Are you nuts?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

As to theharm regarding the organ donor andrights, it takesvery little additional thought to realize thehugePandora'sbox involved in legitimizing such a practice. Just off the top of my head, once it became known as a practice, very few people would seek medical care. What a way to shorten the average life span, eh?

Nevermind the huge potential problems of regarding people as "spare parts". Dehumanizing. We already knowthe tremendous disrespect for people when they are viewed as "different", a few steps further down the slope we have apseudo-science saying people are basically animals. Where has that gotten us? Electro-shocking brains, life-times on psycho-pharmacologic drugs, etc.

Click to expand...

Although I agree totally with you I am afraid that in some parts of the world this may be a totally acceptable practice. In China with their one child per family laws it is not uncommon for girl babies to be killed at birth in order to be allowed to try again for a boy. It is not uncommon at all for children to be sold into slavery in many areas for small amounts in order to feed the rest of the family. Yes a great pandora's box may be opened but unfortunately it was crackedcenturies ago. Think of what a slave owner may have been tempted to do here in the US if the possibility of an organ transplant from a slave had existed back in the slavery days.

Is this much different than the castration of eunics in order to guard harems or to keep the voices of chior boys from changing much different? Things that are unthinkable to us are common practice in some societies so to make that definition of right and wrong is very difficult indeed.

imported post

My dry claener justcalled and said my strait-jacket should be available at about 2:00 pm tomorrow......

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

As to theharm regarding the organ donor andrights, it takesvery little additional thought to realize thehugePandora'sbox involved in legitimizing such a practice. Just off the top of my head, once it became known as a practice, very few people would seek medical care. What a way to shorten the average life span, eh?

Nevermind the huge potential problems of regarding people as "spare parts". Dehumanizing. We already knowthe tremendous disrespect for people when they are viewed as "different", a few steps further down the slope we have apseudo-science saying people are basically animals. Where has that gotten us? Electro-shocking brains, life-times on psycho-pharmacologic drugs, etc.

Click to expand...

Although I agree totally with you I am afraid that in some parts of the world this may be a totally acceptable practice. In China with their one child per family laws it is not uncommon for girl babies to be killed at birth in order to be allowed to try again for a boy. It is not uncommon at all for children to be sold into slavery in many areas for small amounts in order to feed the rest of the family. Yes a great pandora's box may be opened but unfortunately it was crackedcenturies ago. Think of what a slave owner may have been tempted to do here in the US if the possibility of an organ transplant from a slave had existed back in the slavery days.

Is this much different than the castration of eunics in order to guard harems or to keep the voices of chior boys from changing much different? Things that are unthinkable to us are common practice in some societies so to make that definition of right and wrong is very difficult indeed.

Click to expand...

I understand. The definition I proposed still applies.

The problems you mention, and numerous others are why we revere philosophers, certain authors, and so forth.

Theytry to show us, among other things,how to broaden the scope of what we take into account when we consider benefits and harms. Takethe writings of abolitionists in 1848. Mark Twain pointed out something about the end of slavery. He wrote that it not only freed the slaves; it freed the whites, too. A very powerful point, that.

The cultural acceptance of say, humansacrifice, does not render the principle more or lessuseful or workable. Theproblem is not enough people see past the already-decided benefits to see if they really are benefits, to see if it is a net harm, to see if greater benefits are achieveable. The problem becomes how to get the culture to look and see the greater benefit inletting live the human sacrifices.

The realunderlying problem in this discussion is that right and wrong are absolutes. Yet absolutes are frequently unachievable.We know there is almost no such thing as an absolute. We know that life and the universe in which we live is a matter of degrees.

All we can really say with any genuine accuracy is thatan action orinactionis more right or less right, more wrong or less wrong,thananother action.

Take for example the human sacrifice culture. Maybe you could convince them that it is a net benefit to turn the sacificial people into slaves. "Mmmmm. Now we can make money off of them. And get more free labor." That would be more right to them, after they were convinced, yet not right enoughin the context that they were equals as human beings.

I've got stuff I gotta do for tomorrow. Think it over. Make some examples for yourself and see if the principle I proposed has a very broad workability.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

My dry claener justcalled and said my strait-jacket should be available at about 2:00 pm tomorrow......

Click to expand...

Oooooo. They dry-clean yours? Not mine. The only cleaning mine gets is when they give me the ice-water immersion therapy.

imported post

Right: Those actions which result innet improved circumstances or conditions without unnecessary destruction.

Click to expand...

I have no problems withthis definition and have enjoyed this discussion. The one thing left out of this definition is what improved circumstances and for who. Let's take the case of the starving war stricken Kenyans (or whoever we want to use for an example) that are dying at an emormous rate from hunger and disease. Would it be of benefit for them to be captured and brought to the US or other developed country to be fed and provided proper health care that they may live a long life but as a slave? This was some of the justification for slavery in America and does go on in parts of the world right now.

No one should even dare to think that slavery does not exist in the world right now. In some cases it does not improve the lives of those in slavery but in some many people would argue that it does. Is it without necessary destruction? It does remove the freedom that the person has but then we get right back to what freedom did they have before being made a slave.

Right vs. wrong is always a personal choice based on the societal demands of the person. However in court right vs. wrong is what the court determines and that was the original question. Can a person determine right vs. wrong as defined by the law.

Maybe the 25 word answer would be - Can a person understand that they are not to break the law?

imported post

PT111 wrote:

SNIP I have no problems withthis definition and have enjoyed this discussion. The one thing left out of this definition is what improved circumstances and for who.

Click to expand...

Heh, heh, heh. That is the uncompromising part.

Its left out not because it leaves wiggle room for evasion; its left out because there is no reason to limit it.

Its decidedly uncompromising. Net benefit, net improvement. Period. If one limits it, then one isn't taking all the benefit available. Do remember to factor in what I said earlier about a matter of degrees, more right, more wrong.

Actually I mistated the principle earlier. It could be better stated as the greatest good for the greatest number of areas or spheres in life. My error. I re-phrased it to avoid lots of clarification. I should have realized we'd end up right back here as a result of theobvious questions.

Regarding the starving Kenyans, yes I recall hearing those justifications, too. And they are just that. Justifications. Explanations that stop short or explain away not opting for the available and known improved condition of the slaves being free.

The principle is uncompromising. It does not say you can harmor stop if you can figure out a good enough justification to satisy your own conscience. Nor does it even say you can stop when you get enough other people to agree to your justification.

imported post

Well, not a avoid the question (Though I am) I would answer it this way.

I have an Opinion on that, and you are entitled to hear it.

But an opinion is like a noise, everyone has one, they all smell to some degree, and it is up to you to pick it.

And never let your friends pick it for you.

imported post

I guess it's true that rationalization is more important than sex .

Even Granny knows the difference between right and wrong .

Granny wants us to all OC too , like all good Americans .