Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ransomnote

Our whole society’s main worldview is machievellian or narciessitic, psychopathic. Not tooting our horn, but it is true that the only people that do not hold these views are Christian influences. -J.S.


7 posted on 10/01/2011 1:27:04 PM PDT by JSDude1 (December 18, 2010 the Day the radical homosexual left declared WAR on the US Military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: JSDude1

I was thinking of Obamacare when I read it, and the latest article from UK saying that drugs should not be given to cancer patients to extend life.

I was in a graduate level ethics class with about 13 other people. We were told that (and apparently this is true) there was a volcano in Japan that people would flock to visit. Unfortunately, suicidal people would flock to visit it as well and these were often distraught young people.Some people visiting hoped to be present when a suicidal person threw themselves into the volcano. The volcano was on an island and had to be accessed by boat. The government placed people on the docks to look for troubled individuals and screen them in order to try to prevent suicides. Up at the edge of the crater - a few of the tourists would playfully urge ‘come on up! there’s plenty of room for you!’ to those whom they believed wished to throw themselves into the volcano. After the prof had discussed the place that suicide held in the Japanese culture (more often seen as an act of preserving honor) we were asked if we would interfere with someone or try to stop someone in this situation from trying to kill themselves.
I recall the out and out hatred directed at me because I said I would try to stop them and was among those who felt that the boat tours should be halted to the volcano as long as suicides continued. I was told this honor suicide system works for the Japanese society - it has a role and plays a function that supports their heritage in a healthy, stable manner etc. I was told by a white woman that I was a racist if I thought I should impose my own white western values on others etc.
I have been told many times in the past, when referencing my christian faith to make such decisions that I am pathetic and soft and unthinking. It’s odd that those who hold the utilitarian view are passionless in the defense of human life but rage filled in the attack of those who would wish to preserve it. There’s a disproportionate response going on there.


8 posted on 10/01/2011 1:45:12 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: JSDude1
I think you're right about that. Elizabeth Anscombe noted back in 1958 that ALL academic ethics (as taught in Philosophy texts) is based on "consequentialism" (she was the originator of this term), meaning that no act of any sort can be termed "immoral" ---murder,rape, slavery, abortion, sodomy, torture, massacre --- if the perpetrator hopes to gain something by it, which is sufficiently "good."

Anscombe herself was a Catholic and recognized God as moral law-giver. For a while she was working on a concept called "Virtue Ethics," based on Natural Law via Aristotle. But it's hard, maybe impossible, for "Virtue Ethics" to answer the very first question that comes up: why be virtuous? Why NOT be a self-centered jerk? Why NOT be cruel?

I don't think anybody has devised any ethical system that effectively replaces God.

Of course there are ethical atheists and agnostics; but whether they are conscious of it or not, they are living off the (dwindling) capital of a post-Judeo-Christian civilization.

13 posted on 10/01/2011 2:04:38 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (In theory. there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. -Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: JSDude1
I think you're right about that. Elizabeth Anscombe noted back in 1958 that ALL academic ethics (as taught in Philosophy texts) is based on "consequentialism" (she was the originator of this term), meaning that no act of any sort can be termed "immoral" ---murder,rape, slavery, abortion, sodomy, torture, massacre --- if the perpetrator hopes to gain something by it, which is sufficiently "good."

Anscombe herself was a Catholic and recognized God as moral law-giver. For a while she was working on a concept called "Virtue Ethics," based on Natural Law via Aristotle. But it's hard, maybe impossible, for "Virtue Ethics" to answer the very first question that comes up: why be virtuous? Why NOT be a self-centered jerk? Why NOT be cruel?

I don't think anybody has devised any ethical system that effectively replaces God.

Of course there are ethical atheists and agnostics; but whether they are conscious of it or not, they are living off the (dwindling) capital of a post-Judeo-Christian civilization.

14 posted on 10/01/2011 2:04:52 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (In theory. there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. -Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson