posted
That's because it isn't funny, Glass! I can't stand the thought of the pain that woman has suffered, because of dehydration! Ask any hospice nurse, what happens to the body, without fluids! Her mind might be damaged, but her body still feels pain! This story is TOO personal for me! Been there, done that, only with a living will in paper! Didn't withhold an IV drip, because we didn't want our loved one to suffer! That is the only way to administer pain meds, because they can't swallow, and suppositories won't absorb, because of no fluids! Think about it guys! That is all I can say about this, it hurts too much, remembering!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!
IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I've also had an aunt, through marriage, who was pronounced completely brain dead, was given a traceotomy, in a coma for five months, ex husband fought to unplug her, and she woke up, and had a fairly good quality of life!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!
IP: Logged |
posted
All the reports indicate she is not in pain.
This is done all the time - accepted as humane practice.
Physicians say to kill such patients, but they don't want to face the fact of killing, so they withdraw life support (food and water) and say they didn't kill the patient when they did.
They rationalize abortion as the fetus not being human.
Hypocrisy.
Killing can be a good thing - utterly moral. Killing evil people that would do harm to others is moral. Abortion is usually good - better than bringing up a child in deprived or unwanted circumstances and having the child be a parasite on the nation. Killing someone in an irreversible coma or vegetative state is moral when the nation has to pay for the treatment.
Screwed up moral thinking of most people just can't see the morality of some killing.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: All the reports indicate she is not in pain.
This is done all the time - accepted as humane practice.
Physicians say to kill such patients, but they don't want to face the fact of killing, so they withdraw life support (food and water) and say they didn't kill the patient when they did.
They rationalize abortion as the fetus not being human.
Hypocrisy.
Killing can be a good thing - utterly moral. Killing evil people that would do harm to others is moral. Abortion is usually good - better than bringing up a child in deprived or unwanted circumstances and having the child be a parasite on the nation. Killing someone in an irreversible coma or vegetative state is moral when the nation has to pay for the treatment.
Screwed up moral thinking of most people just can't see the morality of some killing.
Our society is finally at the desensitized state needed to accept these arguments. Those that pushed abortion etc through the courts could not at the time use logic, but had to rely on emotion. The majority of people viewed life as a good and even sacred thing. Something to be preserved over money and the comfortable existence of others. Now that 70+% of the society has been swayed by wool-over-the-eyes arguments to accepting these practices, the truth behind the pro-death movement can surface and perhaps will not be dismissed. IMO Art's arguments are the only logical (conclusions follow premise) ones to accepting these practices. Trouble for me is, I can't accept the premise that life should be terminated if people determine that it is just an inconvenience.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the "good old days" never existed...
it's a myth...
native Americans were "terminated" for "convenience"
You are right, I'm not saying the world used to be immune to these things. History has always been a continual struggle between good and evil..(i know those words don't go over too well with most). I just think parts of our history have been more good than they are today. Parts certainly were more evil.
IP: Logged |
posted
I should be more specific about your statement regarding Native Americans. It also seems that these same evils appear over and over again in different forms through history. White people used to kill non-whites for convenience, that used to go over just fine. Finally, we realized that that was evil. Now we kill other people for convenience. My guess is that at some future date, these forms will also become unacceptable.
IP: Logged |
posted
vman: Trouble for me is, I can't accept the premise that life should be terminated if people determine that it is just an inconvenience.
Art: Depends on whether you are the terminator or terminated as to whether it is good to terminate.
As far as good or evil, your side is always good and the opponent to you is always evil.
Morality is relative and might makes right - ideas of an absolute morality are based on delusional thought or disorderd thought.
As far as aborton:
The mother wants to kill the fetus. The fetus is trying to survive as a dominant goal for the fetus. Who is right? Does the fetus have equal rights as the mother?
Neither actually have any rights. Any rights are conferred only by power - perhaps judicially or legislatively by the nation or state.
Mother has more power, and might makes right.
If the nation is thinking correctly, with no screwed up-religious moral thinking, the nation will side with the mother since an unwanted child is more likely to become a parasite, i.e., criminal, welfare recipient, drug/alcohol abuser, mental hospital or retatdation center inmate, etc.
Parasites rob from all of us and drain our resources. A wise nation will let the mother kill the fetus. A stupid nation will let the individual's needs have priority over the group or nation's needs, which is a criminal morality.
Any assertion of on-balance the needs of the few over the needs of the many is crimuinal - this is what criminals do.
Preventing abortion is criminal.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, how do you feel, when you are thisty? When your lips, mouth and tongue are so dry, you can't swallow, and your lips are cracked and bleeding? A bit scared? How about when your kidneys don't have any fluid in them, to go to the bladder? Infections? I've had one, it hurts terribly! How about an empty stomach, that is shriveling because of nothing in it? What does the acid do? How do we know for sure, she isn't feeling pain? No one has been in that situation, to come back, to tell us what it feels like. Just because she can't communicate, doesn't mean her body doesn't feel pain; she just can't express it!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!
IP: Logged |
posted
Family should be allowed to care for her, as long as taxpayers don't have to pay.
Taxpayers should not have to pay for the care of anyone other than those who have earned this funded care from past service to their country or future potential for contributing to their country. Charities and family should pay.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
art: "As far as good or evil, your side is always good and the opponent to you is always evil.
Morality is relative and might makes right - ideas of an absolute morality are based on delusional thought or disorderd thought."
sorry to say, but you let logic go when you contradicted yourself.
"morality is relative" and "might makes right" do not go hand-in-hand.
By assigning absolute right to the most powerful, relativity of what is right no longer in exists. You have just passed the buck, and chosen a different premise, if you will.
You say: the powerful determine what is truly right.
I say: what is truly right exists appart from our opinions.
IP: Logged |
posted
No contradiction at all between the relativity of morality and the final power-based decision of what is right or good or moral.
Neither might nor morality are absolute - not the same in different locales at different times. China kills female babies, after they are born, because parents want boys who are more valuable to the family as workers. The might is the killing parents in China.
This is against the law in the U.S. as the might is the elected government who passed the laws from their mandate from the people.
Not only is the moralty different (relative) but the power is different (relative) in these two moralities.
An absolute morality would be the same all over, regardless of the power source of who says it is moral or right or good. There is no absolute morality.
You say that what is right is independent of human personality.
Where?
The universe is amoral.
Your morality is reification based on overly abstract thinking representing thought disorder. Your thinking is invalid here, as is most of the world's population.
Putting morality outside man into ontology is delusion because morality is not a part of the essence of the universe - the basis of existence. It is only a part of personality of humans and perhaps other higher species capable of shame and guilt. (My dog shows a guilt reaction when she does something to displease me, and she does not do it anymore.)
So, what is the "truly right that exists apart from our opinions" that you say exists?
Where does it come from?
How does it operate in the universe?
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
vman: sorry to say, but you let logic go when you contradicted yourself.
"morality is relative" and "might makes right" do not go hand-in-hand.
By assigning absolute right to the most powerful, relativity of what is right no longer in exists. You have just passed the buck, and chosen a different premise, if you will.
Art: You should realize that the statement "might makes right" means that the prevailing morality is always politically established by the operative influences, perhaps in compromise or perhaps unilaterally imposed, at that time and place.
The statement "makes makes right" is absolute in always being true, but the morality that is the outcome of 'might makes right' is relative to what influences are at play in any given situation.
You should not confuse the absoluteness of the general descriptive-of-reality principle, with the absoluteness of morality (as you have done).
There are no absolute moral principles. 'Might makes right' is not a moral principle - it is a description of what determines what is moral in any situation.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: An absolute morality would be the same all over, regardless of the power source of who says it is moral or right or good. There is no absolute morality.
The last sentence does not follow. True, absolute morality would be the same all over. That doesn't then require all individuals in power to agree upon it. The laws that are enacted vary from place to place and from time to time. That does not negate, or in anyway suggest the nonexistence of an absolute morality.
quote:Originally posted by Art: You say that what is right is independent of human personality.
Where?
The universe is amoral.
Your morality is reification based on overly abstract thinking representing thought disorder. Your thinking is invalid here, as is most of the world's population.
Putting morality outside man into ontology is delusion because morality is not a part of the essence of the universe - the basis of existence. It is only a part of personality of humans and perhaps other higher species capable of shame and guilt. (My dog shows a guilt reaction when she does something to displease me, and she does not do it anymore.)
So, what is the "truly right that exists apart from our opinions" that you say exists?
Where does it come from?
How does it operate in the universe?
Frist, abstract thinking is not thought disorder. It is the basis of all pure philosophy. The fact that morality is not a material substance, or something that is quantifiable in physics, does not indicate its nonexistence. Where does it come from? Most who accept the notion of morality would agrue from some sort of God, perhaps in a personal form or perhaps just an ordering of existence through nature etc. This morality is not defined by the human personality, but the human personality has a tendancy to reflect it. Hence, the feelings of guilt or shame associated with particular acts. Of course, you would agrue that aside from the knowledge of consequence (from those more powerful), these feelings would not exist. However, that is nothing more than a supposition. Finally morality operates throughout the world as witnessed in many acts of kindness and compassion. Particularly, when those acts are selfless and many times for the betterment of those least powerful. Of course, such acts are simply due to peoples' delusional foolishness.
IP: Logged |
posted
Art: An absolute morality would be the same all over, regardless of the power source of who says it is moral or right or good. There is no absolute morality.
Vman: The last sentence does not follow. True, absolute morality would be the same all over. That doesn't then require all individuals in power to agree upon it.
Art: Wrong. Since morality is a function of personality processing, specifically of processes that evaluate actual/predicted reward/punishment aspects/implications as referenced to self/others, and since all indicviduals do not agree as to what is good or bad (the morality) in any situation, there is no absolute morality.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
.Art: You say that what is right is independent of human personality.
Where?
The universe is amoral.
Your morality is reification based on overly abstract thinking representing thought disorder. Your thinking is invalid here, as is most of the world's population.
Putting morality outside man into ontology is delusion because morality is not a part of the essence of the universe - the basis of existence. It is only a part of personality of humans and perhaps other higher species capable of shame and guilt. (My dog shows a guilt reaction when she does something to displease me, and she does not do it anymore.)
So, what is the "truly right that exists apart from our opinions" that you say exists?
Where does it come from?
How does it operate in the universe?
Vman: First, abstract thinking is not thought disorder. It is the basis of all pure philosophy.
Art: Overly abstract or overgeneralized thought is an example of thought disorder. When abstract concepts are overly inclusive, lacking in proper discrimination, this produces invalid descriptions of existence. Such thought disorder may be poetic or philosophic, but it does not describe reality. The idea of universal love, towards all living things, is an overgeneralization of the need to love - an overly abstact need. Some of us have overly abstract needs, inductively formed from more concrete instances of a need, such as the need to love and care for others and the environment and live in peace in all circumstances of evil. Such needs fly in the face of reality - based on disordered thought.
Vman: The fact that morality is not a material substance, or something that is quantifiable in physics, does not indicate its nonexistence.
Art: True. A generalization is inductively formed as abstracted from experience, but may descriptively go beyond present experience. Einstein's ideas were thus, when first presented.
Art: Where does morality come from?
Vman: Most who accept the notion of morality would agrue from some sort of God, perhaps in a personal form or perhaps just an ordering of existence through nature etc. This morality is not defined by the human personality, but the human personality has a tendancy to reflect it. Hence, the feelings of guilt or shame associated with particular acts.
Art: Fine. What is God, how does God operate, and how does morality embed in ontology? Also what is this morality that somehow emanates from this unknown thing you call God? How does existence, apart from personality, contain morality, what is this morality, how does it make sus have a tendency to reflect it, and how does it make us feel guilty when discounted or ignored?
vman: Of course, you would agrue that aside from the knowledge of consequence (from those more powerful), these feelings would not exist.
Art: I wouldn't argue that at all. We internalize morality systematically in personality just as we internalize science as our knowledge of the world. We have asumptions, proven ideas, hypotheses and imaginations in these systems.
The difference between our internalized science and internalized morality is that our science describes and predicts events while our morality additionally describes and predicts the value (reward/punishment aspects or implications for self/others) of such events. God is amoral and has nothing to do with our morality. We are her to gain wisdom through both loving and hating each other, and are not here to try to love and act morally exclusively. We stunt our wisdom's growth in only acting "good" while we grow closer (become quantum-entangled) to the God process underlying causality when we gain wisdom.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
Vman: Finally morality operates throughout the world as witnessed in many acts of kindness and compassion.
Art: Yes, moral and immoral acts are products of personality, as need based evaluations that produce thoughts, intuitions, feelings, fantasies and responses. Moral acts are based in love of self, family, friends, and country, and fulfill needs to love.
Vman: Of course, such acts are simply due to peoples' delusional foolishness.
Art: Many times. Love is the basis of morality. Unconditional love, like all love, is instinctively based to care for offspring. Morality based on unconditional love is appropriate for infants only, but we extend the adoptive-identification process to non-kin, including pets, and even plants. We fulfill our needs to unconditionally love in this way.
The appropriate love for non-infants is conditional love, where love is contingent on the love object fulfilling expectations, achievements, rule-adherence, etc. We have friends but when they abuse our love we properly turn away from them or even fight back. Women take abuse from others because they have more unconditional love than men - men also have more aggressivity than women. Is the woman who lets a man abuse her loving appropritely? No, she is loving the man as if he were her infant and he is not.
Christ urged to love unconditionaly and act morally out of this love instaed of out of conditional love. This is inappropriate and unwise, and causes more problems than it solves. Christ was a stupid moral philospher but he has a broad appeal to the need in most of us to love unconditionally, even though that need is overgeneralized to a thought disorder degree. We should always love conditionally only, loving others only when that is merited by their past or predicted behavior, unless those others are our infants. We similarly should be careful who we adopt in loving unconditionally - women particularly should not adopt a mate but should only love a mate conditionally - leaving the abusive mate, or even attacking/killing the mate when justified. Too often the courts side with the abusive mate and against the abused woman - immorally so - it's a man's world.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
