Baby Theresa

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

Hi Crash..Can we agree that one part of the population has been dealt with in the above statement? Another seqment, for example, Jehovahs Witnesses, might conclude this too - that the person is wrapped up in their organsThis 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 jotEdited by iano, : formattingEdited by iano, : formatting

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.

If I was a betting man I would lay money down that one day we will. But I'm not a betting man.

In which case it seems the only alternative is to go and play God.

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. 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 notEdited by iano, : insert second quote as originally intended

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. 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. 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. 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.

Rather than philosophers? What qualification does a philosopher have to comment which exceeds that of a religious person I wonder

Okay. Your choice.

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) "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. 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