Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists, page 3

reply to post by r3axion

---

i think it has something to do with how we were made. i don't have a concrete answer. it isn't that we're smarter, or more aware than animals and plants, but something primordial. something so deep at the essence of humans that it must have to do with intentions.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by r3axion

---

I know it's not me you asked, but survival of our Species is why. We are an animal and all we are and all we do is natural for our species. We have the same right to exist as any other life does.

This is precisely what I am saying. Note that last sentence, except "right" isn't the word I would use. That being said, murder is natural for our species and morals are an unnatural byproduct of modernized societal influence. Murder is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Lions are just one example off the top of my head. They murder and eat their cubs as they see fit.

Now if your talking about the needless destruction of life that is a different matter all together.

There is much needless destruction of life on a daily basis, much of it you are unaware of as they are considered "lesser" forms of life. Therefore, these lifeforms do not get the attention of lifeforms such as a human being. This is where the hypocrisy of morals come in which I was just speaking of.

If you carry it to the point of all life being equal in value, then it follows since all animal life eats other life to survive, that the only right answer would be for all animal life to commit suicide and starve to death.

This is a good point. By "equal" I mean no life form has a purely objective face value superior requirement to attribute to its existence. People die, and people kill, thus is life. I am specifically trying to say that there is no "right" to life for any life form including humans. To think that a murder of one subjectively "lesser" form of life is justified, while simultaneously condemning the murder of a life form that is subjectively "superior" is the bane of hypocrisy.

I think the person in the article is not thinking through their argument well enough. I think the absurdity of that reveals itself quite quickly.

I agree with you, as I stated earlier I don't agree on the context in which the article is written.

I'm not "pro-killinghumansforthehellofit"
I'm more "anti-moralhypocrisy"

To give an example scenario, if someone wanted to kill a person because they wanted to eat them, this in essence has no right to be condemned, as it conflicts with 'morally sound' societal values such as "you can just kill an animal and eat it instead."

Do you see what I'm saying?

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

---

That's not really a path I envisioned this thread going down, but -

That article makes a completely false assumption in my opinion. Our tiny difference in lifespan compared to others is cultural and in no small part has to do with our economic success. It's our lifestyle that lowers our life expectancy. It has to do with having the money to become obese and self indulge in a destructive way. Nothing wrong with that either by the way as long as its personal choice.

It also has to do with our no longer engaging in physical labor I think.

Look at China who prior to adopting Western Medicine and rejecting traditional folk medicine had a life expectancy more than a decade less than ours; Then after adopting Western Medicine saw it rise to a similar level to ours.

I think to say its due to our brand of medicine is false and note they conveniently leave out the other factors staring them in the face.

Perhaps we could leave that debate for another time and leave this one about the ethics of who chooses who lives or dies and the conflict of interest in doing so to harvest an organ and where this is all leading.

I also have strong religious convictions, but I'm trying to leave this an intellectual discussion.

reply to post by r3axion

---

I get what your saying now. We are not far apart if at all.

reply to post by Blaine91555

---

They're absolutely right if you really think about it. Taking LIFE, as in the general meaning of the term LIFE, is not automatically morally wrong. Human beings have understood this for years if you think about it.

Socially acceptable forms of killing:

- Bacteria, diseases and cancerous cells
- Plants to eat, build our houses, etc
- Animals to eat, hunt, euthanize
- Other human beings: in self-defense, war

I think you're over-reacting to their findings a great deal. Death is part of life and considering all life sacred is an absurd premise that cannot be reasonably defended. Not ALL killing is morally acceptable but obviously, in certain cases, SOME killing is.

reply to post by Blaine91555

---

Good to know

I could understand where my previous post may have been misleading

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Blaine91555

---

They're absolutely right if you really think about it. Taking LIFE, as in the general meaning of the term LIFE, is not automatically morally wrong. Human beings have understood this for years if you think about it.

Socially acceptable forms of killing:

- Bacteria, diseases and cancerous cells
- Plants to eat, build our houses, etc
- Animals to eat, hunt, euthanize
- Other human beings: in self-defense, war

I think you're over-reacting to their findings a great deal. Death is part of life and considering all life sacred is an absurd premise that cannot be reasonably defended. No one is saying that ALL killing is morally acceptable.

"considering all life sacred is an absurd premise"

based upon the assumption,, / logic / hypothesis ,,etcc,,, that

"all life sacred is an absurd premise"

Has been argued and discussed since PLATO,,

so those for and against that "all life sacred is an absurd premise" on one side,,
and "all life sacred" on the other,,,,

hey they have been arguing this since,, Cain, whacked Able over the head,,

and it is still unanswered,,

amazing how far we have come,,

sometimes it just awe's me.

Me.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by r3axion

---

Dear r3axion,

What is it exactly that you attribute to human value? I ask strictly from a philosophical standpoint. I'm genuinely curious.

I don't know how the person you asked the question will answer you; but, I know my answer. Self awareness makes us special. I have no evidence that a blade of grass is self aware or feels pain.

That's certainly an answer I was hoping to get as I agree with self awareness being something special. However, what do you find more special: being self aware, or having the ability to express it through thought and speech patterns easily interpreted by your own species?

Perhaps self awareness is a fundamental attribute of nature.

While I don't doubt grass doesn't feel pain, how can you with 100% certainty say that it is not self aware?

communication between trees

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

---

No, I get what you are saying, but where does it lead from here?

As we lower the value of human life and desensitize ourselves to the idea's that mindset can lead to, where does it go?

There is also the ethical consideration here. If there is only a one in thousand chance that a patient will come out of a Coma or survive without life support, is it morally right for an MD to decide to end any chance of recovery to harvest and organ for another person who will die without it? Which life has more value?

Do we give the medical community that kind of power and if they have that power, what next?

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists

www.bioedge.org

Is it morally wrong to kill people? Not really, argue two eminent American bioethicists in an early online article in the Journal of Medical Ethics....

...“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

Didn't the German Nazis try this sort of thing. If it isn't stopped before it gets going there will be no stopping it and history will again repeat itself.

reply to post by BobAthome

---

Dear BobAthome,

"all life sacred is an absurd premise" Has been argued and discussed since PLATO,, so those for and against that "all life sacred is an absurd premise" on one side,, and "all life sacred" on the other,,,, hey they have been arguing this since,, Cain, whacked Able over the head,, and it is still unanswered,, amazing how far we have come,, sometimes it just awe's me. Me.

History shows that the greatest crimes and horrors come about when society believes that certain peoples lives or humans themselves are meaningless. True totalitarianism is only possible when this type of thinking is accepted and from reading this thread and the article, we are there once again. There is a large group of people who believe the earth is a meaningful living organism and people are the problem. The philosophy is "You live, you die, enjoy it while you can and take what you want". How many times have you seen someone write on the internet, "Kill them all, blow them up" with absolutely no regard the human life? Yes, sad times. Peace.

reply to post by Magnum007

---

Do you think that survival of the species is natural and normal? Is it wrong to place ones own species above others or as the article suggests, are we no more or less important than a weed?

These topics determine where we go in the future and has an influence on future generations and their beliefs. This topic goes way beyond the topic of that article in where we as a species go from here in our cultural beliefs.

History has shown us the results of the decision that life is expendable and the horrors that that idea leads to. Intellectually eugenics has plenty of merit, but the consequences are almost unspeakable. If eugenics becomes accepted as the norm, imagine the suffering it would cause.

Who decides who lives and who dies? Should anyone have that power?

We see claims here all the time that there is some giant conspiracy to decide who lives and dies and look how people react to that. Imagine if one day the academics decide suddenly that the best course would be to actually kill off half the population of the earth to benefit the survivors.

reply to post by Blaine91555

---

As we lower the value of human life and desensitize ourselves to the idea's that mindset can lead to, where does it go?

But we don't have to lower the value of human life in the first place. Chances are we'll always think quite fondly of ourselves and do what it takes to survive as a species. I don't agree with the idea that somehow our morals regarding human life are at all weakening. If anything they've sky-rocketed upward in the last few centuries. We have thousands of charities and organizations designed to help people in need. Slaves were freed in the civil war, we had civil rights, we're in the midst of the progression of gay rights.

If anything I think we've made marked moral progress in the right direction. Of course we don't have all the answers and there are tons of moral dilemma's left to be settled but there's no reason to panic about it.

As for your hypothetical about pulling the plug I think the question really is is the person in a vegetative state even "alive" in any sense other than their heart beating. If the brain is dead chances are the personality, the consciousness, the memories, everything that PERSON was is dead. Moral issues are tough but I'm convinced that equal measures of empathy and reason can sort them out.

reply to post by r3axion

---

Dear r3axion,

That's certainly an answer I was hoping to get as I agree with self awareness being something special. However, what do you find more special: being self aware, or having the ability to express it through thought and speech patterns easily interpreted by your own species? Perhaps self awareness is a fundamental attribute of nature. While I don't doubt grass doesn't feel pain, how can you with 100% certainty say that it is not self aware?

That is an easy one. Helen Keller wrote about it. Born deaf, dumb and blind she had no language; but, she was self aware and understood pain and pleasure. As for emotional plants, some evidence that we can believe would be in order. I have much more evidence that rocks and plants are not self aware and none showing that they are, living things, yes, based on a certain definition of life, sentient, no.

Philosophy starts with what we know for a fact and the only thing we know is that we exist, after that everything else is a theory at best, some seem more plausible than others; but, if we ignore the first principal we have no chance of arriving at valid beliefs.

Iranian sailors chase off pirates attacking U.S. ship
  Posted 5 days ago with 95 member flags

Blatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks France\'s Ban on Monsanto\'s GMO Maize
  Posted 5 days ago with 84 member flags

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to return their medals to protest war on terror at Chicago NATO summit
  Posted 13 days ago with 82 member flags

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
  Posted 9 days ago with 73 member flags

BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
  Posted 1 days ago with 68 member flags

Electricity generated from water: BlackLight Power announces validation of its scientific breakthrou
  Posted 6 days ago with 65 member flags

Man Loses $22,000 In New \'Policing For Profit\' Case
  Posted 7 days ago with 63 member flags

Bin Laden died of natural causes: Former CIA agent
  Posted 9 days ago with 58 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: