How is the catholic church valuing life and happiness when it is against terminating human suffering when it comes to euthanasia and abortion? It does not matter what the catholic catechism says. People are judged first by their actions and second by their words. |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 18:08:13 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: O'newbie
Jean,
Just so you can dig a deeper hole for yourself ("religious atheists"[!!] talk about philosophic sloppiness) - Do you believe in the following elements of Christianity:
1.God is a personal God
2.The sinfulness of man
3.The revelation of God in the world
4.The reality of miracles
5.The incarnation and virgin birth
6.The substitutionary atonement of Christ
7.The resurrection of Christ
8.The Great Commission (commissioned by the Christian God)
The only information I am interested in hearing from you is the answer to the question are the above things TRUE? (I have absolutely no interest in reading you attempt to pass off snarkiness as genuine knowledge.) If you answer yes to the above question by what COGNITIVE MEANS did you arrive at your knowledge of god?
I have no interest in any other information from you save the answer to the above question. If you won't or can't answer then save your breath (or internet equivalent). |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 19:40:25 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
Sajid,
I've had this discussion (about euthanasia, that is) recently with a few Christians (including a priest) because a friend of mine recently died of lung cancer. He wasn't a smoker; was in his thirties and was in generally good health; -- and the cancer just spread everywhere. The pain grew as the cancer spread, and so near the end he was on a steady morphine drip. I was told that, despite the kind motives of those who would have advocated killing him, that it is still the act of killing an innocent person. The priest I talked to went on at some length about the "slippery slope" of using "quality of life" as the standard of whether it was OK to kill someone or not. I'm not sure about that -- he gave me some links to articles about the status of euthanasia in the Netherlands, but I haven't read them yet. The "sound bite" from that conversation that stuck with me was "euthanasia doesn't eliminate suffering; it eliminates the sufferer". I will have to chew on that one. I will grant, though, that though one may disagree with his position, it does not come off to me as "anti-life".
As for abortion: medical treatment that the mother needs (say, cancer treatment)that unintentionally kills the baby is not seen as unethical, because the death of the baby isn't the desired end. So, I think Christianity does allow for the life of the mother.
As for bablies born with birth defects like Down's Syndrome -- sorry, but if aborting babies who don't measure up doesn't strike you as creepy, you and I just don't have anything in common. Maybe the horrors of the eugenics movement in the 30s both in this country and in Nazi Germany are just being forgotten. I don't think one needs to be a Christian to find the killing of the unfit to be disquieting at best, disgusting at worst.
Babies conceived by rape -- since when are children killed for the crimes their parents committed? Again -- I don't think you have to be a Christian to have at least some qualms about that.
But, let's be honest -- most of the abortions aren't done for rape or health or birth defects -- most are done as a method of birth control. Since Christians hold that human life starts at conception, of course they would oppose abortion, especially for such a casual reason. You might disagree that human life starts at conception, but that is a question of science, not theology. |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 19:53:10 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
O'Newbie,
Quiet down, young man. No need to get all excited.
The answer to your questions are: "I don't know yet". It should have been clear from what I wrote earlier that I have difficulties with both atheism and Christianity. I'm not at the point where my answers to any of your points would be informed.
One possible exception would be question #2: man seems to be capable of incredibly horrific evil. There isn't anything quite like it in the animal kingdom. That capacity for evil (or "sin", if you want to call it that), doesn't seem to be that refutable.
I referred to you as a "religious atheist" because of your level of passion. You're the equivalent of some whacked-out evangelical who goes around demanding, "IS JESUS CHRIST YOUR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOUR???" and who is ready to consign you to hell if you answer the wrong way. No conversation is possible with the evangelical (or you) because you're not ready to engage in a discussion, you just want to hurl fire and brimstone on those who have the "wrong" ideas. |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 21:18:07 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Sajid
" The "sound bite" from that conversation that stuck with me was "euthanasia doesn't eliminate suffering; it eliminates the sufferer". I will have to chew on that one. I will grant, though, that though one may disagree with his position, it does not come off to me as "anti-life"."
The Objectivist (Ayn Rand's philosophy for living on Earth) position on this issue is that only an individual has the right to his life and only he should have the right to terminate his existence if he sees no purpose in living. Also, "euthanasia doesn't eliminate suffering; it eliminates the sufferer" does not make too much sense. It should read "euthanasia eliminates suffering by allowing the sufferer to terminate his life". In fact euthanasia is defined as eliminating suffering by terminating a life. To suggest otherwise is false. To force a person to go on living even though all he has to gain from life is pain does seem like "anti-life" as, according to Objectivists, humans weren't placed on Earth to pointlessly suffer but for purposeful achievement.
"sorry, but if aborting babies who don't measure up doesn't strike you as creepy, you and I just don't have anything in common."
It absolutely does NOT strike me as creepy. I would go as far as to say if you don't find it sad and terrible that a parent me condemned to raising a kid with Down's Syndrome instead of having a joyous relationship with a healthy child then something is very wrong with your worldview. We indeed do not have very much in common regarding this issue.
"You might disagree that human life starts at conception, but that is a question of science, not theology."
I believe human life begins at birth. This is NOT a question of science but a question of philosophy. Human life can only begin at birth because life as a human being necessarily demands that the life in question be that of an independent entity. A baby in a womb is wholly dependent on the mom for just about everything and has no right to demand anything from the mother.
" The priest I talked to went on at some length about the "slippery slope" of using "quality of life" as the standard of whether it was OK to kill someone or not"
I of course, also have to ask why you consider your priest to have moral authority. Why can't you just make up your own mind on an issue using your own life, or human life, as the standard of your decisions? Why do you have to resort to your priest, the bible or God to help you make decisions regarding any issue? |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 22:56:06 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
Sajid,
It's been years since I read Ayn Rand, so I will trust your exposition of the position on euthanasia. It sounds about what I recall.....in a way, your position is self-contradictory: if the individual alone has the right to end his or her life, then it certainly is not the province for doctors or other individuals to be killing them (especially doctors, as it would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath -- though perhaps they don't take that anymore. It's not suicide in that situation, it's killing, or assisting in the killing, of another individual. Giving someone pain relief (even if it ends up killing them) seems to be a morally preferable position. Taking someone else's life should not be taken lightly.
"according to Objectivists, humans weren't placed on Earth to pointlessly suffer but for purposeful achievement". That's utilitarian -- if a person doesn't "purposefully achieve", are they less human? Less worthy of life?
No, I don't find it "sad and terrible that a parent be condemned to raising a kid with Down's Syndrome instead of having a joyous relationship with a healthy child" -- maybe because I have three friends who have joyous relationship with their mentally disabled children. The thought of any of those kids that I have come to know being regarded as so much garbage -- non-purposeful achievers -- is creepy. I don't have a lot of tolerance for ideas for getting rid of the unfit.
"I believe human life begins at birth. This is NOT a question of science but a question of philosophy. Human life can only begin at birth because life as a human being necessarily demands that the life in question be that of an independent entity. A baby in a womb is wholly dependent on the mom for just about everything and has no right to demand anything from the mother."
That's an arbitray assessment on your part -- merely your opinion -- which is why it ought to be a matter of science. Also, an infant is completely dependent upon its parents, much as a baby in the womb. Only the place and the food delivery system are much different.
"I of course, also have to ask why you consider your priest to have moral authority."
He's not my priest. The question was, why do Christians think a certain way? I gave you the answer that a Christian told me. I can't answer for a Christian.
"Why can't you just make up your own mind on an issue using your own life, or human life, as the standard of your decisions?"
I do. But I like to discuss these matters with all kinds...unlike here, apparently. My approach tends to result in fewer distortions of others' views, which was the reason for my initial post. The study I've done simply didn't support the assertions.
"Why do you have to resort to your priest, the bible or God to help you make decisions regarding any issue?"
Who said I did? I haven't mentioned God or the bible as any reference, and only brought up the priest because I had a conversation with him about euthanasia. He was my late friend's priest, and was at the hospice with him.
Why do you need Ayn Rand to help you make decisions regarding any issue? Let me guess....your favorite architect is Frank Lloyd Wright, and you love Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables". At least, that seems to be the preferences that Rand seems to have passed on to most of the Objectivists I've ever known. You might want to take your own advice, and be less religiously dogmatic. |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 22:57:37 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
Oh, one more thing, O'Newbie --
If you can't be polite, I will not engage in any further conversation. Learn some manners, my dear boy. |
|
| Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 23:32:11 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Sajid
"It sounds about what I recall.....in a way, your position is self-contradictory: if the individual alone has the right to end his or her life, then it certainly is not the province for doctors or other individuals to be killing them (especially doctors, as it would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath -- though perhaps they don't take that anymore. It's not suicide in that situation, it's killing, or assisting in the killing, of another individual. Giving someone pain relief (even if it ends up killing them) seems to be a morally preferable position. Taking someone else's life should not be taken lightly."
My position is not self-contradictory at all. If a man decides to end his own life because he does not want to suffer, I as a doctor can respect his decision and help him end it if I so choose. It is very much assisted suicide or euthanasia. I don't see why giving pain relief is preferable even though the person in question has decided to end his own life. Yes, all such situations are sticky and should be handled with care. It does not mean that euthanasia itself be outlawed.
"That's utilitarian -- if a person doesn't "purposefully achieve", are they less human? Less worthy of life?"
I urge you to look up the definition of utilitarian. The Objectivist view is that purposeful achievement leads to personal happiness and that is why it is recommended. You are free to disagree with the position.
"I don't have a lot of tolerance for ideas for getting rid of the unfit."
And I don't have a lot of tolerance for being forced to raise mentally disabled kids. Once again, I do not believe an embryo is alive or should have human rights.
"That's an arbitray assessment on your part -- merely your opinion -- which is why it ought to be a matter of science"
No it isn't an arbitrary assessment. After a baby is born it becomes an entity on its own. It is NOT dependent on its parents, although it is dependent on another human being to live. A baby inside a woman is actually a part of the woman itself. Thus it makes sense to grant rights to a baby but not to an embryo.
"Who said I did?"
My apologies. I assumed you were a Christian. But if you aren't, what is the underlying basis for your morality. What criterion are you using to determine whether euthanasia or abortion should be considered moral or immoral and legal or illegal?
"Why do you need Ayn Rand to help you make decisions regarding any issue? Let me guess....your favorite architect is Frank Lloyd Wright, and you love Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables"."
I apologized for making undue assumptions about your positions. I think you should do the same for me. I never classified myself as an Objectivist and, moreover, I resent Objectivists being misrepresented as blindly liking whatever Ayn Rand herself liked. |
|
| Monday, February 1, 2010 at 11:49:32 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: O'newbie
Jean,
You failed to answer my questions because you know how you will sound if you do answer them. My questions were designed to assess your cognitive methodology. That is the farthest thing you can get from "hellfire and brimstone" mindlessness. Your entire epistemological framework is a mess. If you had chosen to answer my questions it would become readily apparent.
Personally, I find you a weird bird. You don't believe in Christianity and yet you defend it. To me that puts you on a lower level than the Fundamentalists who actually believe it is true and exhibits a higher degree of corruption.
Good luck to you as you wrestle with the "truths" of Christianity and religion. |
|
| Monday, February 1, 2010 at 16:23:56 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Chris
URL: http://cxlxmxrx.blogspot.com
This is a largely ignorant post.
It reminds me of the point C.S. Lewis made about the ancients knowledge of biology--if they hadn't understood natural laws, they wouldn't have been able to recognize a virgin birth as a miracle.
In like vein, the whole point of Jesus' experience on the cross is the recognition that it IS good to live "fully, happily, robustly." If there was no recognition of sacrifice, the theological meaning of the experience on the cross would be void. In fact, the whole Biblical narrative of Israel and God is a commentary on the attempt to live the good life. Your caricature of Christianity is myopic. Sad.
The pursuit of embryonic stem cell research has less to do with social goals than it is symptomatic of psychological dispositions like impatience. As one of my previous blog posts pointed out, with our current state of understanding, it is absurd to suggest that a specific narrow line of enquiry in research is necessary to make medical progress. The argument that we need embryonic stem cell research NOW to save individual lives is facetious at best since we make social choices all the time that lead away from life-saving measures. Harping on stem cell research but not banging your podium for objectively more effective improvements like having AED's in every public location is just social signaling. Kind of like "loving science"--a political statement largely devoid of meaning. People should "love" the process of hypothesis testing? It's scrumptious like duck confit? Or exciting like a first kiss? Pathetic. |
|
| Monday, February 1, 2010 at 17:30:01 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny(at)pngusa.net
O'Newbie,
"You failed to answer my questions because you know how you will sound if you do answer them."
This is very childish, though it's good for a laugh...But, all humor aside, I shouldn't need to tell you that you don't know what I am thinking. You aren't capable of reading minds. You can only guess at my thoughts and motives, and your assessment of them is highly colored by your over-active emotions, as you have demonstrated over and over in your post. You are overly reactive, which makes you a poor partner in this discussion.
"My questions were designed to assess your cognitive methodology."
And I answered them. (And does using phrases like "cognitive methodology" make you feel really grown up?"
"That is the farthest thing you can get from "hellfire and brimstone" mindlessness."
No, there is a similar kind of mindlessness in your posts, the religious fervor of a zealot wishing to expose the heretic. In your case, the heretic would be anyone who doesn't go along with the frankly silly distortions of Christianity that occasioned my initial post.
"Your entire epistemological framework is a mess. If you had chosen to answer my questions it would become readily apparent."
You don't know what my epistemological framework is. And I did answer your questions -- I just didn't give you the answer you wanted. You were SO wanting me to answer as a Christian, so you could wave your pitchfork in the air, shouting in glee. Like religious nutjobs everywhere, you are so eager to burn heretics at the stake.
"Personally, I find you a weird bird. You don't believe in Christianity and yet you defend it."
That's a very revealing statement. It tells me that you're quite young: you can't conceive an adult discussion in which arguments are made based on reality and not distortions. It's very childish, really, to not understand why someone would not want to see another's position distorted, even if that position is not one's own.
"To me that puts you on a lower level than the Fundamentalists who actually believe it is true and exhibits a higher degree of corruption."
Grow up, sonny boy. You really ought to try thinking for yourself, instead of becoming a mindless repeater of the phrases of others. But then, every religion needs its useful fanatic idiots....
"Good luck to you as you wrestle with the "truths" of Christianity and religion."
There you go putting words into my mouth that I never used. I didn't say "truths". If you could just shed your adolescent excitability, you could wish me luck as I wrestle the questions of atheism and Christianity.
If this typical of how Objectivism debates other worldviews, then Christianity has nothing to fear from atheism.
This is hilarious -- my high school students can handle debate at a much higher level than this. If they handed in a paper that displayed this kind of emotion and irrationality, they'd get an "F" (perhaps you are still in grade school, O'Newbie? If so, what grade are you in?). |
|
| Monday, February 1, 2010 at 21:35:19 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Jean
Sajid,
I'm afraid I don't think further conversation is likely to be enlightening for either of us. We're not on the same page, as frankly there seems to be a strong inclination to use death as an aswer to many problems.
Unborn babies with Down's Syndrome? Kill them. People suffering with various illnesses? Kill them. Quality of life not what you want? Kill yourself. |
|
| Monday, February 1, 2010 at 21:51:23 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: Sajid
Jean,
"We're not on the same page, as frankly there seems to be a strong inclination to use death as an aswer to many problems."
I would state it slightly differently. I would say death can be a correct and moral choice in certain cases. I could say you think fighting and suffering seem to be the solution to every problem instead of making a decision to rationally pursue your own happiness and do what is best for you. Yes we are not on the same page. I understand that you are queasy about using death to solve problems. But I think you are over valuing survival for its own sake and under valuing a purposefully chosen quality of life by an individual. I mean what if a person chooses death over the excruciating suffering during a terminal illness?
In any case, for this discussion to be profitable, you would have to entertain the notion that men do have the right to their own life and women have the right to the content of their own bodies. If you cannot entertain these notions at all (and I would have to ask, why not?) then further discussion will indeed not be profitable to either of us. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 10:39:43 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny3000(at)comcast.net
Sajid, I have no doubt that you would, as you say, state it differently. People can usually come up with rationalizations for their particular preferences, especially if it is sensed that those preferences make other people uneasy or queasy...Oh, I'm sure you're quite compassionate -- no doubt just like those who liked the death option in Holland and pushed for euthanasia there. In 30 years Holland has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for mental illness, from euthanasia for mental illness to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia or as the Dutch prefer to call it "termination of the patient without explicit request". Creepy. You like death, and that's creepy.
The level of debate here is appalling, and though I've only come here for the last few days (because of the Obamacare issue), I've seen enough for this to be my goodbye. The posters here aren't able to debate other positions without distorting them or making unsupported assertions; correcting those distortions and challenging unsupported assertions is taken as a sign that one holds certain heretical views; and invective is apparently considered a legitimate debating method. Those problems on top of the creepy love of death as the Final Solution for life's more difficult problems, and you have just confirmed one of those nagging, pesky problems I've had with atheism, and that is its tendency to be fatal to humans (usually to other humans, but to one's self as well). |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:25:47 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: O'newbie
"I could say you think fighting and suffering seem to be the solution to every problem instead of making a decision to rationally pursue your own happiness and do what is best for you."
I think this gets to the essence of it. Jean is defending a position based on moral intrinsicism. And as a result she condemns Objectivism as "liking death". Once again we see that its "an epistemology thing". Objectivism rejects moral intrinsicism and applies morality contextually. The purpose of morality is to help humans live their lives. When living a healthy life free of excruciating pain is no longer possible, then the voluntary decision to terminate one's life becomes extremely moral. But to an intrinsicist this is an example of atheist "death worship". This is a total inversion of morality. Morality (intrinsic - in this case Christian) becomes an enemy of human life and happiness instead of its agent. But this is precisely the problem with religion and Christianity in particular - it sets morality against man and thus is at *war* with human life and well-being. The pro-theist commenters (Jean and others) have shown this clearly. I guess I should say thanks. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 14:53:17 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: Sajid
"Creepy. You like death, and that's creepy."
For the last time, I do not like death. But I do think that when someone has to choose between mindless, pointless suffering for the rest of their lives, and death, death is a viable option. Also, if someone chooses to donate their resources to charity or science, or give their young children a better chance at living instead of spending their resources on intensive care even though their survival probability is negligible it can be a rational and commendable decision. A very difficult decision that should be made with care, but definitely more thoughtful and commendable than fighting for the sake of fighting.
Please do not associate my position with a Final Solution. I find it really really disturbing that you think there is any sort of parallel between Nazi style eugenics and the Holocaust and Euthanasia. Are you just trying to make sensational arguments?
"The level of debate here is appalling". You know, I could just accept this statement as your personal opinion. But everything you accuse your opponents of--smearing your own position, argumentation by intimidation and making uncalled for assumptions--you are guilty of yourself!!
You know, we don't even have to go into a deep theological discussion here. Diana's position is that Euthanasia in certain cases is moral and illustrated a situation that defended her position. Then she claimed that Christian opposition to this position was due to an irrational regard for suffering for its own sake. I asked you simply and politely, earlier, what your position was on euthanasia and what the justification for it was (besides the words of a Christian priest). I guess I won't be holding my breath. |
|
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 14:57:06 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: Sajid
"In 30 years Holland has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for mental illness, from euthanasia for mental illness to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia or as the Dutch prefer to call it "termination of the patient without explicit request"."
The Objectivist view of such a situation would be that the problem in the above scenario is NOT euthanasia but socialized medicine. The problem there is not that people are dying but that other people are making a life and death situation for you (which is actually murder). Any self-respecting Objectivist would be wholly revulsed by such a situation, but if the government is footing the bills, it will end up making the decisions. I was not aware of this state of affairs in Holland and thank you for pointing this out. It will no doubt serve as ammunition in the battle against socialized healthcare in the USA. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 14:10:32 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: Jean
Sajid,
I will certainly grant that socialized medicine contributes to the problem -- we can agree on that. However, it is not the primary cause: that cause is, essentially, the de-valuing of human life. It happens here: a friend of mine is a spinal surgeon, and he has seen many, many abuses of "do not resuscitate" directives. In a number of cases, nursing homes had made the directives against the patient's family's wishes. He has also seen family members -- family members! -- who are quite happy to get rid of elderly parents who might be costing them money, or dying to slowly to suit their inheritance needs. "Compassionate" euthanasia has provided cover for these murders. He has also seen other doctors refuse care during the crucial 72-hour post-surgery period because of the DNRs, though it would otherwise be seen as ordinary care. At one point, he literally grabbed a chair and sat outside of one of his patient's room so that she would not be killed. (The woman and my friend's family became fast friends afterwards). He has told the Vice President of his hospital, in palin and simple language, that the hospital is killing people quietly (by refusing care), and that he will not participate. This is an example of the sorts of problems that happen when death becomes a legal and attractive option -- it's not all due to socialized medicine.
|
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 16:50:11 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: Sajid
Jean,
"However, it is not the primary cause: that cause is, essentially, the de-valuing of human life."
I do not agree. If euthanasia is legalized, yes, it can be abused. Freedom of speech is abused all the time when people talk just to be annoying or to be obfuscating or to be intimidating instead of reasonable discourse. Freedom to bear arms is violated when people murder. Freedom to take drugs is violated when people abuse drugs. Freedom to live is violated when people whither away their lives. However, freedom is the political cornerstone of a society based on reason and individualism. It is possible that euthanasia and even abortion be abused (and I actually would not have a problem regulating both due to the gravity and potential for abuse of both decisions). A refusal to even consider the legality of either position in spite of how much human suffering can be saved by using both acts correctly is wholly inconsistent with American society as it is organized today and inconsistent with Objectivist principles. Your argument against euthanasia and abortion is just fear of abuse. I am glad you are fearful but in your fear you are ignoring how much suffering can be eliminated by legalizing both. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 21:08:17 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: Jean
Sajid,
Though I appreciate what you're trying to say, the gravity of the matter (life and death) makes this a lot more serious than people being annoying with their speech because they have the freedom to be that way. I would err on the side of protecting life: you would not. What a country decides is legalor illegal says a lot about a country's values, and a willingness to tolerate "abuse" (which in these cases ends up in death) for some odd notion of "freedom" is alarming. Somehow this country managed to survive 200- plus years with euthanasia and abortion being outlawed in most states. |
|
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 21:31:51 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: Sajid
Jean,
What is frustrating to me is that I am trying to understand your point of view but somehow you refuse to see mine--the mindless suffering involved in a terminal illness is pointless and anti-life.
"Somehow this country managed to survive 200- plus years with euthanasia and abortion being outlawed in most states."
Yeah, we countered it by an inordinate amount of morphine. Besides, I wonder how many soldiers in how many countless wars fought throughout history were killed by their own soldiers after suffering a particularly gruesome injury. Would you really rather see a soldier writhing in pain while bleeding profusely from his wounds instead of just killing him, knowing he is about to die? And how about horses and dogs? We repeatedly "put down" horses and dogs if they suffer too much or go lame. Is this because we don't care for them once they become sick? Or is it because we care so much for them that we don't want to see them suffer? After all, if a horse breaks a leg, we could just continue to feed it until it dies of other causes. We could just say it is more noble and Godly for the animal to suffer. But we don't. I know comparing animals and humans can often be an exercise in futility, but sometimes it is indeed insightful.
In any case, I've made my point and you've made yours. I understand your concerns but frankly I cannot understand your stubborn unwillingness to see the legitimacy or humanity of euthanasia in any form whatsoever. |
|
| Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 9:33:58 mst
Comment ID: #46
Name: Jean
Hello Sajid,
In some ways, your response illustrates the problem I have with euthanasia. You mentioned that, in our county's past, terminal illness was dealt with by "inordinate amounts of morphine". What is "inordinate", if the purpose is pain relief? Nothing has really changed: I mean, it's not as if killing people wsn't technologically possible in the past -- it always has been. But yet, when it has come to "mercy killing", it has never been thought worthy of being made legal. You're right, we regularly kill animals to "put them out of their misery". That's nothinh new, either. So tell me: what is different now from the past? Why did our forefathers shun the idea of killing the sick, even though they were perfectly capable of doing so and understood the desirability of doing so in the case of animals?
If anything, our ability to manage pain is better than in the past. If, in the process of trying to eliminate pain, the pain killers kill the patient, at least the intent was NOT to kill th patient!
Nor is death via the removal of hydration and nutrition a painless one.
No, this is a path that I do not think this country should take, We'll end up like Holland -- the problem isn't socialized medicine, it's people's attitudes, financial concerns, and ability to rationalize anything that makes that likely. My spinal surgeon friend's observations confirm this. |
|
| Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 15:19:46 mst
Comment ID: #47
Name: Sajid
"So tell me: what is different now from the past? "
An Objective understanding of human nature is what is different. Early concerns regarding Euthanasia were primarily religous. See this arcticle on the history of euthanasia in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_United_States
Here is the relevant quote:
"Reflecting the religious and racial diversity of the United States, there is a wide range of public opinion about euthanasia and the right-to-die movement in the United States. During the past 30 years, public opinion research shows that views on euthanasia tend to correlate with religious affiliation and race, though not gender."
"Opinion by religious affiliation
In one recent study dealing primarily with Christians, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals and Catholics tended to be opposed to euthanasia. Moderate Protestants, (e.g., Lutherans and Methodists) showed mixed views concerning end of life decisions in general. Both of these groups showed less support than non-affiliates, but were less opposed to it than conservative Protestants. Respondents that did not affiliate with a religion were found to support euthanasia more than those who did. The liberal Protestants (including some Presbyterians and Episcopalians) were the most supportive. In general, liberal Protestants affiliate more loosely with religious institutions and their views were similar to those of non-affiliates. Within all groups, religiosity (i.e., self-evaluation and frequency of church attendance) also correlated to opinions on euthanasia. Individuals who attended church regularly and more frequently and considered themselves more religious were found to be more opposed to euthanasia than to those who had a lower level of religiosity.[7]"
The primary opposition to Euthanasia in America is religious. It is secular free thinkers who challenge existing doctrine and then their conclusions are adopted by the rest of society. Euthanasia is but one instance of this phenomenon.
Here is what a Catholic has to say on the issue:
".We do not have a "right to die." Many people now speak of such a thing, but without the proper understanding of the terminology they use.
A "right" is a moral claim. We do not have a claim on death. Rather, death has a claim on us!
We do not decide when our life will end, any more than we decided when it began. Much less does someone else -- a relative, a doctor, or a legislator--decide when our life will end. None of us is master over life and death.
What we do have a right to is proper care. It is never "care" in any sense of the word, to terminate life, even if that life is full of suffering. We have no right to terminate life."
http://www.priestsforlife.org/euthanasia/euthrefl.html
As you can see clearly, since catholics believe life is a God given phenomenon and not a natural phenomenon, man has no right over life. He should just accept what God gave him. This is wholly counter to a modern understanding of human nature and the Objectivist ethics.
Also from the wikipedia article:
"A 2002 Gallup survey showed that 72% of Americans supported euthanasia"
It seems Americans are shunning the outdated Christian view and accepting the modern view of life which is also the Objectivist view. So much for Objectivism always being relegated to the fringes of society huh? |
|
| Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 18:50:54 mst
Comment ID: #48
Name: Jean
Sajid,
More Americans may be in support of euthanasia, but that doesn't, in and of itself, make it right. I would agree that it is linked with the increased secularization of society, but I do not agree that it reflects a more Objectivist tone. Instead, I would posit that the shift represents a rise in relativism: people are more and more concerned about "tolerance" than they are about maintaining certain values, and more and more uncomfortable with any claim to objective truth. Our society is not more compassionate than it was before; it simply is used to tolerationg more evil.
We will not find common ground on this subject. |
|
| Friday, February 5, 2010 at 21:39:54 mst
Comment ID: #49
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
A few weeks ago, our older cat's kidneys stopped working. She was 18 years old, had recovered fully from breast cancer through surgery and chemo, and had later been diagnoses with stomach cancer and given an estimated lifespan in months . . . three years before. She stopped eating and started losing weight; I made a vet appointment; and the night before I took her in, she started repeatedly drinking a lot and then immediately urinating (on the bathroom tile, which is why we knew it was repeated). The vets diagnosed her and told us that we might be able to prolong her life by hydrating her; I asked them to do it, so we could bring her home and observe her . . . and only hours after we had her home, we called back and made the appointment to have her euthanized. I don't want to go into details; let's just say that she was debilitated, uncomfortable, and rapidly losing body weight.
We both cried buckets as she died . . . but I hadn't a moment's doubt that it was the right thing to do for her. Nothing we could do would actually give her LIFE; all we could do was prolong her dying, and the suffering that went with it. Instead, we let her go, and she was still able to lift her head at the last, and respond when we petted her the last time. And I say that euthanizing her was an act of love, and that we never felt our love for her more, or acted on it with more integrity, than in those last moments.
Of course, a human being's death is different. A cat isn't a conceptual being, doesn't understand that it's mortal, and doesn't fear the shortening of its life; it only know its present suffering, and so ending that is an unmixed good. But I think it can be good for a human being, too, if continued existence is no more than a burden and a torment; because that makes the prospect of longer life not a good but a bad. There are circumstances under which I would choose to end my life; and I wish it were legal for my girlfriend to have that done for me, or I for her, if we are in those circumstances and helpless to end our own lives.
I don't think changing attitudes on this are a product of relativism. When I was a child in the 1950s, medicine was not far past being helpless to prolong the lives of the old and chronically ill; doctors still acted on the assumption that saving life was always a good thing, and families still expected them to. But now an entire generation has seen what that prolongation of life can mean, and has said, "Not for me."
Of course there need to be legal safeguards on this decision. But sometimes it's the right one to make. |
|
| Friday, February 5, 2010 at 23:31:26 mst
Comment ID: #50
Name: O'newbie
"I don't think changing attitudes on this are a product of relativism."
Neither do I. Jean's argument is one which Christians and religious Conservatives make constantly: secularism/atheism = relativism. That's what needs to be challenged. |
|
| Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 0:18:58 mst
Comment ID: #51
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
O'newbie:
Actually, I would challenge a different point: The misuse of the concept of relativism. If relativism is properly understood, Objectivism is a relativistic philosophy.
Einstein's theory is called "the theory of relativity" in English. But Einstein did not say that physical quantities were subjective, or arbitrary, or conventional. He said that for a given person in a given reference frame, there was a correctly measured value for each physical quantity; that for a different person in a different reference frame, there could be a different correctly measured value; but that there were objectively valid procedures for determining the quantity that the second would measure, given the quantity that the first would measure and the relationship between them. And he went on to show that, starting from your measurements of those quantities, you could determine certain other quantities which were objectively true for everyone in every reference frame, which he called invariants. In fact, in German, his theory was initially called the Invariententheorie.
Rand says that value must be value TO someone and FOR something. Oxygen has value to me to keep my metabolism going; but there are bacteria to which it's a deadly toxin. A female rabbit has value to a male rabbit as a mate, but to a coyote as dinner. Value is, legitimately, relative. (As William Blake said, in poetic language, "One law for the lion and ox is oppression.") But just as in Einstein's theory, the relation "is of value to" is objectively true or false, and the magnitude of the value is objectively measurable, for each living organism.
A lot of twentieth century subjectivists have wanted to take Einstein's physics as support for their own subjectivism. But there is no warrant for doing so in Einstein's actual ideas. The equation relativism = subjectivism is at best a philosophical error, at worst a philosophical fraud. It's rather akin in spirit to the philosophical argument that Floyd Ferris justified by appealing to Robert Stadler's scientific research. |
|
| Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 10:41:34 mst
Comment ID: #52
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
William -- Cultural relativism in ethics isn't the same as personal subjectivism, i.e. the view that morality is just whatever an individual happens to think or desire. Cultural relativism is the view that ethics is relative to a culture. That doesn't seem like an abuse of language. (Even personal subjectivism can be described as in "relative" terms: morality is relative to the individual's thoughts and desires.)
You're right that Objectivism is relativistic, but in a totally different sense. Aristotle's doctrine of the mean is also relativistic, albeit in a somewhat different way than Objectivism. The Objectivist ethics and the doctrine of the mean are relative to facts of reality, which differ in some significant ways between species and persons. Cultural relativism is relative to whatever a group happens to believe; that's a kind of subjectivism.
That being said, to lump together cultural relativism and Objectivism as forms of "relativism" because both reject the out-of-context duties of deontology would be wrong. (You're not suggesting that, I know.) The objective versus subjective divide between them is far more fundamental. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 10:39:37 mst
Comment ID: #53
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
Diana: I don't think we disagree on the actual substance of the matter.
I think of ethics as comparable to architecture. Building a house requires thinking about the fundamental principles of structural statics and dynamics, but also about the site, the materials, and the intended function, and ultimately about the optional values of the occupants as expressed in their personal tastes and habits, and about the architect's own personal sense of good design. Architecture has aspects of applied science, but also of art. And I think that ethics is the building of a good human life, and that this also has aspects on one hand of applied science (the theoretical sciences, as Rand says, being metaphysics and epistemology) and on the other of art. There are broad ethical principles, there are ethical principles for specific spheres of human activity (business ethics, medical ethicals, military ethics, and so on, not to mention such topics as etiquette or the ethical foundations of constitutional law), and then there are personal ethical choices and personal values . . . and one of the vital points of ethics for a rationally selfish person is that we must not disregard our own personal values in deciding what to do, but must find ways to pursue them with integrity.
Ayn Rand called herself an egoist, and said that writers such as Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche were not proper advocates of egoism. I think I'm suggesting something comparable about relativism. A proper ethics is relative to various objective facts, including the quite subtle objective facts that are expressed in our personal tastes. But what is called "relativism" is a way of evading that.
Intrinsicists, such as Kantian deontologists or theists who believe that all things work for an end ordained by God, try to avoid questioning whether certain values are right relative to a given entity and situation by finding one set of values that are absolutely true for every rational being. Subjectivists try to avoid it by saying that if you value something then you value it and that makes it right for you, and there's no way to argue with that. Cultural relativists seem to be an odd middle ground: on one hand they're deontologists who think that your absolute duties are defined by your ethnicity, your religion, or your culture; on the other hand they're subjectivists who believe that the unquestionable whims are those of a group who think alike rather than those of an individual. But the mistake is the same. They don't have a saying "these are the right values for this culture to pursue, and these other values are wrong and self-destructive"; they can only say "this culture happens to value these things." They don't embrace cultural values relative to species, or habitat, or technology, or state of knowledge, or anything else that actually determines whethere a culture is viable; they embrace cultural absolutes, and really, we ought to call them cultural absolutists, if the term were being used accurately. The standard meaning of "relativism" represented a misappropriation of the concept of relativity.
And when it's appropriate to claim a concept back, and when to look for a different term, is a disagreement more on strategy than on underlying principles. As I said, I don't think our underlying principles are seriously different. |
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 at 22:47:26 mst
Comment ID: #54
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
William -- Interesting thoughts! You're right that we don't seem to disagree on the substance, but I'll have to think about the issue more. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
