Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna,

    You have not yet responded to (post #9) what I had to say about your arguments. Considering, you have been very active in this thread an that you have responded to virtually every other major contribution, I am curious to know why you have not done so with mine.

    Should I be flattered, because you accept my points? Or is my post so bad, that it is not even worthy of one of your wise comments?

    I'd be glad for some feedback from you. I will be disappointed, if you're not willing to discuss the points I have made with me. After all, you're the main producer of counterarguments on this thread. In a way, on this thread, you're the ultimate test for any argument in favour of my initial thesis.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    { watching with interest }
    Ditto that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let me put this to you. Every time America has intervened in another country's affairs, things do indeed get on track and run smoothly etc. Right up until a few years after America feels they are no longer needed there and withdraw. Not once has this lasted more than 15 years before another dictator, cruel opressor etc has claimed leadership of the country. Ethically, Bush should not have allowed the invasion of Iraq to happen in full knowledge that facts state things will eventually return to a similar manner in approx. 15-20 years.

    If you'd like to come across something truly ethical, then hows about this.

    'Bush would have done better to extend a friendly hand to Hussein in order to invoke change in Iraq.' (Not my words, but I can't quote it directly either, but you get the gist of it)

    Scoff if you will, but just remember what your teachers and parents always told you about this whilst growing up. It is far more effective. To justify this comment, I give you Britain's terms of peace given to France after the Napoleonic wars. It was directly because of these friendly terms that France and Britain were on the same side in the Great War of 1914-1918. Simply... it was unethical for Britain to defeat France, and then further make France suffer, instead Britain took the ethical approach.

    If you require further proof of this concept, look at the way France, Britain and the rest completely forgot about the afore mentioned ethical approach in regard to Germany after the Great War. What they did instead, by being unethical, was to set in guarantee another war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Then he should oppose all the medical advances that have ever been made. It just doesn't work I don't think a clear line can be drawn between what is natural and what is unatural.
    the difference between medical science to aid the wounded and sick, benefitting our fellow men and women, and medical science to alter human life at its very core.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    I've never said equal, I've said concern. Are you suggesting that when someone gets worse or better off, there is no connection between this and the concepts of rightness and wrongness?
    concern is not good enough to formulate a statement as i had quoted you doing. rightness or wrongness is not directly linked to the welfare of other people, whether it concerns or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Vienna,

    You have not yet responded to (post #9) what I had to say about your arguments.
    forgive me, but i have to respond to 4 different posters at the same time.

    Considering, you have been very active in this thread an that you have responded to virtually every other major contribution, I am curious to know why you have not done so with mine.
    i must have missed it for similar reasons.

    Should I be flattered, because you accept my points? Or is my post so bad, that it is not even worthy of one of your wise comments?

    I'd be glad for some feedback from you. I will be disappointed, if you're not willing to discuss the points I have made with me. After all, you're the main producer of counterarguments on this thread. In a way, on this thread, you're the ultimate test for any argument in favour of my initial thesis.
    ill do my best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    concern is not good enough to formulate a statement as i had quoted you doing. rightness or wrongness is not directly linked to the welfare of other people, whether it concerns or not.
    A perpetual misunderstanding of syntax on your part. Can't you see the way i mean 'concern'?

    Tell me, do you refute this point: WHEN AN ACT AFFECTS THE WELFARE OF PEOPLE, THE ACT CONCERNS MORALITY.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Okay, I apologise. I was subconsciously influenced by pacifist proganda here. It is indeed around 10 000. My mistake. It should not have happened.

    However, that does not change the nature of my argument.
    hehe, but you cant expect me to ignore them as to make them acceptable.

    [QUOTE]
    Yes, but that's not the point. I am taking into account all those who would not have died, had Bush not decided to go to war.
    But anyway, even if you only take those into account who were killed by the US military, my argument still stands.

    Granted. In fact, nobody in the world is innocent. That's one difference to embryoes. But then again, they contain the potential to "sin". Hitler was also an embryo once.

    You may of course argue, that it is not the potential of a being that counts, when we assess its moral value and to what extent it has a right to life.
    unless you can predict the next Hitler, this is indeed an element of the issue.

    But then again, isn't the sole reason, embryoes have a right to life, similar or equal (in your view (as I understand)) to ours, that they have the potential to become human beings? I mean, what else differentiates them from just a bunch of cells?
    once a human being comes into the world he has developed the right to determine himself and as such becomes able to do good or evil. just as we defend basic human principles of freedom and choice as the core values of society, we must also not interfere with the human life before it enters the world.

    I don't really see what you mean here. Those who decided to go to war in Iraq knew that civilians would die prematurely and violently as a result of their decision to go to war. They didn't know the exact figures, but they did know, that the number of casualties would probably be in the thousands.
    you dont hold a press conference a say "itll be alright if 10,000 iraqis die, thats about our acceptable limit", you say, "we'll do all we can to minimise casualties but accept that there will be some and we obviously regret this."

    "That is how Bush justifies the loss of life that followed from his decision to go to war. Perfectly valid argument and I'm not questioning it.

    That approach is very utilitarian: The death of a certain number of people as a result of my actions is okay if I save a greater number of people by these actions."
    but these people were able to make a decision about their future, they had standing as a living human, their death would be in the fight for good over evil and in the eyes of Bush a better world for the human race to progress. by tampering with that source of human life, you risk ending the race all together.

    What I am criticizing is that Bush is not consistent in applying those utilitarian principles on other areas, such as stem-cell research.
    he doesnt apply utilitarian principles though. he doesnt think like that to my knowledge. accepting deaths in the fight for good, does not absolutely imply it.

    What about dog or ant embryoes then? What makes human embryoes different and worth saving?
    i couldnt tell you his standing here. personally i dont think we should touch them either. it depends how far you go down the balance between protecting what we have and prolonging the human race.

    Only a very small part of the civilians killed in Iraq are likely to ever drive planes into buildings.
    thats not really the point. there is a capacity for good or evil.

    And by the way, embryoes have the potential to be evil, the potential to drive planes into buildings, just as they have the potential to become human beings, which is the very justification for their protection (or at least the most currently used justification).

    Of course they are innocent, because they have not had the opportunity to act yet. That does not make them any better than us.
    but its the choice and freedom which should be protected. let the evil people show themselves to be evil and the good will overcome.

    The fact that they are weak and are incapable of doing evil, does not give them the automatic right to life. The same applies to any other bunch of cells, yet (I suppose) you would not give the right to life to just any bunch of cells, would you?

    So, answer me this: What is it that confers a greater moral value to embryoes than to any other bunch of cells?

    Why is it more important to save embryoes than to save grown human beings?
    embryoes are the beginning of human life, each one has the same value and the same potential. if you alter these then it will come to affect the face of our species. a human life is determined. is in existence. each of us differ morally, each of us have only the advancement of our species to consider. the difference is, as human lives we have only to provide for new human life that will enter a determined world, Bush sees good defeating evil as one of the responsibilities in acheving this. a finite human life is expendable in order to protect the never-ending existence of the species itself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Let me put this to you. Every time America has intervened in another country's affairs, things do indeed get on track and run smoothly etc. Right up until a few years after America feels they are no longer needed there and withdraw. Not once has this lasted more than 15 years before another dictator, cruel opressor etc has claimed leadership of the country. Ethically, Bush should not have allowed the invasion of Iraq to happen in full knowledge that facts state things will eventually return to a similar manner in approx. 15-20 years.
    What about Germany and Japan though? Aren't they prime examples that American occupation and reconstruction CAN work?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    What about Germany and Japan though? Aren't they prime examples that American occupation and reconstruction CAN work?
    On a side note, don't forget the British workers who helped recover Germany, it wasn't just the Americans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    A perpetual misunderstanding of syntax on your part. Can't you see the way i mean 'concern'?
    syntax of what?

    Tell me, do you refute this point: WHEN AN ACT AFFECTS THE WELFARE OF PEOPLE, THE ACT CONCERNS MORALITY.
    not necessarily no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Ethically, Bush should not have allowed the invasion of Iraq to happen in full knowledge that facts state things will eventually return to a similar manner in approx. 15-20 years.
    ethically? not really as his judgement would have been made on reasonable knowledge and not whether it was the right thing to do.

    If you'd like to come across something truly ethical, then hows about this.

    'Bush would have done better to extend a friendly hand to Hussein in order to invoke change in Iraq.' (Not my words, but I can't quote it directly either, but you get the gist of it)

    Scoff if you will,
    can i laugh instead?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    syntax of what?

    Syntax of my previous post(s). For example, when I've said concerned with morality, you've taken that to mean personal concern, rather than concerned as to mean connected to.


    not necessarily no.

    This is scraping at the barrel. It's very easy to point out that we are completely uncertain about morality, but it's not conducive to debate and is a cop out; debate on morality starts at a point further than complete uncertainty, and puts down certain premises, such as the sanctity of human life, you can't just turn your moral compass on and off according to how tightly you're being squeezed in an argument.

    Let's follow the uncertainty then, let's not discuss iraq, hitler, genocide, poverty let's just finish saying we can't be sure of anything. Come on, you know when we discuss things being right and wrong on this forum and anywhere in real life, we assume human welfare is connected to that. More importantly than that, so does Mr.Bush.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)

    Syntax of my previous post(s). For example, when I've said concerned with morality, you've taken that to mean personal concern, rather than concerned as to mean connected to.
    no, thats how i took it.

    not necessarily no.

    This is scraping at the barrel. It's very easy to point out that we are completely uncertain about morality, but it's not conducive to debate and is a cop out; debate on morality starts at a point further than complete uncertainty, and puts down certain premises, such as the sanctity of human life, you can't just turn your moral compass on and off according to how tightly you're being squeezed in an argument.
    im sorry, what? you asked me an opinion on that statement and i gave you one. it was not an absolute statement.

    Let's follow the uncertainty then, let's not discuss iraq, hitler, genocide, poverty let's just finish saying we can't be sure of anything. Come on, you know when we discuss things being right and wrong on this forum and anywhere in real life, we assume human welfare is connected to that. More importantly than that, so does Mr.Bush.
    the sticking point is whether human welfare is directly connected to morality.
    i believe you can make a moral decision without considering the effects on human welfare just as you can make a decision based on human welfare without considering the moral good of it. you dont.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In my mind, we start political discourse assuming a few moral truths, such as human beings having freewill and human welfare being connected to rightness and wrongness.

    I don't think it's fair or sensible to do what you've done. It's the equivalent of me and you arguing over whether an increase in the money supply increased inflation, you proving that it did and then me saying you might be wrong, because the money might not exist, inflation might not exist, even the economy might exist!

    In my mind at least, we start discourse outside philosophy assuming certain metaphysical and moral truths.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no, thats how i took it.

    Yes, and you took it wrongly.

    im sorry, what? you asked me an opinion on that statement and i gave you one. it was not an absolute statement.

    Most people accept that nothing is absolutely verifiable, but who argues about politics on this basis? Mr Bush? I think not


    the sticking point is whether human welfare is directly connected to morality.
    i believe you can make a moral decision without considering the effects on human welfare just as you can make a decision based on human welfare without considering the moral good of it. you dont.

    I can't actually believe how often you misunderstand me. Yes, the sticking point is whether human welfare is connected to morality. I believe you can make a moral decision without considering the effects on human welfare, as do you. And I believe you can make a decision based on human welfare without considering the moral good of it. But neither of these points refute the claim the morality is connected to human welfare.

    Are you suggesting that Bush does not consider rightness and wrongness when supporting economic policy? Are you suggesting Bush is not aware rightness and wrongness are connected with human welfare?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    once a human being comes into the world he has developed the right to determine himself and as such becomes able to do good or evil. just as we defend basic human principles of freedom and choice as the core values of society, we must also not interfere with the human life
    before it enters the world.
    That's not really a justification for WHY we ought not to interfere with "the human life before it enters the world." BTW, what does "enter the world" mean? Is it coming out of the mother's womb? In that case, a newborn child would be able to do good and evil??

    And it would be evil to kill this baby the second before it leaves the mother's womb, but it would be alright to kill it (as "collateral damage"; not fully intentionally of course) the second after it's out of the womb??

    Out of the 10 000 civilians that died, it is reasonable to assume that their were a number of pregnant women.

    At the time, he took the decision to go to war, Bush was aware that civilians would die as a result of his decision and that there was very high likelihood that some of those civilians would be pregnant women. Hence, he accepted the fact that unborn children would die as a result of his decision.

    So, why is it alright to kill innocent (and here you can't debate they truly are) Iraqi embryoes and foetuses for the purposes of the war on terror, the fight freedom and what have you, but it's not alright to kill embryoes (that by the way are only a few days old) in the context of stem-cell research, which could save millions of people by curing their diseases?[/QUOTE]



    you dont hold a press conference a say "itll be alright if 10,000 iraqis die, thats about our acceptable limit", you say, "we'll do all we can to minimise casualties but accept that there will be some and we obviously regret this."
    How you present your actions to other people or the press is irrelevant to the moral value of those actions.
    You're beside the point here - What matters is that Bush knew that people would die as a direct result of his decision to go to war. He did not know the exact number, but he was sure that a number of US soldiers would die, and that the Iraqi civilian casualties were likely to be in the thousands. As you yourself say he ACCEPTED their death, because they served a higher aim.

    As I said before, there is nothing wrong with that in itself. However, the problem is that it is inconsistant with his position on stem-cell research.

    but these people were able to make a decision about their future, they had standing as a living human,
    that would tend to give them greater moral value than a bunch of cells...
    their death would be in the fight for good over evil and in the eyes of Bush a better world for the human race to progress.
    Embryoes that are sacrificed for researched also die for "a better world for the human race to progress", as they contribute to the curing of serious diseasing that kill thousands of people every day. Medical research is also a fight against evil - everything that causes the death of human beings.
    by tampering with that source of human life, you risk ending the race all together.
    I don't see how the killing of embryoes in the context of research risks "ending the race all together". Many embryoes die after a few days in their mother's womb without her even noticing it. Nature kills embryoes. The killing of a few more by research does not in any way endanger the future of humanity.


    he doesnt apply utilitarian principles though. he doesnt think like that to my knowledge. accepting deaths in the fight for good, does not absolutely imply it.
    I agree that he is probably not aware that he is applying utilitarian principles here. But, the very notion of the "greater good" is typically utilitarian. If Bush assessed the moral values of his actions by strictly considering the "inherent value" of those actions, rather than their consequences, he would not have invaded Iraq. The only possible moral justification for the huge suffering inflicted on so many people is that this suffering will be outweighed in the long term by the benefits of a free Iraq. That is utilitarian thinking!


    i couldnt tell you his standing here. personally i dont think we should touch them either. it depends how far you go down the balance between protecting what we have and prolonging the human race.


    thats not really the point. there is a capacity for good or evil.



    but its the choice and freedom which should be protected. let the evil people show themselves to be evil and the good will overcome.
    So, if there is "a capacity for good and evil", it's alright to kill the being in question (for higher purposes of course), but if there is merely a "potential for good and evil", than it's not? And if "choice and freedom" should be protected, why should you then protect those who precisely do not have that "choice and freedom" (embryoes) and take that protection away from those who have got that "choice and freedom" (people).
    embryoes are the beginning of human life, each one has the same value and the same potential.
    So after all, it's their POTENTIAL that gives embryoes the right to life?? You're contradicting yourself here...
    if you alter these then it will come to affect the face of our species.
    Again I don't see how our species is endangered by stem-cell research...
    a human life is determined.
    If a human life is determined, their is no capacity for "good" and "evil" as their is no free choice...
    is in existence.
    What do you mean? I don't understand what you say.
    each of us differ morally, each of us have only the advancement of our species to consider. the difference is, as human lives we have only to provide for new human life that will enter a determined world, Bush sees good defeating evil as one of the responsibilities in acheving this. a finite human life is expendable in order to protect the never-ending existence of the species itself.
    Are embryoes more than a "finite human life"??
    If they're not, than you're making my point. Their sacrifice is justified to protect our species as a whole.

    One further point: Do you think we ought to try to prevent the daily massacre of human (and canine since you think they're also worthy of protection...) embryoes in the mother's womb, that happens through a perfectly natural process? After all, their life is (as I understand you) even more worthy of protection than the lives of people.

    What's the difference between the death of embryoes caused by stem-cell research and those we tolerate every day in the mothers' wombs? The latter would certainly be to an extent preventable, if we cared to fund research in that area...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    In my mind, we start political discourse assuming a few moral truths, such as human beings having freewill and human welfare being connected to rightness and wrongness.

    I don't think it's fair or sensible to do what you've done. It's the equivalent of me and you arguing over whether an increase in the money supply increased inflation, you proving that it did and then me saying you might be wrong, because the money might not exist, inflation might not exist, even the economy might exist!

    In my mind at least, we start discourse outside philosophy assuming certain metaphysical and moral truths.
    its a debate, who said it was political? assuming a few MORAL TRUTHS? the problem is i dont agree with your moral truths!

    its slightly hypocritical to talk about starting from 'first things' when i offered you this solution some time ago, when we define what moral to be.

    as for the rest, i have no idea how they relate to me or the argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A question is do you believe that when a human being gets worse or better off this connects with concepts of rightness and wrongness.

    Another question is do you think Mr.Bush is aware that people get better/worse off as a result of economic policy? And do you think this registers with him when he supports policy?


    Surely your answer is yes to these questions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    A question is do you believe that when a human being gets worse or better off this connects with concepts of rightness and wrongness.
    as ive said time and time again, not necessarily no. that is the disagreement.

    Another question is do you think Mr.Bush is aware that people get better/worse off as a result of economic policy? And do you think this registers with him when he supports policy?
    Surely your answer is yes to these questions.
    yes, i agree that he does and for that reason, in my mind, it is not strictly moral.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.