The Forum > Article Comments > An Australian way of death: voluntary assisted dying > Comments
An Australian way of death: voluntary assisted dying : Comments
By Spencer Gear, published 19/3/2020If a majority of people agree with a position, does that make it right? An Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy that is difficult to notice because it sounds like common sense.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 24 March 2020 6:26:26 PM
| |
Armchair Critic,
<<You need to learn the recipe for how my system succeeds where yours fails.>> It succeeds with: 'Ethics says "Everybody has a right to live however they choose so long as it doesnt (sic) have a negative or detrimental impact upon others."' Your system of ethics is out of the minds of human beings. Having no 'negative or detrimental impact upon others' is determined by the individual. + For Hitler it meant the slaughter of over 6 million in the gas ovens; + Stalin slaughtered approx. 20 million. + Mao Zedong murdered 42.5 million in the Gulag. + Pol Pot in Cambodia killed 1.5-2 million. + Idi Amin in Uganda killed around 300,000 - all for the good of their countries and to purify the human race. Your utilitarian ethics has a horrible track record and I haven't discussed the impact of terrorism. Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 24 March 2020 6:42:36 PM
| |
Hey OxSpen,
(Sorry if the responses are out of order, and if I missed any questions) Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin these are not examples of people acting in an ethical manner. These are examples of 'End's justifies the means', with their actions having negative and detrimental impacts upon many people. - A mentality you're well aware of because you mentioned it in your article. "Would you believe I have 70 decades of experience? The length of experience does not determine the content of morality/ethics." - Fair enough I'll take your point on that, and why would I have reason to think you would lie about your age? "I'm not like a boat in the storm in my world view." - Well when you write the articles, are you asking Dorothy Dixer questions where you want to steer us towards YOUR beliefs, or do you actually want OUR opinions? Or do you want an opportunity to correct our opinions, like you're marking a test? - Doing God's work, steering us all in the right direction? You have these strange leaps of logic. First you conclude that because another nation promotes a failed system, that it's impossible for anyone else to do better where they've failed. Then you say "Is the kind of morality we want..", "Is this the ethical system we want.." The system you outlined isn't ethical, which means any assumed morals attributed to it are misconceptions. You shouldn't be using their system as an example that 'nobody can do better' in order to promote your own Judeo-Christian values of not killing; Why not simply figure out which parts are unacceptable; - Based not upon religion, but upon respect and human dignity? The worlds had religion spinning around for 2 thousand years and all you're doing is headbutting a brick wall with the same cracked record. You're not capable of moving forward and helping create a better system because you're constrained by your existing beliefs. Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 25 March 2020 8:13:06 PM
| |
[Cont.]
You're too concerned about how God (if he or she exists) might judge YOU if you act to help end a persons suffering, then the person suffering themselves. Your religion claims to be concerned about others, but really you're just concerned with your own salvation come judgement day, are you not? You're only concerned that your salvation itself might be negatively or detrimentally impacted by having to make such a difficult decision, so you'll choose to do nothing and in your indecision and in hindsight try to preach and claim you acted morally, when all you did was throw your hands in the air. I told you about my dog, dying from leukemia. He'd gone blind and was bleeding from his arse and penis. Can you imagine how that would be? Maybe I should've just let him suffer a bit longer to spare myself of any potential guilt or wrongdoing? "Who invented that slogan for ethics?" - Probably me, but it's derived from John Stuart Mill's 'Harm Principle, something that came after Jesus's time. "You are wrong again as you invent my 'guidelines for correct behavior'." - I didn't invent 'the idea of acting in a manner that does not harm others'. I just pointed out that people practicing your religion are quite happy to act in a manner that harms others. It's not about every individuals IDEA of what right and what is wrong. It's about what IS right and what IS wrong. I have to follow the rules too. "In my interaction, I have attempted to expose the holes in your world view that a philosophical truck can drive through". The only thing you successfully argued on a basis of merit was that one's age does not necessarily relate to one's wisdom. Do you see how I write? It's a collection of 'arguments that hold merit'. Truth, Ethics, Arguments That Hold Merit, and The Bigger Picture. - That's how I beat you every time Spencer but it's not about winning or losing. Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 25 March 2020 8:18:07 PM
| |
Hey Spencer,
I just wanted to make an extra note about this statement I made. "You're only concerned that your salvation itself might be negatively or detrimentally impacted by having to make such a difficult decision, so you'll choose to do nothing and in your indecision and in hindsight try to preach and claim you acted morally, when all you did was throw your hands in the air." When I said this I wasn't specifically referring to you or your mum. I already spoke in regards to that in an earlier comment. (Whether your actions were consistent with what she believed or what she wanted) The comments above were generalised about the mentality of Christians, and not meant to be personal criticism in any way of the matters regarding your mothers passing. I just wanted you to know that. Sorry if my responses are all over the place today. We have some quite troubling times ahead, and I'm a little concerned about how things will go in the coming weeks, and I'm worried about whether my own parents who are about your age will make it through. I wish you, your friends and family good health in the months ahead. - And anyone else reading for that matter, good luck to you all - Hey Not_Now.Soon, Thanks for your thoughts and contribution; "In this instance giving something to God doesn't mean to give up on the matter, or to be unthinking on the matter. But it does still mean to trust Him regardless how well you act in the situation." I'm guess I'm still pondering this, I suppose I focus on what I consider 'ignorance', or even 'wilful ignorance' as the act that causes harm to others. Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 25 March 2020 8:51:34 PM
| |
Armchair Critic,
<<Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin these are not examples of people acting in an ethical manner. These are examples of 'End's justifies the means', with their actions having negative and detrimental impacts upon many people.>> Your response is false because of the ethics of: + Hitler: In Germany during World War 2, Hitler's goal was to develop a more perfect race. A pretty good goal one could think? But his way to attain it was evil (killing six million Jews and millions of others). Hitler most definitely acted in an unethical way. + Oxford University Historian, Professor Robert Service wrote of Stalin, 'One thing is sure, it was Stalin who instigated the carnage of 1937 to 1938. He and nobody else was the engineer of imprisonment, torture, penal labor and shooting. Yet though he didn't need much temptation to maim and kill, he had a strategy in mind. Stalin knew what he was hunting in the Great Terror and why. There was a basic logic to this murderous activity', http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4670963 And you have the audacity to state that this is not an unethical example of Stalin in action. + What were Mao Zedong's ethics? He said, 'purging today’s society will lead to a great society in the future. What would be purged and to what extent? After considering the knowledge through history about his Cultural Revolution, I believe he is referring to destroying or changing traditional institutions such as religion, social hierarchy, and family. This assumes that there is something presently wrong about these institutions. But this would also mean that humans living in the present would lose their lives to benefit human lives in the future', http://medium.com/international-workers-press/the-cultural-revolution-ethics-in-perspective-662906e14804 These are examples of ethics in action, leading to horrific genocide. Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 25 March 2020 9:17:07 PM
|
You were crude and rude in your response at: Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 24 March 2020 6:22:16 AM.
Your claim was that: 'You think morals are 'guidelines' for correct behavior; (because you don't know the difference between morals and ethics) - But I see ethics as 'rules' for correct behavior. Rules of right and wrong that determine one's ability to make 'moral' decisions. She broke the rules, because she had no ethics.
She didn't even know there were rules>>,
You are wrong again as you invent my 'guidelines for correct behavior'.
'Once while in Australia for a speaking engagement, [Dr Norman Geisler] was engaged in dinner conversation with a medical student. “What is the subject of your lecture series?” he asked. “Ethics,” I replied. “What is that?” he inquired. I took a moment to recover from my shock. Here was a bright young man about to enter a profession involving some of the major ethical decisions of our time who did not even know what ethics was! I said softly and gently, so as not to offend him for his ignorance, “Ethics deals with what is right and what is wrong.”' http://www.equip.org/article/any-absolutes-absolutely/
If I follow your 'guidelines' for correct behaviour, I must allow every other person on the globe to do what is right for him or her - determined by human standards. You are advocating an ethical system where human beings are the measure of right and wrong in ethics.
"Since moral rightness is prescribed by a moral God, it is prescriptive. For there is no moral law without a Moral Lawgiver; there is no moral legislation without a Moral Legislator. So, Christian ethics is, by its very nature, prescriptive, not descriptive. That is to say, ethics deals with what ought to be, not with what is. Christians do not find their ethical duties in the standard of Christians but in the standard for Christians (the Bible)" (Geisler ibid).