Do we REALLY care about ALL life equally?
I decided to move this comment to the main page because I spent some time thinking about it. My reply is rather long winded (these powerful Vulcan lungs don't cha' know). But I felt that Jim's question was interesting. After writing my response what surprised me was how much of it had to do with definitions and ethical models that aren't consistent, shared or even fully understood. I was also surprised to see Dobson's view on the war. Dobson Supports War Efforts in Iraq . At least the previous Pope was strongly anti-war as well as anti-death penalty which seemed consistent to me.
Here's Jim's comment and my response.
Jim said...
After reading some of the comments, a question I'd love to see the readers and Spocko comment on is:Given that embryo's are in fact unborn children (and that is a related but entirely different debate) is it ever morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being in order to benefit another? If the answer is no, how can you then not agree with FOTF? If yes please descibe the circumstances.
2:00 PM
Jim:
I think that we do have to go all the way back and look at that premise. "Given that embryo's are in fact unborn children" This is the question. If I remember correctly a huge part of the early debate over abortion had to do with viability out side of the womb and as medicine marched on that got reduced further and further till the only way that seemed "logical" to the theologians was to say. "Since science has pushed viability all the way back to conception then that is when we will say that the human soul has arrived. Any later is just guessing. Maybe the soul isn't there until the Brain is 'developed' but when is that? Therefore, we will set the soul and human life at that instant when sperm and egg unite." Now note, this is a theological decision and definition that not everyone agrees with.
When I created this spoof I was looking at how FOTF was dancing around this issue, I know some of the ways they talk about it and given a definition of life begins with sperm and egg uniting then there are a lot of "souls on ice" in liquid nitrogen tanks out there.
A tank full of souls? A freezer of fetuses?
Now here of course is the kicker. If you are a certain kind of Christian and you believe that the instant that a sperm and egg unite you have a soul-filled tiny child, is it okay to make a bunch of these and knowingly (although with out malice) implant them in a situation where most will die? Now I would say that from reading the real FOTF comments the answer would be yes. But that seemed inconsistent with their rhetoric on abortion, hence the creation of spoof release.
As to your earlier question "is it ever morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being in order to benefit another?" some times it is about consent. Would you give your life to protect the life of your child? Would you take a life to benefit your child? A lot of people would say yes on one but not the other. But maybe not everyone thinks that way. This is a hard one that could come down to how strong your beliefs are. It is when you move away from the 'easy' answers that we start to have moral complexity.
There is a focus right now on the beginnings of life. I understand that, I also understand not everyone defines life and soul the same way. What confuses and frustrates me is a lack of consistent morality across the board. If you hold strong beliefs about protecting life, then shouldn't that belief extend to ALL human life?
How far are you going to go to protect children in Iraq? Children in Darfur?
It is different asking someone to make a choice to protect and benefit another life through killing or being killed vs. forcing that choice on them through deceit or conscription.
I understand people feeling that they are doing something that is ethically acceptable by telling themselves "I'm protecting my family by taking the lives of these people who are plotting to kill my children in Kansas City". Now what if that initial intention gets transmuted and you find out that you are not really protecting your children in Kansas City but actually co-opting and invading a geopolitical location that is seen as essential to the continued "American way of life" (and incidentally the profits of a multinational company)? Now you might feel different. What if the people who designed this KNEW that they could count on the good will of people who want to and are willing to kill and be killed for these 'protect my family' values? Would you be pissed if you found out?
Is Focus on the Family strongly and firmly anti-war? No. So in their mind it IS morally and ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another. http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0025247.cfm(Dobson Supports War Efforts in Iraq )
They also talk about support of the death penalty (and of course use the Old Testament as justification). That to me seem wildly inconsistent with Jesus' teachings. And I'm not talking about PAUL or the Church after Jesus, I'm talking about what can be seen as the authentic words of Jesus while he was alive. "Love your enemy" is bit different than, 'eye for an eye' "Love your neighbor as yourself" is actually a pretty damn radical notion especially when he went to such great pains to define who the neighbor was and how to interact with your enemy.
Speaking of loving your neighbor, thank you for posting it makes me feel like I'm sending bits into cyberspace an getting a radar return.
Here's Jim's comment and my response.
Jim said...
After reading some of the comments, a question I'd love to see the readers and Spocko comment on is:Given that embryo's are in fact unborn children (and that is a related but entirely different debate) is it ever morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being in order to benefit another? If the answer is no, how can you then not agree with FOTF? If yes please descibe the circumstances.
2:00 PM
Jim:
I think that we do have to go all the way back and look at that premise. "Given that embryo's are in fact unborn children" This is the question. If I remember correctly a huge part of the early debate over abortion had to do with viability out side of the womb and as medicine marched on that got reduced further and further till the only way that seemed "logical" to the theologians was to say. "Since science has pushed viability all the way back to conception then that is when we will say that the human soul has arrived. Any later is just guessing. Maybe the soul isn't there until the Brain is 'developed' but when is that? Therefore, we will set the soul and human life at that instant when sperm and egg unite." Now note, this is a theological decision and definition that not everyone agrees with.
When I created this spoof I was looking at how FOTF was dancing around this issue, I know some of the ways they talk about it and given a definition of life begins with sperm and egg uniting then there are a lot of "souls on ice" in liquid nitrogen tanks out there.
A tank full of souls? A freezer of fetuses?
Now here of course is the kicker. If you are a certain kind of Christian and you believe that the instant that a sperm and egg unite you have a soul-filled tiny child, is it okay to make a bunch of these and knowingly (although with out malice) implant them in a situation where most will die? Now I would say that from reading the real FOTF comments the answer would be yes. But that seemed inconsistent with their rhetoric on abortion, hence the creation of spoof release.
As to your earlier question "is it ever morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being in order to benefit another?" some times it is about consent. Would you give your life to protect the life of your child? Would you take a life to benefit your child? A lot of people would say yes on one but not the other. But maybe not everyone thinks that way. This is a hard one that could come down to how strong your beliefs are. It is when you move away from the 'easy' answers that we start to have moral complexity.
- Would you give your life to protect your country?
- Would you take life to benefit your country?
- What do you mean by protect and benefit?
- Would you give your life to benefit some rich people?
- Would you take life to benefit some rich people?
- Would you give your life so that your friends and relatives can waste energy foolishly?
- Would you feel used if they weren't doing their part?
- Would you give your life to benefit a multinational company?
There is a focus right now on the beginnings of life. I understand that, I also understand not everyone defines life and soul the same way. What confuses and frustrates me is a lack of consistent morality across the board. If you hold strong beliefs about protecting life, then shouldn't that belief extend to ALL human life?
How far are you going to go to protect children in Iraq? Children in Darfur?
It is different asking someone to make a choice to protect and benefit another life through killing or being killed vs. forcing that choice on them through deceit or conscription.
I understand people feeling that they are doing something that is ethically acceptable by telling themselves "I'm protecting my family by taking the lives of these people who are plotting to kill my children in Kansas City". Now what if that initial intention gets transmuted and you find out that you are not really protecting your children in Kansas City but actually co-opting and invading a geopolitical location that is seen as essential to the continued "American way of life" (and incidentally the profits of a multinational company)? Now you might feel different. What if the people who designed this KNEW that they could count on the good will of people who want to and are willing to kill and be killed for these 'protect my family' values? Would you be pissed if you found out?
Is Focus on the Family strongly and firmly anti-war? No. So in their mind it IS morally and ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another. http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0025247.cfm(Dobson Supports War Efforts in Iraq )
They also talk about support of the death penalty (and of course use the Old Testament as justification). That to me seem wildly inconsistent with Jesus' teachings. And I'm not talking about PAUL or the Church after Jesus, I'm talking about what can be seen as the authentic words of Jesus while he was alive. "Love your enemy" is bit different than, 'eye for an eye' "Love your neighbor as yourself" is actually a pretty damn radical notion especially when he went to such great pains to define who the neighbor was and how to interact with your enemy.
Speaking of loving your neighbor, thank you for posting it makes me feel like I'm sending bits into cyberspace an getting a radar return.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home