Well, my friend I'm going to have to shorted this one a bit but I'll try to cover the things which jump out at me the most if that's ok for tonight.
jtr1962;3005647]Indeed. It's really the fact that we have differing viewpoints (you're a theist and I'm not) which makes this discussion interesting. Unfortunately, not much time to address all of your points so I'll just address the few which stood out for me.
Yes, it obviously makes a huge difference because our starting points are naturally going to be much different. Still, it's pretty amazing that witting alone is able to convey a large amount vs, talking to someone in person or even on the phone. It's definitely been a good chat.
I of course don't buy into the idea of killing the sick or handicapped directly, simply because they are of no obvious use to society. I do however believe that we shouldn't undertake extraordinary measures to keep them alive. If all you need do is feed them and house them then I'm OK with that. But if you need to spend many thousands of dollars on expensive medical procedures which will merely keep them alive without curing their condition, then in fact I see that as morally wrong. Those same resources might be used to return others, perhaps many others, to a state where they could indeed contribute to society. Same line of reasoning for those who choose to self destruct via drugs or smoking or alcohol or overeating. When the effects of these poisons start to kill them, I say just let nature take its course. Make them as comfortable as possible, but don't take any costly measures to prolong their lives. Now if medical resources were free and unlimited, I would obviously consider every life worth trying to save. In short, my moral judgement here dictates using limited medical resources in the way which benefits the people most likely to helped by them.
Speaking of written communication and how it sometimes lacks, I wasn't so much wanting to dig into the subject of euthanasia since that's a separate thing from eugenics but understand how they can merge a bit. The class of people I'm talking about are the unborn, and the handicapped. These are people you are otherwise healthy but are either at stages of development, or they have deficiencies which leave them helpless or in need of assistance. Eugenics says these people should be terminated because they contaminate the gene pool and they place a burden on society. I can hardly type that without getting sick to my stomach. Some of the most vivid human experiences for me have been in the presents of a special needs child. Anyhow, that's what I meant when I included the word "sick" I really meant special needs humans. Rather than retype the short point, you can go back to that post with this updated context if you need too.
The two cases you mention don't imply that the law breaker has a fundamental defect of character which must be fixed. In fact, I'd say these two instances imply that society itself is what needs fixing. If enough people speed it's because the speed limit was set too low in the first place, far lower than needed simply for safety. Most people will in fact keep to a reasonable speed for the conditions regardless of speed limit. If it's set at the 95th percentile then only those really posing a danger will need to be stopped. But you don't even need fines for that. Just have the car read the speed limits and govern itself to them. We certainly can do this if we wanted to nowadays. And in the second instance, an income tax is a poor means of getting revenue. It's far too easy and tempting to cheat. A sales tax is much harder to evade, especially if you're the buyer. And with only sellers to keep track of, enforcement is much easier. But in both cases, remember that these two laws have no basis in what you term absolute morality as laws against killing or stealing do. It can even be argued that taxes are effectively the government stealing from you if they're too high!
Well, I pretty much agree with everything you said there. It doesn't change how I feel about people who willingly and repeatedly choose to make bad moral as in the case of crime. I does show that analogies often come up short because individual topics are so complex like taxes and other unjust laws imposed on us. Now that were on a side subject, I happen to agree with you on the speed limits and how high taxes are a form of crime. It's hard to convey these ideas of law and punishment because the government administers them. Governments themselves happen to be the biggest perpetrators of crime in the history of mankind so it's always going to be easy when a governmental analogy is used to slip under the first issue and point out foundational problems at the core.
By fix I certainly didn't mean taking to behaviorists! That never worked even when it was in vogue. No, I mean something closer to what the sociopath Alex went through in "A Clockwork Orange". You basically use some means (probably technological rather than the conditioning shown in the film) to remove the free will to commit the crime again. If a thief makes a decision to steal again, he is prevented from acting upon that decision by a chip hardwired into his brain. Ditto for a murderer or a child molester. No idea how this would work in practice. Maybe the chip would physically paralyze the person until the thought passed. Or maybe it would immediately notify the authorities. Or perhaps there would be no chip, but instead he would be escorted by a robot sentry programmed to physically restrain him should he decide to be deviant again. Regardless of method, the idea is the same-remove the ability to commit the crime again by removing the ability to act upon his free will. And before you say how horrible this sounds, consider that the alternative at present is incarceration in a closet-sized cell, often with a horny AIDs infected cellmate, and at a cost to society of something like $1 million a year. At least with my way the deviant can enjoy society (and society can benefit from him). I don't care if he ever internalizes why what he did was wrong so long as he can never do it again.
You know that I don't mean any offence to you but I kind of felt like we took a big tumbling leap into the realm of science fiction. The two problems I have with this approach is first, these ways and methods don't exist yet and maybe they never will. I appreciate scientific advancements, particularly in biology and the medical field, but they are limited. We're sitting here pondering the "morality chip" but we still don't have a cure for the common migraine. I know people who suffer from these and no modern medicine work for them. My point is, we have know idea how or when technology will could help us with sociopath so we have to deal with the here and now. My second objection is that even if the "morality chip" existed their would be no justification that would prevent it from being inserted into every human being on earth, essentially eliminating free will and creating a bunch of robots. Any expectation that this kind of dangerous technology would be restricted to hard-core criminals is wishful thinking at best and extraordinarily naive and worse.
Hmm, I know any number of people who are a living contradiction to this, me included. From a pragmatic standpoint, sure, what you said makes sense. I'm 46. Chances are good I'll be gone in 60 years or less. But then again, I don't know that with any certainty. Interesting times we live in nowadays, unraveling the genetic code as it relates to the aging process. And because of this, it's entire plausible that if I can survive another 50 years, I may well be around for the next 50,000. And I certainly want to live forever should it become possible. And if I do die, I'll seriously consider having my body preserved for revival when we possess the technology to do so. In short, I care what happens in the distant future because I may well be around to live in it. Even if not, why not care? Is fear of punishment in the afterlife the only reason you act with consideration towards your fellow beings? I certainly hope not. I hope you've internalized the lessons put forth in the books you quote. What drives me isn't fear of punishment by a deity I don't even feel exists.
Good, we're back to my favorite talking points...lol
I'm about 40 so 'm sort of relating to your frame of reference on this issue. Your first point is very consistent which surprised me to be honest, in a good way. Most people start trying to jump the fence and in a way borrow from Christian morality even though they claim it's false. Now, yell at me if I'm off base, but basically you're saying the only reason not to be ecologically reckless is because you hope for and or anticipate that at some time in the future, possibly soon, you'll be made to live much longer, if not be made immortal. Did I some that up alright? If so, I have to hand it to you. I've never run into that idea before while addressing this subject and it defends your point of view perfectly. There aren't any holes in it that I can see on the surface. I thought it was great that you said you certainly wanted to live forever and then what follows, is that you'd need a place to spend forever in. I'm impressed and there's no question that I'll be thinking about this for the next few weeks.
In addressing the "fear of punishment" thought, I was going to say that's a mischaracterization of how it works but since it deals less with character and more with other things I'll just say it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the Christians and God. You also said that you hope I've internalized the scripture quotes in the previous post. I have, and I also hope that you take the time to look them up in context. I would have linked them for you but the post was taking a long time to write already. Addressing the fundamental misunderstanding, my hope is for eternal life in a place that's good beyond imagination, which entails many things. Once I became of believer a few years ago, I was called to change my life from the "old way." I entered into a relationship with God, through Christ by grace. In a loving relationship we don't do things because we have to, we do things we want to out of love and for the prosperity of the relationship. All of this love is based on what Christ first did for me. I used the language in my previous post which said I'd "have to answer" for not being a good steward, because it's the only way that I knew to communicate with you that I have "higher orders" or that I'm responsible to something larger than just myself or the earth. If I was to use regular language without and explanation, you'd probably think I was out of my mind. In any case, I would be a good steward because I was told to be. Why do I try my best to do what I'm told? because I love the person who's telling me because He first demonstrated his love for me, because I trust the person who's telling me possesses all knowledge, because it in turn brings me joy and strengthens my faith in other areas in my life where I've been struggling. Fear is what I had before I entered into the relationship, not why I follow now.
Jim Wallace at pleaseconvinceme.com helps to examine some of these thoughts in a short video that's not even linked on his website. I'll post it though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do9tg3zEJJs&feature=channel
What drives me isn't fear of punishment by a deity I don't even feel exists. It's empathy, the ability to put myself in the place of those I might wrong, even if they are not yet born, and then decide not to wrong them even if it might benefit me personally. Is this perhaps the thing which really separates us from other creatures? I think so. Empathy is power of the highest form.
I think that empathy is a wonderful quality and as a theist would say that because we're made in God's image, would also say that empathy is part of God's character. I'm just pointing out that what you're speaking of is a not made of matter but is a character trait that came from somewhere. It isn't just one character trait that separates us from other creatures but it is one of them and I think it's pretty neat that you recognize it as being special. I definitely don't agree that this character trait called empathy, also known as compassion or understanding, is the highest form of power. If that were the highest power then it has at least 10 sister "highest powers." God is the culmination of every perfect quality and without any bad ones. There are some logical reasons to at least consider that it's possible that an ultimate intelligence exists and that he'd want us to know him. I'll post as few links that support why I think this.
[FONT="]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vi-FsaEb3Q&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjHschcUIQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpVVczuWqtc
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7520
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7511
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtlrbx_LBQg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjLXuBiHC20
I can't believe how expansive this topic got but I've enjoyed it. Thanks jtr
[/FONT]