“This is also a message for doctors since they often refuse to euthanise people in advanced stages of dementia even though they have expressly asked for it,? de Jong said.”
Um, what kind of message? They can refuse to have anything to do with it, right?
Making a claim and never backing the statement with evidence is a fail on your part. In other words, an irrelevant claim.
How long will you be ignorant about life AND technologies?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Here’s a hint: The society that allowed rape with payment? It’s still around, mutilating children at birth for no good reason.
By the way, I really have no interest in getting into a discussion with someone who still doesn’t understand how to use the quote function properly.[/quote]
Abortion is the desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another human child because the mother wants to have a choice to kill the child, one who can NOT defend themselves. Prove otherwise with simple language.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
While murder requires some level of malice, not every murder is motivated by malice.[/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Conclusive proof of the source of absolute morality? Revelation.[/quote]You missed my point. What would constitute conclusive proof of anything to you?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Abortion is the desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another human child because the mother wants to have a choice to kill the child, one who can NOT defend themselves. Prove otherwise with simple language.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
While murder requires some level of malice, not every murder is motivated by malice.[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
By the way, I really have no interest in getting into a discussion with someone who still doesn’t understand how to use the quote function properly.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Conclusive proof of the source of absolute morality? Revelation.[/quote]You missed my point. What would constitute conclusive proof of anything to you?
[/quote]
Either personal experience [to an extent] or reproducable experiments performed by different people.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I ask, yet again: So of the activities you claim were once “moral,” which of those societies lasted the longest and which one society is currently around today? Please provide evidence to support your claim mak.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So of the activities you claim were once “moral,” which of those societies lasted the longest and which one society is currently around today? Please provide evidence to support your claim mak.
Not trying to bring religion into the thread, in fact we can let it die after I say this: Rape was a different act before the coming of Christ. Women were once considered property. Far from the case in modern times.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stoning unruly children was once “moral”. So was selling your daughter. Rape was once fine (as long as you paid the victims father). Morality is still yet to be properly defined, and until it is - it is at the mercy of society.[/quote]
[/quote]
“Not trying to bring religion into the thread, in fact we can let it die after I get the last word”[/quote]
[/quote]
Here’s a hint: The society that allowed rape with payment? It’s still around, mutilating children at birth for no good reason.
By the way, I really have no interest in getting into a discussion with someone who still doesn’t understand how to use the quote function properly.[/quote]
And it’s still immoral.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Because I would not wish them on anyone.
War between societies is indeed a problem. But a tribe, a village, a town, a city, a county, a province, a state, a confederation, a union, a continent and ultimately a planet of globally connected humans learned to work together.
Whether we’ll destroy eachother is something we’ll have to wait and see. In the end it comes down to maturity, reason and honesty.
It sure does.
Why do parents need to teach their children right from wrong?
[/quote]
Because of the consequences. And there is a societal component. You may know it’s wrong to murder, but you may not know your offending an arab by showing them the bottom of your shoe. These are not intrinsically wrong. You may know it’s wrong to kill someone, but you may not know that the action your taking could lead to someones death. You may know it’s wrong to hurt or cause suffering, but you don’t intrinsically know what those things are…
This topic is a perfect example, as a matter of fact. You believe it’s wrong to kill so therefore you believe that up after 21 weeks gestation, that thing is human enough that it would be immoral to kill it. But you don’t believe doing it before 21 weeks is immoral because you don’t believe the fetus has gotten the property of humanness. Therefore you don’t believe that terminating results in death and is immoral. You learned that killing a 21+ week fetus is killing, but you intrinsically know killing is wrong.
[quote]
No arguement there pat. I agree. [/quote]
But that means it’s not relative.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Abortion is the desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another human child because the mother wants to have a choice to kill the child, one who can NOT defend themselves. Prove otherwise with simple language.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
While murder requires some level of malice, not every murder is motivated by malice.[/quote]
[/quote]
True dat!
Selfishness is a form of malice.
I do not believe that killing is wrong under all circumstances.
I also believe that you yourself think that.
But correct me if I’m wrong.
[quote]If your actions have a victim, you acts are immoral.
No arguement there pat. I agree.
But that means it’s not relative.[/quote]
No, it means that I have guidelines to measure what I believe is right or wrong.
That I believe morality is relative does not mean I do not think certain actions are immoral, it’s just that instead of using a borrowed yardstick, I’ve made my own.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I do not believe that killing is wrong under all circumstances.
I also believe that you yourself think that.
But correct me if I’m wrong.
[/quote]
Self defense… Otherwise yes.
By that logic you could conceivably come up with scenario where killing is not wrong. Relativity means just that, and that’s simply not true. You can show me scenarios where people accept or even like or celebrate killing, but that doesn’t make it morally right…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I do not believe that killing is wrong under all circumstances.
I also believe that you yourself think that.
But correct me if I’m wrong.
[/quote]
Self defense… Otherwise yes.
By that logic you could conceivably come up with scenario where killing is not wrong. Relativity means just that, and that’s simply not true. You can show me scenarios where people accept or even like or celebrate killing, but that doesn’t make it morally right…[/quote]
What about the link I posted about the woman with Alzheimer’s?
So even in the case of selfdefense you’d argue that killing a person who’s about to kill you [without a shadow of a doubt] is still morally wrong?
Not wrong.
bad.
the existence of necesarry evils doesn’t imply that moral is relative.
morality is not about right or wrong (licit vs illicit).
right or wrong is a legal and deontological problem.
Morality is about good or bad.
that’s not exactly the same thing.
Killing a person who’s about to kill you is obviously licit, legally and deontologically, but morally it’s still a bad thing.
A sad, awful thing you sometimes have to do.
People who enjoy killing other human beings, are they sick?
If morality is a function of a healthy brain, how can you assign higher meaning to morality?
Is the sadness of killing a reflection of being reminded of one’s own mortality?
Is there a definite source of morality beyond our human scope of understanding?
I don’t think so.
Yet you originally replied to my post in my thread, all while knowing I ALWAYS reply like this. I would not even think you were that ignorant, apparently I would be wrong about how deep your head is buried though. shrug
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Abortion is the desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another human child because the mother wants to have a choice to kill the child, one who can NOT defend themselves. Prove otherwise with simple language.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
While murder requires some level of malice, not every murder is motivated by malice.[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
By the way, I really have no interest in getting into a discussion with someone who still doesn’t understand how to use the quote function properly.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
People who enjoy killing other human beings, are they sick? [/quote] Yes, without a doubt.
[quote]If morality is a function of a healthy brain, how can you assign higher meaning to morality? [/quote] Who informed you what was “healthy” and what is “not healthy?” Care to share your source? Their credentials?
[quote]Is the sadness of killing a reflection of being reminded of one’s own mortality? [/quote] Being reminded of mortality is a personal problem, NOT a free pass to kill. We all die in this world, only ONE person in the history of the world came back to walk the surface of the earth again.
[quote]Is there a definite source of morality beyond our human scope of understanding? [/quote] Why even worry about understanding the source? I know my understanding of life will be different and change through the years. That is called growing up and being honest. However, murder is ALWAYS wrong in the mind of this neurotic gimp. That will never change.
[quote]I don’t think so. [/quote] Who made you [i]THE[/i] expert? I sure do NOT agree. Sources and credentials please.
oh god stop molesting the quote function what is wrong with you
Do you know all and are never wrong? You know how to quote people on these forums simply because everyone else does it your way? Look at everything in the world with an objective view Mak, you will be surprised at how often you are wrong. We are human and therefore mistaken at times.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
oh god stop molesting the quote function what is wrong with you[/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I do not believe that killing is wrong under all circumstances.
I also believe that you yourself think that.
But correct me if I’m wrong.
[/quote]
Self defense… Otherwise yes.
By that logic you could conceivably come up with scenario where killing is not wrong. Relativity means just that, and that’s simply not true. You can show me scenarios where people accept or even like or celebrate killing, but that doesn’t make it morally right…[/quote]
What about the link I posted about the woman with Alzheimer’s?
So even in the case of selfdefense you’d argue that killing a person who’s about to kill you [without a shadow of a doubt] is still morally wrong?
[/quote]
I did not argue that. If it’s truly self defense then you really have no choice. In that scenario the victim is the one causing the death. Any person who can prevent themselves from being a victim has to do it. In this case allowing a perpetrator to harm you are others when he had the choice to do otherwise is the immoral act. In that scenario you have a person who is both a perp and a victim and then you have the other who is the prep. This scenario is extremely uncommon if not existing only in theory.
I don’t understand how those who believe in a perfect creation can look at six-legged Indian child and tell themselves “Yep, God’s handiwork”. That “handiwork” is the bad type of variation which will not be passed down to offspring and is not good for our survival. Realize that if humanity hadn’t killed millions of misshapen babies through infanticide throughout most of it’s history, you wouldn’t be here today.
I apologize for being harsh.[/quote]
This is just ignorant. There are as many if not more incidences of cultures throughout history revering or honoring people for some sort of physical difference. Downs Syndrome people were not necessarily killed, they were just unlikely to survive long enough to reproduce, because of both mental health issues and physical problems.
Downs Syndrome is a rare genetic mutation that is not even necessarily passed on even if BOTH parents also have Downs syndrome. We are alive because genetic mutations like this are rare and weak enough that they could never dominate and wipe out a healthy gene pool.
Do you also think that we only walked out of Eden a couple thousand years ago?
I know that this an irrelevant quote from four pages ago, but some things just make me want to say something.