Baby Theresa

jmrozi1 writes

quote:

---

A number of professional ethicists were called on by the press to comment...

---

This particular case disturbed me because the so-called professional ethicists were the local religious leaders rather than philosophers. In fact, this was not an isolated incidence. Just about everytime a so-called moral issue comes up in politics, religious leaders are called upon to make the call on the issues. This is disturbing because religious leaders are anything but moral leaders or ethicists.

iano writes

quote:

---

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.

---

Perhaps you would like to give us the "real" definition of life?

quote:

---

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.

---

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. This is, I think, a nonpractical way to deal with reality, especially when we are not just dealing with just one being trapped in limbo. 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.

quote:

---

Ignoble or noble it matters not

---

While I agree with this statement, I don't see what it has to do with the issue. Ignoble and noble are just words. When dealing with reality, 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.

iano writes

quote:

---

Which person did you have in mind for continued existance?

---

Between a braindead patient and an otherwise healthy and kicking baby that needs a liver to have a future, I'd go with the second.

quote:

---

The ones who you subjectively define as persons presumably.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you insist, then yes I insist on playing god. And to address specifically to this case, to choose between a braindead baby who has absolutely no future whatsoever and 10 babies who might potentially become the next Guttenbergs or even the next Hitlers, I'd go with the 10 babies.

iano writes

quote:

---

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

---

Philosophers haven't been indoctrinized. Religious people have.I have attended countless debates between philosophy professors and local preachers. While I can't say I have agreed with the professors all the time, I'd have to say that they could at least present much more coherent and well thought out arguments than the preachers, all who seemed to ultimately resorted to evangelism once it became clear they couldn't present anything of substance.Besides, any average joe could start calling himself reverend. Heck, you could even get a certificate to become a genuine reverend over the internet. Philosophers, on the other hand, had to go through many years, if not decades of formal and informal trainings before they could identify themselves as philosophers.

jmrozi1 writes

quote:

---

Not all religious people have been indoctrinated

---

This I agree with. However, notice my first post in this thread. I said religious leaders are anything but moral leaders.

quote:

---

Your statement leads to the notion that most religious people are narrow-minded and stubborn, but this isn't the typical religious person; it's just the "louder" one.

---

And I rightly maintain what I said. The quiet majority you are referring to have no affect on the rest of us since they have decided to be quiet. The loud ones, though few in number, are usually the ones that are called upon to represent the voices of religion. It's these ones that city officials look to when they have a moral dilemma.So, as far as I'm concern, these loud ones represent the bulk of the religious communities, including the quiet ones.

quote:

---

As far as philosophers not being indoctrinated, I disagree. Consider that Socrates died by Hemlock for his beliefs. Though Socrates might have been strong enough not to be indoctrinated, he seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

---

Yes, and they also had slaves back then. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the connection between philosophers that belonged in ancient times and philosophers today.I did not say all philosophers today are right at all things. I said that at the very least they have been forced to think through these issues before they are assigned the title. At the very least, they can present coherent arguments without having to resort to appeal to emotions in the crowd below. And at the very least, they have been through years, if not decades, of formal training.Reverends, on the other hand, most have never had any type of formal training. Any dumbass can start calling himself reverend.College campuses occasionally have these debates between philosopher professors and local preachers sponsored by student organizations. You should attend these debates. If you know about the logical fallacies, you will very quickly begin to notice that the preachers have absolutely no clue on how to present their arguments without resorting to these fallacies.

jmrozi1 writes

quote:

---

A philosopher needs to be nothing more than a student of philosophy to claim this title.

---

Not true.

quote:

---

A reverend, on the other hand, needs to be ordained.

---

Again, not true.

You can be ordained to be a minister or reverend over the internet nowadays, that is if you even bother to get ordained at all. Many people just start calling themselves minister or reverend.

So, let me get this straight. Do you agree or do not agree that you can be ordained to be a minister or reverend over the internet?By the way, look up the word hypothesis using your dictionary source there and tell us what's wrong with their given definition.You can also look up the word scientist and tell us if there's anything deceiving about that definition.Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

jmrozi1 writes

quote:

---

Agree. You can also get a teaching degree online, courtesy of Phoenix University.

---

The difference is with the Phoenix program you have to do some work. Being ordained online takes little more work than fill in the blanks.

quote:

---

hypothesis:
1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation

---

In a scientific sense, the definition of hypothesis appears to be synonymous with theory. This is apparent when the dictionary states:The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.

quote:

---

scientist:
expert in science: somebody who has scientific training or works in one of the sciences

---

Just so you know, technicians are rarely referred to as scientists. Again, this definition is deceptive and depreciates what it means to be a scientist.

quote:

---

science:
1. study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment

---

Has science been reduced to a single sentence? This is a little sad.My point is dictionaries are great, but reality rarely fits what dictionaries state.