Iano writes: It is impossible to define life (be definite) using a tool which is indefinite (language).
This is similar to saying that you can’t define a three dimensional space if you live in a two dimensional one. Consider that your world is the two-dimensional surface of a white piece of paper, and a three dimensional black sphere passes through it. What you would see is a small circular black dot which gets larger until it reaches some maximum diameter, then gets smaller until it disappears completely. Describing what you saw would be describing this three-dimensional object in the context of your dimension, which can be done without having any knowledge of three dimensional space.
In the same sense, life can be defined in the reality allowed by our language. The reason I mentioned earlier that it was arguably impossible is that we cannot predict future applications of its definition. However, not attempting to define life for that reason would be akin to not writing the constitution because it won’t be able to take everything in the future into account.
Iano writes: 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.
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. Generally, when a person’s heart stops beating, we can accept that that person has died. By why is that? Their nails continue to grow, cells continue to replicate, antibodies continue to protect the body, and so on. Life processes are still being continued, yet we still accept that this person has died, and so we take his organs.
But does the beating of a heart signify the life of the person? Of course it doesn’t. Hearts can be grown and stimulated to make it beat, even without the presence of a human host. If it is generally accepted that someone who is brain-dead is legally dead, it shouldn’t be playing god any more than using the person whose heart stopped beating.
Rbq writes: This particular case disturbed me because the so-called professional ethicists were the local religious leaders rather than philosophers.
I tend to agree with this; however, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they are religious leaders. The US is an unusually religious country; 9 out of 10 people say they believe in a personal God. People generally accept religious leaders as moral experts because people commonly believe that morality can be understood only within the context of religion. However, if we accept the theological conception of right and wrong, we are caught in a dilemma. The following is an argument paraphrased from “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels:
Consider two lines of thought: (1) Right is right because God commands it, and (2) God commands it because it is right.
If you are under the persuasion of the first line of thought, consider that God has commanded us to tell the truth, and therefore telling the truth is right. However, if he commanded us to lie, then lying would be right. You might be tempted to reply, “But God would never command us to lie because it is wrong.” However, by virtue of the command it becomes right, making his commands completely arbitrary. Saying that God’s commands are good would become meaningless. Consider that if “X is good” means “X is commanded by God,” then “God’s commands are good” would mean “Gods commands are commanded by God,” an empty truism.
Under the second persuasion, God commanding something because it is right implies that a standard of morality exists independent of God. He does not make it good by commanding it, but commands it because some logical standard already exists. Even from a religious standpoint, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God’s will must be accepted.
Though this explains why it isn’t necessary to be religious to be moral, it doesn’t explain why I might be perturbed by highly religious leaders as being the only moral experts. My problem is that it is the tendency of a highly religious person to take the Bible too literally, quoting excerpts and interpreting passages to find instructions rather than a guide towards making their own logical judgment. Consider that religious people condemn homosexuality because it is condemned in the bible: In the Leviticus it says “You may not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination (18:22).” Leviticus also gives lengthy instructions about how to treat leprosy, and provides an elaborate routine for dealing with women who are menstruating. It also states if a priests daughter is a whore she shall be burned alive (21-9), forbids eating fat (7-23), prohibits letting women into church until 42 days after giving birth (12:4-5), states that a beard must have square corners (19:27), and states that we may purchase slaves from neighboring states (25:44).
I would consider it unreasonable to live by these standards. You might argue that some of these standards, such as the comment on slavery, are outdated. However, this of course leads the door right open to saying that it is all outdated. In my mind, the Bible should be used to find inspiration and guidance for your own moral standard, not as the backbone for it. It's easy to confuse this, which is why I think people that base moral judgment purely on logic should be accepted with religious leaders as morality experts.
Edited by jmrozi1, : spelling
™ Version 4.2