|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Baby Theresa | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
meaning they have no possibility for conscious thought. Maybe the problem arises in statements such as this. I looked up 'perversion' in the dictionary yesterday (in connection with another thread) and got a very ambiguous answer. It seems that 'perversion' is in they eye of the beholder. Presupposing that "person" equates to parts of the brain has no basis other than in the minds (another thorny one) of a segment of the population. Edited by iano, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: ....equates to parts of the brain has no basis other than in the minds (another thorny one) of a segment of the population.
crash writes: Is a dead body a person? I mean, the only difference between a living person and a dead one, medically, is that the brain has ceased operation. Hi Crash.. Can we agree that one part of the population has been dealt with in the above statement?
But according to what you imply, the death of the brain can't be taken as the end of the person. Shouldn't we rethink the whole idea of post-mortem organ donation according to your position? The whole idea of embalmment and burial, for that matter? Another seqment, for example, Jehovahs Witnesses, might conclude this too - that the person is wrapped up in their organs This person doesn't see a person wrapped up with the physical body at all. When the physical body dies you can do with it what you will. It affects the person who drove it ( vehicle style) not a jot Edited by iano, : formatting Edited by iano, : formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jr writes: However, I would like to clarify that I never identified the essence of a person with any particular body part: A person is the result of an extremely elaborate and complex set of systems working in harmony to allow for the life of the unit as a whole. Most of these systems can be cultured to sustain life operations on their own; however, the life of the unit as a whole cannot exist without any vital system. The life of a person is not necessarily tied up with the existance of the person. Either it is or it isn't - we can't say for sure. Life for want of knowing otherwise can be considered a vehicle for the person to express themselves in this world. Whilst fullness of life function can vary wildly, the expression of the person (to whatever degree) has the potential to continue until such time as the person is dead. Stone dead rather than brain dead - I mean. Any line drawn through the scale of all possible function which attempts to comment on the persons personhood is purely and arbitarily subjective. Man assuming the role (irrespective of his motivations being noble or ignoble) of God. Anyway, an opinion on your OP's question? I would take the view that organ donation is ethical only after the point of death. That is stone death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Do you think we will ever agree? If I was a betting man I would lay money down that one day we will. But I'm not a betting man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
In which case it seems the only alternative is to go and play God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
And what does it mean to play God? I'm not sure that defining life is playing the role of God, especially considering that the English language is a manmade construct. Defining life is not playing God. Supposing that the definition of life represents what life actually is and then using the defination rather than the actuality in order to terminate it is playing God.
It is arguably impossible to perfectly define a concept with an evolving language. What we are trying to do is merely to refine the definition of human life so that it can adapt to the needs of an evolving culture. Exactly. I would put it this way. It is impossible to define life (be definite) using a tool which is indefinite (language). "We don't know what life is but will use a pseudo-definitiveness in order to do that with life which suits our book at the time" Act as if it is for us to decide on anothers life. But it is no ones to take away. Not the parents, nor the doctors nor the ethicists. When they do they are playing at being God. Ignoble or noble it matters not Edited by iano, : insert second quote as originally intended
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Perhaps you would like to give us the "real" definition of life? I don't suppose that you can define life at least not in any objective sense. Sure you can have all the subjective definitions that you want: whatever one suits you best should suffice.
But how else can we define life? Your statement implies that we cannot define what life is based on the tools that we have therefore should not try to do so. I said you cannot define life based on the tools that you have. That means life in undefinable in any objective sense. Now if you chose to circumvent this fact and terminate the 'lives' of those who do not fit your subjective definition of life then God you are playing. Playing God means acting as if objective definitions were available which would make it possible to know for sure the difference between life and non-life.
This "person" who so far cannot be defined as alive or dead could potentially save many other lives that we know for sure are alive. That is the kind of playing God decision that gets made when one decides to play God. Everyone has to chose for themselves whether they want to play this game or not. It will always be a game.
there are much more at stake than just trying to live up to these words. The continued existence of a person or persons for example. Which person did you have in mind for continued existance? The ones who you subjectively define as persons presumably. I'm not saying the our subjective definitions are useless and that no attempt should be made to work with them. But when it comes to life and death of persons you really do not know what you are doing. You may think the benefits outweight the unknowns. More at stake than what precisely? You do not know in fact. And when you decide you are playing God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
This particular case disturbed me because the so-called professional ethicists were the local religious leaders rather than philosophers. Rather than philosophers? What qualification does a philosopher have to comment which exceeds that of a religious person I wonder
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If you insist, then yes I insist on playing god. Okay. Your choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Consider that your world is the two-dimensional surface of a white piece of paper... Nice picture jr. What we are doing in this case is inferring characteristics of a 3d based on our 2d. But from our 2d perspective the spread and decay of the pattern will certainly be explained from a 2d perspective only - we wouldn't know of the "passing through" which invokes an unknown 3d (that would invoke the supernatural - God forbid!) We would come up with an explanation which is strictly 2d. A spot in 2d could expand and decay without causing us any intellectual trouble at all (think a 2d singularity)
We need to have a definition of life for legal and medical purposes. When a person marks on their driver’s license that they’re an organ donor, when they die we usually take their organs. "Legal" (man plays God) and "medical" (man plays God) and...(fill whatever definitions you like here). "When a person marks..." is a case where the person themselves play God - closer to the acuality perhaps - for at least it is their own life they play God with. But no less playing God.
But does the beating of a heart signify the life of the person? Of course it doesn’t. You can approach this from the standpoint of "what does" or you can approach it from the standpoint of "what doesn't"... constitute life. But you will never arrive at a zero. And if you decide (as I think you must) that you can't arrive at zero.. Then what? Play God? Edited by iano, : format
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024