The lies of morality and personhood

Intro:
This is more like a statement than a debate. I'm not going to search to see if others have posted about this topic, or worry about if I can defend my position or what. I need to blow some steam. But I will be interested to know what others think, of course.CNN.com: Supreme Court rejects Schiavo appeal On-topic rant:
I don't know about "ideals" or situations in the past. But in the present, there's food and money shortage. There is a large disparity between those that have and those that don't. There are so many friggin people in this globalized, small world.Err on the side of life? How many lives can be saved, improved, taken to equal heights with that same money? There is no free, unclaimed money! There is no help that has no competition! How is it more "right" to give money, aid, help to allow somebody to "live" in this state? Do we have the luxury of morality? Morality is for the rich. We're talking survival. And really, does it matter if we knowingly starve her or not? If I ignore the children I'm starving with the money I'm using on Ms. Schiavo, is that not cruel? What if I do it knowingly?And I'm not talking just about those who live now. Can we have a little foresight? Are we fish that eat until we die? Sigh. Sigh sigh sigh.Off-topic rant:
People are not brains, minds. "Person" is a myth. We are simply sexual, emotional, unconscious creatures that have a parasitic, conscious head. I just don't see any reason to believe that anything but our basic brain stem truly drives our behavior. Yes, this goes for me too. The cortex and "higher" brain may be adaptive, but it certainly is not the core of what we are.Conclusion:
None. It's just an emotional rant. Do with it what you will. Feel free to criticize me as well. I'm no different than the people in the article. I just don't know what to do about it.Thanks for listening.Ben

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

One question, Ben. When you speak of starving children needing money more than Ms. Schiavo, are you speaking personally or globally and corporately?I will agree that the U.S. does not have unlimited funds, and that the issue is practical. Let morality be privately financed, or else extend compassion globally. This means what? Who gets the bill?

quote:

---

I don't know about "ideals" or situations in the past

---

It's not about ideals, Ben, it's about money and making sure that the 'have's' get more of it.
All other things pertaining to this case are incidental. One 'moneyed' hand washes the other.Morality is for the rich? Now, Ben! They are rich on the backs of someones and that is their morality.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

...And In A NutshellAnd the company director spins the globe
Looks into on atlas of the world
A supermarket lifestyle for as all
A thousand nations under company control
Coca-Cola got machines in every land
No-one got the teeth to bite the hand
Stole their labor, their culture, and their lives
To create a Coca-Cola paradise
Swallowing their soft drinks and their lies
Let's take the blindfold from our eyes- Chumbawamba

My "instinct" speaks personally, but my mind speaks I guess globally. I just don't know where to draw the line. That's part of my frustration.My brain tells me that, if I really have a moral, I should be thinking globally. My "gut" tells me to be a lot more selfish than that. I also feel I'm in this position because of my own "luck," having to do with my own birth.I don't know how to resolve it. I don't know the "right" way to go. My frustration in the article is with those who live in a luxurious position, act privately, then espouse "morality." To me, that's the farthest thing from morality. That's "instinct." That's the practical, self-fufilling morality that fits within evolutionary theory. I can't think of that "morality" to be anything more than that.What do you think?Ben