|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/14/2008 10:36:52 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What I think he meant to imply is whether or not it has a living soul. You're very diplomatic, e1ng! The only implication I can see is support for utilitarian ethics and that is a pathetic attitude for any one human being to have towards another human life which God has created.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/14/2008 11:33:05 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 238
Status: offline
|
I definitely agree with you drmark that utilitarian ethics is a total disrespect for human life. I wouldn't be surprised if you assessment of drj11 is correct, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt, since I have not debated with him enough to compile an opinion of his views. But I will say this. Too many people use the argument of "no human soul" to morally pacify their beliefs...and whether or not they will admit it, this often if not always leads to this utilitarian viewpoint towards human life, of which we both, and many Christians, find despicable and disrespectful. They will also use that same argument of "no human soul" to support abortion, which is definitely a parallel to the genetically modified human embryo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/15/2008 3:07:32 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 321
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, other than the fact that this paragraph makes one assertion then goes onto disprove the assertion (leaving me little room for me to do so) I would say that you have articulated what I have regularly argued elsewhere; evolution wishes to encompass the whole of human experience, including being a basis for understanding morality. The problem of course is, there is an evolutionary justification for every human behavior, no matter how repugnant, so while ‘science’ claims to explain such things, it can provide no direction for our moral choices at all.
Please describe how I contradicted myself. I first said that science can not tell us what is right and wrong. Then I said that it can tell us why the things that we do consider to be right and wrong came to be the things we consider to be right and wrong. This is not telling us what is right an wrong, merely why we consider them to be so.
Some proponents of evolutionary theory seek to use it to describe every detail of life, I'll agree. I, however, do not. I believe that the evolutionary framework is useful for describing the origins of many of the behaviors that we see in humans. I do not believe that it is useful in many situations.
I also decry your use of the word justification. Evolutionary theory can not justify anything, in and of itself. It can be used to justify things, certainly, as any idea can, but the theory itself holds no such power. It is merely a model to describe the origin of different species. It can be used to describe a great many things about biology, behavior, etc... It can justify none of them.
quote:
Interesting how you go from, Science doesn’t speak to morals…to science tells us how morals came about…to science tells us morals are irrelevant. It’s like this caricature of post modernist thinking.
You have either willfully or accidentally mis-read my comments.
Science does not speak in moral terms, for this we have ethics. Scientific investigation can reveal to us likely paths by which human morality developed, and why we hold some of the beliefs we do. This does not speak to whether of not those beliefs are valid, or even what valid would mean in reference to right and wrong.
Science also does not tell us that morals are irrelevant. It takes the basest investigation to reveal how morals have influenced human society. Dig slightly deeper and you will see how many moral beliefs are fluid, changing with time or culture. Does this speak of the relevancy of morals? I don't believe so; it is mere observation.
Looking further back, we can see how morals have allowed our species come to the point it has. It is possible that our species would have survived without morals, but it is unlikely any cohesive groups could have been formed. Does this tell us what morals are relevant? In a way. It tells us what morality has allowed our species to progress as it has. It can also show how in-group morality has potentially hindered our progress.
These shows how morality has been pertinent to our survival, how it has shaped society. It shows that morals have been relevant to the extent that they have shaped us. It still does not tell us whether or not one belief is correct, or incorrect.
I could, again, propose that the more widespread the ability to communicate becomes, the less war and prejudice will exist. Does this tell us that a lack of prejudice is good? No. It is simply a prediction of the state of things.
It's my belief that a lack of prejudice is a redeeming trait. This belief is not scientific. Observation can show that I hold this belief. Study can show that others do not hold this belief, or that this belief was less prevalent in the past, or is likely to be moreso in the future. None of this makes a judgment on whether or not the belief is actually correct.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/15/2008 3:45:18 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6728
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please describe how I contradicted myself. I first said that science can not tell us what is right and wrong. Then I said that it can tell us why the things that we do consider to be right and wrong came to be the things we consider to be right and wrong. This is not telling us what is right an wrong, merely why we consider them to be so.
You laid out a scientific theory you claimed was the basis for morals. Albeit it was vaguely asserted, empirically unsupported, intellectually mushy and clichéd idea about where morals come from, but it still aspired to be some notion of the origin of morals, and thus attempts to tell us what is ‘right and wrong’ as much as it claims notions of right and wrong are mere derivations of our evolution as a species.
quote:
I also decry your use of the word justification. Evolutionary theory can not justify anything, in and of itself. It can be used to justify things, certainly, as any idea can, but the theory itself holds no such power. It is merely a model to describe the origin of different species. It can be used to describe a great many things about biology, behavior, etc... It can justify none of them.
First off, don’t decry anything here; when you say that you sound like some literary twit who is trying to find new words for ‘disagree with’.
And I have to point out you consistently contradict yourself as in:
Evolutionary theory can not justify anything…
then, immediately
It can be used to justify things…
Seriously, read what you post at least once and pick up on these obvious contradictions. Enough said about this.
You have either willfully or accidentally mis-read my comments.
quote:
Science does not speak in moral terms, for this we have ethics. Scientific investigation can reveal to us likely paths by which human morality developed, and why we hold some of the beliefs we do. This does not speak to whether of not those beliefs are valid, or even what valid would mean in reference to right and wrong.
Science also does not tell us that morals are irrelevant. It takes the basest investigation to reveal how morals have influenced human society. Dig slightly deeper and you will see how many moral beliefs are fluid, changing with time or culture. Does this speak of the relevancy of morals? I don't believe so; it is mere observation.
Looking further back, we can see how morals have allowed our species come to the point it has. It is possible that our species would have survived without morals, but it is unlikely any cohesive groups could have been formed. Does this tell us what morals are relevant? In a way. It tells us what morality has allowed our species to progress as it has. It can also show how in-group morality has potentially hindered our progress.
These shows how morality has been pertinent to our survival, how it has shaped society. It shows that morals have been relevant to the extent that they have shaped us. It still does not tell us whether or not one belief is correct, or incorrect.
I have to say, forcing myself to read through this stuff is pure torture. I mean absolute and utter torture. It’s like reading a really bad amalgam of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and the reluctant essay of a first year psychology major who is trying desperately to remember what was said in lecture and repeat it back to the professor in a way that sounds like one paid attention in class. Seriously, it’s that bad. It’s almost impossible to respond to because it’s like responding to smoke. Morals are fluid, morals are relevant, morals caused us to progress, morals hindered us, morals helped us survive, morals shaped us. Arrrghhh!!! Lots of words, nothing said.
quote:
I could, again, propose that the more widespread the ability to communicate becomes, the less war and prejudice will exist.
Finally, a statement of substance which can be objectively considered – okay, I considered it for two seconds, and it’s obviously wrong. Some of the worst wars and greatest prejudices of all times occurred as communication abilities increased; and there is no shortage of conflict or prejudice in the age of information. So wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong.
See how easy it is to measure the accuracy of a moral assertion?
quote:
Does this tell us that a lack of prejudice is good? No. It is simply a prediction of the state of things.
It's my belief that a lack of prejudice is a redeeming trait. This belief is not scientific. Observation can show that I hold this belief. Study can show that others do not hold this belief, or that this belief was less prevalent in the past, or is likely to be moreso in the future. None of this makes a judgment on whether or not the belief is actually correct.
Okay, we are back to lala land. You don’t know whether the ‘lack of prejudice’ is good, despite the fact that you connect it to ‘less war’. If you can’t objectively say ‘less war’ is preferable to ‘more war’, can you make a judgement about anything at all?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/15/2008 11:32:29 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 482
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
You're exactly right drmark. The embryo in question is indeed human, and it is living, making it a human life. I believe he misspoke. What I think he meant to imply is whether or not it has a living soul. But I can't comprehend how that could even be an issue! First of all, there is no way to prove when it (the embryo) becomes a person. So I would rather err on the side of caution, and leave it be. That's called wisdom. Secondly, whether or not is has a soul, it has the RIGHT to one. If an individual runs a marathon, do he not have the right to finish? Wouldn't he be a little PO'ed if someone jumped in 3 feet before he finished and told him he couldn't finish the race? I know I would! Even if there were some way to prove the exact date when an embryo becomes a person, it still has the right to become a person, even before it is. So IMO, we have no right tweaking and tinkering with human life...and yes, it is human life by definition.
Well, I don't really see any reason to believe in the concept of a soul, so that really wouldn't be accurate. I can't see that as any more than superstition... IMHO, A zygote/few days old embryo is about as human as the swab of skin cells you can take out of the inside of your mouth for a DNA test.
But sure lets err on the side of caution when it comes to embryo's. How bout embryo's that are more than 2 weeks old, cannot be experimented on? Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/15/2008 11:42:49 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 238
Status: offline
|
quote:
How bout embryo's that are more than 2 weeks old, cannot be experimented on? Problem solved.
Where is the caution? To err on the side of caution is to not compromise. Sorry, my answer is no. Human life is something sacred, and should be treated differently that other forms of life. I do not support experimenting with human life, and that's EXACTLY what it is! I don't care if its 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 2 minutes, or 2 seconds old. But, this is just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/15/2008 5:05:03 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
But sure lets err on the side of caution when it comes to embryo's. How bout embryo's that are more than 2 weeks old, cannot be experimented on? Problem solved. Strike 3, drj, you're out! What's the magic occurrence at 2 weeks of development? More alive, more human, more soul, more politically correct drivel? Do you stay up nights figuring out ways to embarrass the definition of ethics or does it just come naturally?
quote:
But, this is just my humble opinion. No e1ng, actually this is your carefully considered conclusion based on a realistic and cogent worldview supported by Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. And I applaud you for it since you obviously know how to avoid embarrassing ethical beliefs. Keep up the good work!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/15/2008 5:43:31 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 482
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Strike 3, drj, you're out! What's the magic occurrence at 2 weeks of development? More alive, more human, more soul, more politically correct drivel? Do you stay up nights figuring out ways to embarrass the definition of ethics or does it just come naturally?
Nothing is magical about the two week mark, nor did I imply that.. it's erring on the side of caution, and an overtly generous one at that. A slim but significant majority of people in this country feel its ethical to terminate a pregnancy somewhere within the first trimester... or at least that its unethical to disallow a pregnant woman from terminating it. That's well beyond the two week mark I mostly arbitrarily threw out there.
The ethical concerns from genetic tinkering with embryo's in my opinion, do not come from actually performing the experiments on cells whose practically only characteristic shared between itself and a living human is DNA (blueprints are not the building) but the consequences of such actions on the living being that would eventually develop should they be carried to term.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 5/15/2008 5:50:19 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/15/2008 8:58:53 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 238
Status: offline
|
quote:
The ethical concerns from genetic tinkering with embryo's in my opinion, do not come from actually performing the experiments on cells whose practically only characteristic shared between itself and a living human is DNA (blueprints are not the building) but the consequences of such actions on the living being that would eventually develop should they be carried to term.
WOW! There are a few things wrong here. First of all, as we have been debating, when is 'full term'? No one knows. So again, err on caution, and 2 weeks is not cautious!
Secondly, your opinion on why and when ethical concerns come into perspective is, in all due respect, both naive and ignorant. Some people (yours truly) don't like the idea of humans playing God. If one day it is proven no negative consequences will occur when genetically modifying a human embryo, there will still be a bulk of people who do not support it. So your assertion that " The ethical concerns from genetic tinkering with embryo's...do not come from actually performing the experiments on cells..." is completely and utterly wrong. Another problem people (me) have a problem with this is the fact that human life is being destroyed. IF the human embryo in question does not come to 'full term' (whatever that means), it was destroyed. This, in and of itself, is reason enough for me, and probably drmark, to reject and and utterly despise this utilitarian perspective of human life. Destroying an embryo after 2 weeks is despicable. All that is is searing your guilty conscious of killing a human being....but destroying human life is ok? Come on! A human embryo is human life, which is a human being, and if not, it has the right to become one. THAT is erring on the side of caution.
quote:
No e1ng, actually this is your carefully considered conclusion based on a realistic and cogent worldview supported by Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. And I applaud you for it since you obviously know how to avoid embarrassing ethical beliefs. Keep up the good work!
I deeply appreciate your respectful and humble compliments. A young kid like me does not deserve your respect, but will most certainly accept it when given.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/15/2008 11:51:45 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 482
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
WOW! There are a few things wrong here. First of all, as we have been debating, when is 'full term'? No one knows. So again, err on caution, and 2 weeks is not cautious!
Secondly, your opinion on why and when ethical concerns come into perspective is, in all due respect, both naive and ignorant. Some people (yours truly) don't like the idea of humans playing God. If one day it is proven no negative consequences will occur when genetically modifying a human embryo, there will still be a bulk of people who do not support it.
In your eye's what's the difference between curing a bacterial infection, and making sure a defect that will cause a person a short life of excruciating pain and misery gets fixed at the genetic level before birth? Theological explanations such as, "well I just don't wanna play god" would come up severely lacking to any reasonable person who would be facing the choice of having a child born with such a genetic disease. Heck, this research could even lead to a reduction in the number of abortions where the reason for termination is severe genetic defects.
I think, in time, we wont think of it any differently than vaccinations or anti-biotics assuming the technology advances to that point.
But as others have pointed out in this thread... where do you draw the line? Should we make your kid taller so he can join the NBA?
quote:
So your assertion that " The ethical concerns from genetic tinkering with embryo's...do not come from actually performing the experiments on cells..." is completely and utterly wrong. Another problem people (me) have a problem with this is the fact that human life is being destroyed. IF the human embryo in question does not come to 'full term' (whatever that means), it was destroyed. This, in and of itself, is reason enough for me, and probably drmark, to reject and and utterly despise this utilitarian perspective of human life. Destroying an embryo after 2 weeks is despicable. All that is is searing your guilty conscious of killing a human being....but destroying human life is ok? Come on! A human embryo is human life, which is a human being, and if not, it has the right to become one. THAT is erring on the side of caution.
I already articulated why my stance isn't really utilitarian, not in the way you two are thinking. Drmark incorrectly alluded that my stance was like a utilitarian justification of slavery, which goes something like this:
1. The greatest good is to bring the most happiness possible to the majority of people
2. Enslave a minority of the population to serve the majority
3. The majority is therefor happier, and slavery is justified.
You'd need to believe embryo's are people with rights in order to evoke a utilitarian justification. Say someone like you believed we should experiment on embryo's, even though you think it's murder, but we should do it anyways, for the benefit of the majority of people at the expense of a minority. That would be utilitarian. My stance isn't, as I don't even consider an embryo a human being.
No matter what your personal feelings on the matter, you cannot deny there is quite a bit of disagreement with your position that it should be wrong and is wrong to experiment on embryos. The matter is hardly settled.
Are you willing to bite the bullet and forgo any and all current and future medical treatments that you or your family members may need which may have been derived from embryonic research? If not, that would be utilitarian.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 5/15/2008 11:57:59 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 12:26:14 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 238
Status: offline
|
quote:
...you cannot deny there is quite a bit of disagreement with your position that it should be wrong and is wrong to experiment on embryos.
I'm definitely not disagreeing with this, hence this debate. Obviously not everyone agrees with me. I'm quite aware of that. But you can't deny that there is quite a cbit of opposition to your viewpoint, which many consider utilitarian, depending on which definition one chooses to use.
quote:
I don't even consider an embryo a human being.
Well, I do. And MANY others do too. The difference between you and I is that you treat a 2 week old human life as a thing, and nothing more. I choose to treat it with a little more respect. You can not prove or guarantee genetically modifying a human embryo will always result in positive consequence. That is a theory that we can, at most, hope for. But the exact opposite could happen (and has happened) and that's not a chance I'm willing to take. As advanced as out science is today, it is still young and immature. And I, for one, don't trust it when it comes to HUMAN LIFE!!!! The only 'thing' (I pray this isn't disrespectful) I trust is my God. So we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, even though I'm right and you're wrong! :) (joke). Thanks for the discussion!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 2:31:11 AM
|
|
|
ponymt
Posts: 9
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
Many of the positions/arguments represented hear are similar to those posted under the Human Cloning thread. Perhaps I have a rather skewed perspective on this whole Forum thing or maybe my expectations are just unrealistic, but given the fact that the issue of morals and ethics are specifically mentioned, I’m both perplexed and dumbfounded that no one has endeavored to solicit the Word of God on the matter. Why are we so quick to spew limitless (and for the most part meaningless) subjective opinions (Rom. 1:22)?
Morals and morality do not come from nor are they defined by science. Morality has its origins within the law and this “law” God has imprinted on the hearts and conscience of every Man (Rom. 2:14&15) it is only when Man chooses to turns his back on God’s word that it appears to become arbitrary.
May I suggest that we try and substantiate our positions from the Word of God, which is the ultimate authority.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 3:28:47 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I deeply appreciate your respectful and humble compliments. A young kid like me does not deserve your respect, but will most certainly accept it when given. Well e1ng, I submit that respect is earned, not merely deserved, and you are earning more of mine with each post of yours I read!
quote:
May I suggest that we try and substantiate our positions from the Word of God, which is the ultimate authority. Excellent suggestion, ponymt! Do you wish to post the first relevant Scriptures or would you like to defer to my age? 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 6:04:51 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ponymt
Morals and morality do not come from nor are they defined by science. Morality has its origins within the law and this “law” God has imprinted on the hearts and conscience of every Man (Rom. 2:14&15) it is only when Man chooses to turns his back on God’s word that it appears to become arbitrary.
It is just as arbitrary to designate the Bible as the giver of morality. Without our own sense of morality there is no way that you can claim that the Bible contains moral laws. You are simply passing the buck.
Using the Nazi card in the other direction, Nazi officers were hung for NOT following orders. They were expected to have their own sense of morality. We are not automatons who are devoid of moral integrity. We are moral beings and are held accountable for our own morality. Passing the buck by claiming "The Bible tells me to" is not a valid argument.
quote:
May I suggest that we try and substantiate our positions from the Word of God, which is the ultimate authority.
How can you do that without first establishing that the Bible gives moral law?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 6:15:08 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is just as arbitrary to designate the Bible as the giver of morality. Nope, not when the Bible is the inspired Word of Absolute Morality Himself. But of course, your humanistic relativism rejects that Truth.
quote:
Without our own sense of morality there is no way that you can claim that the Bible contains moral laws. You are simply passing the buck. Our own sense of morality comes from the very Creator of our souls. But of course, your humanistic relativism rejects that Truth. I wholeheartedly "pass the buck" to the source of Absolute Morality Himself!
quote:
We are moral beings and are held accountable for our own morality. Held accountable by whom, Method. Who's to say one mans morals are not another man's psychoses?
quote:
How can you do that without first establishing that the Bible gives moral law? This is a Christian discussion forum, Method. Perhaps you should suggest a teaching, command, or law of Christ that seems immoral and we can evaluate that objectively.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 6:16:01 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 321
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
You laid out a scientific theory you claimed was the basis for morals. Albeit it was vaguely asserted, empirically unsupported, intellectually mushy and clichéd idea about where morals come from, but it still aspired to be some notion of the origin of morals, and thus attempts to tell us what is ‘right and wrong’ as much as it claims notions of right and wrong are mere derivations of our evolution as a species.
The origin of something does not tell us whether it is morally good, or morally bad. Even if we knew exactly where and how morality came about, that should not have any impact on our moral judgments. If morality emerged out of in-group mentality, then according to your way of thinking this would make purely in-group morality acceptable. In this day and age we disagree with that notion. We no longer subscribe to a purely in-group system. We no longer torture prisoners simply for being enemy combatants. We don't automatically condemn to death those who commit murder or treason.
This is why we have moral and ethical debates, because opinions on what is correct changes, morals change generation to generation. This is why laws are created and replaced. Whether the origin was natural or supernatural, morals have changed over time. If the origin was what dictated what is correct, morality should not have changed.
quote:
First off, don’t decry anything here; when you say that you sound like some literary twit who is trying to find new words for ‘disagree with’.
And I have to point out you consistently contradict yourself as in:
Evolutionary theory can not justify anything…
then, immediately
It can be used to justify things…
Seriously, read what you post at least once and pick up on these obvious contradictions. Enough said about this.
I like the word decry, it is a good word. It means, "to speak disparagingly of; denounce as faulty or worthless." You will notice that this fits fairly well with what I was saying. When used as "I decry..." it does basically mean, "I disagree with."
Further, as twit means, "an insignificant or bothersome person" it is a rather subjective term. I do, however, like literature (both writing and reading), and I do seem to be bothering you. Literary twit would, strictly speaking, be an appropriate label for me, from your viewpoint.
Allow me a simple self-correction, if you will. The idea I meant to convey was that evolutionary theory does not intrinsically justify things, but can be used to. This is in the same manner that the Bible has been used by some to justify technophobia. This is why I included "in and of itself," after "Evolutionary theory can not justify anything."
I will not accuse you of cherry-picking my post for quotes, because I believe you to be an honest person. Rather I will re-state myself. "Evolutionary theory does not intrinsically justify anything. It can, however, be used by people to justify things, as any idea can."
Does that work?
quote:
I have to say, forcing myself to read through this stuff is pure torture. I mean absolute and utter torture. It’s like reading a really bad amalgam of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and the reluctant essay of a first year psychology major who is trying desperately to remember what was said in lecture and repeat it back to the professor in a way that sounds like one paid attention in class. Seriously, it’s that bad. It’s almost impossible to respond to because it’s like responding to smoke. Morals are fluid, morals are relevant, morals caused us to progress, morals hindered us, morals helped us survive, morals shaped us. Arrrghhh!!! Lots of words, nothing said.
Actually, the end of your summary was quite correct. The bulk of it, however, was simply a mean-spirited retort verging on ad-hominem attack. It is not appreciated.
Most morality has been shown to be fluid, and even cursory observations of human history verify this. A few select morals seem to be universal, many others are not, and shift generation-to-generation.
Morals are relevant in that they have affected human development.
Morals helped us to progress because if we had no morality, there could be no cohesion in society.
Overly-strict in-group mentality has (IMO) hindered us.
Morals have obviously shaped our societies. This is why we have prisons and mental institutions.
There are only four basic points I presented. Fluidity, relevance, progression, and hindrance as they apply to morality. (I'm lumping shaping and relevance here). I don't see how this is overly complicated, but if you give me an idea of what you'd like me to expound on, I will try.
quote:
Finally, a statement of substance which can be objectively considered – okay, I considered it for two seconds, and it’s obviously wrong. Some of the worst wars and greatest prejudices of all times occurred as communication abilities increased; and there is no shortage of conflict or prejudice in the age of information. So wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong.
See how easy it is to measure the accuracy of a moral assertion?
I would argue that the wars and prejudices are only seem greater from an absolute vantage, not a relative vantage point. The barbarism of the Mongol hordes surely rivaled Hitler's in ferocity, if not numerically. The same applies to historic wars. I would be interested in seeing a percentage spread of casualty/population ratios. I would be willing to bet that they are at least nearly equal.
Globalsecurity.org lists 42 ongoing conflicts. It also lists, as of 2005, eight 'major' conflicts (military conflicts inflicting 1,000 battlefield deaths per year).
I will attempt to find statistics to back this up, but I believe that, in many periods of history, 42 wars worldwide would be considered a fairly low number. The wars of the past seem to have been generally more 'friendly', being in some cases even a gentleman's game of sorts, but if we're counting all of the inter-warring lords within countries, I would bet that there was a larger number of wars prior to the advent of mass communication.
I would also argue that the greatest conflict of recent history, WWII, was due to a breakdown of communication, and not because of greater communication. Directly before WWII, Hitler did four things. He rescinded Habeas Corpus, outlawed labor unions, outlawed all political parties except the Nazi party, and closed all newspapers aside from the national Nazi paper. This shows a complete shutdown of communication between not only Germany and the rest of the world, but within Germany itself.
Hitler's rise to power was, in part, due to the Allies refusal to listen to Germany's complaints about the Treaty of Versailles. It was not communication that stated WWII, but lack of.
However, WWII falls before the period I'm trying to get at. The advent of the internet, I would say, truly started the age of mass communication. It allows the people to immediately respond to any idea. It allows people of common views to meet each other readily. It provides a non-physically violent (usually) realm for communication. It's too early to tell, but I would hope that the spread of the internet will contribute to world peace. What I truly hope for is a ubiquitous, instantaneous translation device. Then people the world over could meet together on the net and share ideas. If this mass amount of communication were to ever be allowed, I believe it would be beneficial to society.
What I mean by mass communication is not the ability of the leaders to spread propaganda, or the ability of leaders to communicate with leaders. What I mean by mass communication is allowing the populations of different countries to directly influence each other by collective dialog.
quote:
Okay, we are back to lala land. You don’t know whether the ‘lack of prejudice’ is good, despite the fact that you connect it to ‘less war’. If you can’t objectively say ‘less war’ is preferable to ‘more war’, can you make a judgement about anything at all?
If "lala land" means "your personal opinion," then I agree, that was my person opinion. It was not any sort of empirical, objective statement. I, in fact, prefaced it with "This is belief is not scientific."
I would say that objectivity within morality is fairly impossible. I can imagine circumstances in which war would be preferable to a given alternate (Say, starvation of two non-waring populations, instead of each shoring the others numbers, and the victor taking the needed resources). In these cases, 'more war' could be argued to be a good thing.
I can make personal judgments about things, but I by no means claim them to be objective. I would go so far as to say that claiming objectivity in morality is a destructive thing. When two groups, each claiming the correct objective morality, come into contact, there is often fighting. The concept of subjective morality inherently allows for change and compromise of ideas. I don't know of any historical nation that held such views, so I can't really say what would happen if two of them met. I would speculate that there would be less fighting than between nations that believed strongly in their own objective morality, but this is unfounded speculation.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 6:47:15 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Nope, not when the Bible is the inspired Word of Absolute Morality Himself.
Which is just another empty claim. How do you know that the author of the Bible is moral? Because the author says so? Morality is not established by proclamation.
quote:
But of course, your humanistic relativism rejects that Truth.
My ability to reason rejects bad arguments.
quote:
Our own sense of morality comes from the very Creator of our souls.
If the creator is immoral then so are we, and we would have no way of knowing it.
quote:
But of course, your humanistic relativism rejects that Truth. I wholeheartedly "pass the buck" to the source of Absolute Morality Himself!
Just as the Nazi's passed the buck to their superiors. That argument doesn't work.
quote:
Held accountable by whom, Method. Who's to say one mans morals are not another man's psychoses?
Held accountable by the rest of society just as we have been doing since human history started.
quote:
This is a Christian discussion forum, Method. Perhaps you should suggest a teaching, command, or law of Christ that seems immoral and we can evaluate that objectively.
Sure. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge God said that (paraphrasing) they know of good and evil like God does. This means that there is an objective morality that both God and humanity refers to. Scripture is meant to guide our lives towards moral behavior that is both separate from God and humanity, but best understood by God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 7:06:42 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
How do you know that the author of the Bible is moral? Because His Spirit gives me assurance of this Truth.
quote:
Morality is not established by proclamation. It most certainly is when One is the Source of Absolute Morality!
quote:
My ability to reason rejects bad arguments. Human wisdom is foolishness.
quote:
If the creator is immoral then so are we We are immoral because we disobey the Source Of Absolute Morality.
quote:
and we would have no way of knowing it. See my first comment.
quote:
That argument doesn't work. It works fine until your "ability to reason" equates Nazi superiors to the Source of Absolute Morality.
quote:
Held accountable by the rest of society just as we have been doing since human history started. Very shortly after human history began, society was held accountable by the Source of Absolute Morality. There has been no change in 4000 years!
quote:
Sure. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge God said that (paraphrasing) they know of good and evil like God does. I'm relieved that you're familiar with the historical fact I posted in the immediately preceeding comment. However, I'm puzzled as to the relevance of this event with a potential discussion of Christ's moral teachings. Please clarify.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 7:16:38 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 811
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Because His Spirit gives me assurance of this Truth.
And how do you know that this is not a false assurance?
quote:
It most certainly is when One is the Source of Absolute Morality!
That is what is under dispute. You can't show me that God is moral other than just claiming God is moral. Truth is not established by proclamation.
quote:
Human wisdom is foolishness.
Then we can't know if God is moral or not.
quote:
It works fine until your "ability to reason" equates Nazi superiors to the Source of Absolute Morality.
You have already stated that you can not tell the difference. If someone tells you to do something you do it. That is your moral code.
quote:
Very shortly after human history began, society was held accountable by the Source of Absolute Morality. There has been no change in 4000 years!
According to Mesopotamians, that ultimate source was the sun god. Every culture used a conception of god to enforce their human made moral codes. The Israelites were no different.
quote:
I'm relieved that you're familiar with the historical fact I posted in the immediately preceeding comment. However, I'm puzzled as to the relevance of this event with a potential discussion of Christ's moral teachings. Please clarify.
Christ helped his followers understand morality and how to apply it. That is the role of all teachers, and Christ's teachings have been revered by believer and non-believer alike for this understanding. In the same way, other religious and holy texts contain very important moral lessons. Religion has always been a method of tapping into an objective morality and giving it meaning, and in some cases political power.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetically Modified Human Embryo - 5/16/2008 9:46:57 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And how do you know that this is not a false assurance? John 1:17 and 16:13
quote:
Truth is not established by proclamation. See above.
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
