Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Immorally produced vaccines

1356

Comments

  • #62
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    huge ethical dilemma

    If someone is against killing unborn undeveloped humans I don't see why they would chose to kill full grown born humans.


  • #63
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    That we do and I think we're covering ground we've been over endless times before. While I fully accept the many imperfections of our society, government, corporations and medical technology, they are the sum of what we have got to work with at this point in time and I will continue to make my decisions on the basis of what I understand to be best probable outcome in that context. Finding flaw in all these things is part of that understanding as is finding positives and striving to make a balanced decision as a result. For all the issues with rushed vaccine trials and questionable government competency most of counter arguments I've looked at in any detail are the stuff of conspiracy theorists.

    If only corporates weren't perpetually being hauled the coals - pharma taking a leading roll. There's hardly a week goes by...

    I almost laughed at the irony of the IT scolding 'anti-vaxxers' on the same day as it reported on the wrongdoing/mega-fines of Purdue Pharma (of Oxycontin fame) and iirc Johnson & Johnson. Your argument is like that - it suggest we trust, when anyone peeking over your shoulder to what lies behind is left shaking their head...

    Maybe that's a downside of being so empirical proof and evidence focused.

    Rotten smell just isn't enough for you. You have to see the actual corpse.


  • #64
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    The Gurdian today wrote:
    The EU drug regulator has brought forward its ruling on the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine after Germany made it clear it wanted approval before Christmas.

    The Amsterdam-based European Medicines Agency’s announcement that it will meet on 21 December instead of 29 December to decide whether to authorise the shot followed a growing backlash from desperate EU countries, with the German health minister, Jens Spahn, saying that the agency risked losing the trust of EU citizens if it did not act fast.

    Risk getting yourself hauled out of your job, more like.

    We zoom in now on poor Marieke van der Bloopendaal of the EMA. She's a foot soldier tasked with interpreting Pfizer-research speak to see what skeletons they are trying to push into EU cupboards (and they are trying to shift the onus for 'issues' away from themselves via lobbying).

    Upstairs, her boss is having a new arsehole ripped in him by his boss. She, in turn is getting it in the neck from the German's. Not Iceland. Not Minister Donnelly from Ireland who she can tell, in so many words, to F-off.. No, she's getting it in the neck from the German Minister of Health. Germany, the EU's main organ grinder!

    As they say: you don't get to be big - whether Pfizer or German Health Minister .. by being a nice guy. He wants an approval and he wants it now.

    Marieke knows this. She's read The Guardian article too.

    Then she comes across something on the Pfizer page before her, something a bit on the shady side. Something her practiced eye recognises as a 'favourable twist'. She pauses for a moment. Then turns the page, tears beginning to well up in her eyes.

    Yeah, a bit robindch I know. But by all means continue to suppose everything happening in august, sober, objective fashion. That's dream world territory to me.

    -

    Herd immunity is immunity obtained from having a herd at your disposal.


  • #65
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Mod note: @antiskeptic, please restrict your posts about corona virus in this forum to those that have some relevance to the topic in hand. All more general covid 19 stuff to the covid forum. The vaccine thread is here. Any discussion / comments to the feedback thread or via PM only.


  • #66
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Risk getting yourself hauled out of your job, more like.

    We zoom in now on poor Marieke van der Bloopendaal of the EMA. She's a foot soldier tasked with interpreting Pfizer-research speak to see what skeletons they are trying to push into EU cupboards (and they are trying to shift the onus for 'issues' away from themselves via lobbying).

    Upstairs, her boss is having a new arsehole ripped in him by his boss. She, in turn is getting it in the neck from the German's. Not Iceland. Not Minister Donnelly from Ireland who she can tell, in so many words, to F-off.. No, she's getting it in the neck from the German Minister of Health. Germany, the EU's main organ grinder!

    As they say: you don't get to be big - whether Pfizer or German Health Minister .. by being a nice guy. He wants an approval and he wants it now.

    Marieke knows this. She's read The Guardian article too.

    Then she comes across something on the Pfizer page before her, something a bit on the shady side. Something her practiced eye recognises as a 'favourable twist'. She pauses for a moment. Then turns the page, tears beginning to well up in her eyes.

    Yeah, a bit robindch I know. But by all means continue to suppose everything happening in august, sober, objective fashion. That's dream world territory to me.

    -

    Herd immunity is immunity obtained from having a herd at your disposal.

    Mod warning: Carded this for bad language which is against the forum charter and subsequently saw the personal attack which would have deserved more severe action. Any more of this nonsense will draw a ban. Please do not respond in thread and read the charter before posting here again. Thanks for your attention.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    I don't believe that there are universal human rights deriving from natural law or any God given source. I do believe in fundamental human rights but I'm also of the opinion that our understanding of what these rights are has been arrived at, and is being refined over time, solely by humankind. What we once considered acceptable we know consider immoral. This is likely to be further refined as our societies and we ourselves change. If you look at the history of human rights over the last number of decades you will see incremental changes and improvements. This is more than just majority opinion at a given point in time. The primary difference here is that the position of the Catholic church is comparatively static based as it is on a canon of material that is not subject to change.
    As an avowed cynic, you surely cannot believe that, by definition, man's understanding of right and wrong is permanently on an upward trajectory of improvement? Surely we could just as easily be regressing. I note you have binned natural law full stop, not accepted it and tried to argue it has nothing to do with God.

    However, you seem to make and concede the point here that there is no universal rights, universal right or wrong and that the definition and understanding of what is right and wrong can change over time. This is important - you are saying that what is right and wrong, or moral, changes over time. If you say merely our "understanding" of right and wrong changes over time, this implies that there is a universal or objective constant to be discerned or discovered. But you disavow this. So we are back to the point I made, that your "source or standard" of what is right or wrong rests on decided majority opinion and is only "more" than that in that you happen to like and agree with it.

    That's fine, but it causes some significant issues for you. Firstly, it means that objectionable actions in the past that were considered acceptable (and indeed positively good) by the majority of humanity for the majority of its existence were in fact, at the time, moral and good. Its not a case that this was wrong at the time and is always wrong, but that it is wrong in this day and age because we have decided it is. And fair enough, there's the progress you spoke of. Circumstances are different so morality is different.

    But how can you say that this "progress" is actually a positive development?

    I suspect that when you deeply think about what is moral you will end up attaching a caveat to your "decided majority opinion" basis - namely that you or people like you must agree with it. Otherwise its wrong. For example, there are large parts of the world who have differing opinions about whether certain things are right or wrong than you do. For example, you and the Mulsim world may diverge utterly on certain topics. But you would still say they were wrong and immoral. So you end up in a decidedly racist position, where you are saying that what western society (human rights are a Judeo Christian concept after all) has decided is moral rules the day. Ultimately, it comes down to your own individual conception of right and wrong - and your opinion is as valid as anyone elses. So who are you to say what is right or wrong?
    Quite so, I'd agree with you there where an animal rights activist might not. With respect to our understanding of human rights it is worth noting they are distinct from fetal rights just as they are distinct from animal rights.
    Yes, I made this point earlier. It becomes necessary for some to argue that the unborn child is someone less important, less human and distinct from the child who has passed through the birth canal.
    I think morality and ethics are hugely important in how we make very many decisions about what is best for our society and citizens and that human rights are central to this.

    As previously, I believe what we understand to be fundamental human rights are arrived at by the broadest consensus and refined over time. I don't believe they can be dictated by the beliefs of any one religious group but at the same time think that the beliefs of all groups should be considered and contribute to this process. While the Catholic church represent very many people, there are many more that they do not represent. Even among nominally Catholic people in this country, the churches stance on the likes of reproductive issues and associated rights is commonly rejected.
    If human rights are arrived at by the broadest consensus and refined over time (I repeat the point I made previously, you are saying that what is right and wrong has changed, not that we have further discerned a universal or objective truth, because this doesn't exist, natural law is nonsense) then why are you binning nearly 2000 years of refined broad consensus in favour of new rights or changes thought up in the last generation? It's because you agree with it.

    The truth of morality is that there is an objective standard and truth that remains constant regardless of an individuals, or societies, agreement or opinion at a point in time. Because of this I can logically say that majority opinion on a particular issue at a snapshot in time has no bearing on its morality. Sure people can be wrong, but they were wrong, its not what is right has changed.

    The majority of humanity, regardless of the society, tend to broadly agree on fundamental issues. Thus we can almost all say that there is always a right to life (for example), and arguments revolve around this point (this isn't a life, the right has to be balanced, its overrode by someone else's right etc. just war etc.) There is a natural law that can be broadly discerned by man. This natural law, applicable and valid outside of material circumstances, is not a social construction to be deconstructed as the materialists would argue, but rather a universal constant - written on the hearts of men, by God. This is the reason why one need not be religious to be moral (because you are a religious being)- although it certainly helps. If then, there is a natural law in the first instance, universal right and wrong distinct from material consideration or effect then there must be a God. It then follows that the only way to establish what is good, and to live a good life (a worthy goal if ever there was one) is to seek out God and His revelation.
    I do sincerely believe that the hierarchy in this country are deeply and openly concerned with dwindling church attendances, vocations and attendant religiosity. Like any large organisation, they engage in PR and use optics to portray themselves as flatteringly as possible to their target audience. There will always be elements of cynicism here.
    You are massively overstating things if you think they would decide upon fundamental issues like this on the basis of trying to be popular. Any study of the Catholic Church will demonstrate that this is something the Catholic Church does not do. There is no better example than the ban on contraception. This was and is a very unpopular position. There are many, many things the Church would change if it merely wanted to be popular.

    The Church came to a position that you agree with, has explained why, but you insist on assigning underhanded, impure or insincere motivations to it. This is very odd.

    Your conception of the world and universe around you seems quite incoherent. You are half a materialist (an irreconcilable contradiction) and your basis for what is right and wrong is built on quicksand. You interrogate and disregard the worked out theories of others, such as the Catholic Church, but your own are full of holes or don't exist. I don't say this as a harsh criticism, it's a very good thing that you and others here are even thinking about these things. Most just truck on adhering to an incoherent philosophy full of contradiction, the predominant one in society, unthinkingly and without consideration. Then they wonder, as they stumble in the dark, why things don't make sense, are unfulfilling, just don't work and above all, is so hard. It's a lifelong journey and you're on the right track in this forum at the right time of year. The answer is only a week away.


  • #68
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    As an avowed cynic, you surely cannot believe that, by definition, man's understanding of right and wrong is permanently on an upward trajectory of improvement? Surely we could just as easily be regressing. I note you have binned natural law full stop, not accepted it and tried to argue it has nothing to do with God.

    Not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm an avowed cynic. While I consider certain actions may have been cynical, or treat them with cynicism myself, this does not imply I approach everything cynically. I do believe that any publicly stated assertion should be open to criticism and questioning but this does no suppose either the assertion is wrong or that it was done without good intent. Questioning our own beliefs, and those put forward by others, is how we learn which in turn results in progress. I have problems with the idea of natural law for a number of reasons. Firstly, it deals in absolute truths independent of any context. For example under natural law, "taking another life is forbidden, no matter the circumstances involved, including self-defense". I'm not sure many would agree with that, not least Christianity which maintains the concept of Just War. Perhaps we could say that by having an evolving understanding of fundamental human rights, that to some extent natural laws are emergent.
    However, you seem to make and concede the point here that there is no universal rights, universal right or wrong and that the definition and understanding of what is right and wrong can change over time. This is important - you are saying that what is right and wrong, or moral, changes over time. If you say merely our "understanding" of right and wrong changes over time, this implies that there is a universal or objective constant to be discerned or discovered. But you disavow this. So we are back to the point I made, that your "source or standard" of what is right or wrong rests on decided majority opinion and is only "more" than that in that you happen to like and agree with it.

    That's fine, but it causes some significant issues for you. Firstly, it means that objectionable actions in the past that were considered acceptable (and indeed positively good) by the majority of humanity for the majority of its existence were in fact, at the time, moral and good. Its not a case that this was wrong at the time and is always wrong, but that it is wrong in this day and age because we have decided it is. And fair enough, there's the progress you spoke of. Circumstances are different so morality is different.

    But how can you say that this "progress" is actually a positive development?

    The problem with stating that anything is universal is that it implies that it is entirely independent of context. We have already seen the problem with that in the example of killing in self defence. We see further problems with human rights where one right might come into conflict with another right in a given context, e.g. freedom of speech versus incitement to hatred. In the context of abortion, the right to life of the unborn and the right to bodily autonomy for the pregnant woman are another good example of this. Such conflicts demand taking time to understand and discuss all the issues involved in a civilized manner and arriving at agreement based on consensus. They are rarely black and white and what is right or wrong cannot be dictated solely by one group to the detriment of all others. So rather than talking about what is right or wrong in an absolute sense independent of context, we arrive at what is most just (or least unjust) for a specific context. Again, this points to an emergent morality that is evolving by having such discussions in the first instance. So while I fully support universal human rights, I suspect the complexity of life is such that they will require ongoing refinement to become truly universal, if such a thing is even possible.

    Of course we have got things wrong in the past, in hindsight most people would do certain things differently. We consider many aspects of the past to be barbaric, e.g. my daughters flinch when I tell them that homosexuality was illegal in this country until 1993 and yet we have since had an openly gay Taoiseach. Our morality is changing and I for one believe we are becoming a more tolerant and less rigid society.
    I suspect that when you deeply think about what is moral you will end up attaching a caveat to your "decided majority opinion" basis - namely that you or people like you must agree with it. Otherwise its wrong. For example, there are large parts of the world who have differing opinions about whether certain things are right or wrong than you do. For example, you and the Mulsim world may diverge utterly on certain topics. But you would still say they were wrong and immoral. So you end up in a decidedly racist position, where you are saying that what western society (human rights are a Judeo Christian concept after all) has decided is moral rules the day. Ultimately, it comes down to your own individual conception of right and wrong - and your opinion is as valid as anyone elses. So who are you to say what is right or wrong?

    You seem to be missing the notion of consensus here, the idea being that rather than talking about "people like me" or "people like them" we start talking about "people like us". With respect to the Muslim world, and human rights being a Western Judeo-Christian thing, perhaps have a look at the list of countries that have adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    Yes, I made this point earlier. It becomes necessary for some to argue that the unborn child is someone less important, less human and distinct from the child who has passed through the birth canal.

    And similarly to make the distinction between this and ovum that has come into contact with a sperm to form a zygote, that zygote as it implants on the wall of the uterus and becomes a fetus and all the developmental stages of that fetus. Personally, I don't hold a first trimester fetus as deserving of any rights beyond what the pregnant mother would accord to it. Third trimester I probably would. Either way, it is first and foremost a concern for the pregnant woman and her doctors and medical team rather than mine.
    If human rights are arrived at by the broadest consensus and refined over time (I repeat the point I made previously, you are saying that what is right and wrong has changed, not that we have further discerned a universal or objective truth, because this doesn't exist, natural law is nonsense) then why are you binning nearly 2000 years of refined broad consensus in favour of new rights or changes thought up in the last generation? It's because you agree with it.

    Basically, because until comparatively recently there simply hasn't been that broad a consensus. You talk about Judeo-Christian morality, but have you read Lao Tzu or Confucious for example? There are many different moralities held by different cultures throughout history. Some with huge audiences, many which predate Christianity. Every major culture throughout history has had some kind of moral code, some common themes emerge, others do not. The consensus used to derive a modern understanding of human rights is intercultural.
    The truth of morality is that there is an objective standard and truth that remains constant regardless of an individuals, or societies, agreement or opinion at a point in time. Because of this I can logically say that majority opinion on a particular issue at a snapshot in time has no bearing on its morality. Sure people can be wrong, but they were wrong, its not what is right has changed.

    The majority of humanity, regardless of the society, tend to broadly agree on fundamental issues. Thus we can almost all say that there is always a right to life (for example), and arguments revolve around this point (this isn't a life, the right has to be balanced, its overrode by someone else's right etc. just war etc.) There is a natural law that can be broadly discerned by man. This natural law, applicable and valid outside of material circumstances, is not a social construction to be deconstructed as the materialists would argue, but rather a universal constant - written on the hearts of men, by God. This is the reason why one need not be religious to be moral (because you are a religious being)- although it certainly helps. If then, there is a natural law in the first instance, universal right and wrong distinct from material consideration or effect then there must be a God. It then follows that the only way to establish what is good, and to live a good life (a worthy goal if ever there was one) is to seek out God and His revelation.

    But the mandate by which you seek to dictate the truth here is based on your religious beliefs, which I, and most others on this planet, do not share. In making such as statement, you are undermining the freedom of religious expression of others, which is of course a universal human right. The majority of humanity is not Christian. Even of the 31.4% of the worlds population that is nominally Christian, many do not practice and many others reject aspects of Christian morality.
    You are massively overstating things if you think they would decide upon fundamental issues like this on the basis of trying to be popular. Any study of the Catholic Church will demonstrate that this is something the Catholic Church does not do. There is no better example than the ban on contraception. This was and is a very unpopular position. There are many, many things the Church would change if it merely wanted to be popular.

    The Church came to a position that you agree with, has explained why, but you insist on assigning underhanded, impure or insincere motivations to it. This is very odd.

    Possibly so, but the morality preached by the Catholic church seems very different to that practised. This is true for both the hierarchy and the laity. You can perhaps understand why I'm cynical.
    Your conception of the world and universe around you seems quite incoherent. You are half a materialist (an irreconcilable contradiction) and your basis for what is right and wrong is built on quicksand. You interrogate and disregard the worked out theories of others, such as the Catholic Church, but your own are full of holes or don't exist. I don't say this as a harsh criticism, it's a very good thing that you and others here are even thinking about these things. Most just truck on adhering to an incoherent philosophy full of contradiction, the predominant one in society, unthinkingly and without consideration. Then they wonder, as they stumble in the dark, why things don't make sense, are unfulfilling, just don't work and above all, is so hard. It's a lifelong journey and you're on the right track in this forum at the right time of year. The answer is only a week away.

    I would say that my understanding of the world around me is dynamic and subject to both refinement as I broaden my knowledge and change where I get things wrongs. I am also aware and fully accepting that I will never comprehend all of its complexities. The difference perhaps between our respective understandings is that mine is based on multiple sources of truth that are often dynamic where yours is based on a single source of truth that is largely static.

    You started your post saying that I was an avowed cynic. If anything I'd say that I was both stoical and optimistic for our collective future.


  • #69
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    Not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm an avowed cynic. While I consider certain actions may have been cynical, or treat them with cynicism myself, this does not imply I approach everything cynically. I do believe that any publicly stated assertion should be open to criticism and questioning but this does no suppose either the assertion is wrong or that it was done without good intent. Questioning our own beliefs, and those put forward by others, is how we learn which in turn results in progress. I have problems with the idea of natural law for a number of reasons. Firstly, it deals in absolute truths independent of any context. For example under natural law, "taking another life is forbidden, no matter the circumstances involved, including self-defense". I'm not sure many would agree with that, not least Christianity which maintains the concept of Just War. Perhaps we could say that by having an evolving understanding of fundamental human rights, that to some extent natural laws are emergent.
    So you have avoided the point here. Why do you say that things are progressing and not regressing with regard to human rights, our understanding of right and wrong?

    That would be a problem with Natural Law where it true. It isn't. Proponents of Natural Law have forever argued that self defense is morally justified but has to be carefully discerned, balanced, based on context and can differ depending on the category of self defense, private or public etc. Perhaps our good friend St. Aquinas can help you here. I think the piece you have linked is most misleading on this point - that is not your fault of course.

    But now you seem to be retreating, natural laws are emerging? So they have been there all along or we have just agreed on something at a point in time, and we can "agree it away" in the future?
    The problem with stating that anything is universal is that it implies that it is entirely independent of context. We have already seen the problem with that in the example of killing in self defence. We see further problems with human rights where one right might come into conflict with another right in a given context, e.g. freedom of speech versus incitement to hatred. In the context of abortion, the right to life of the unborn and the right to bodily autonomy for the pregnant woman are another good example of this. Such conflicts demand taking time to understand and discuss all the issues involved in a civilized manner and arriving at agreement based on consensus. They are rarely black and white and what is right or wrong cannot be dictated solely by one group to the detriment of all others. So rather than talking about what is right or wrong in an absolute sense independent of context, we arrive at what is most just (or least unjust) for a specific context. Again, this points to an emergent morality that is evolving by having such discussions in the first instance. So while I fully support universal human rights, I suspect the complexity of life is such that they will require ongoing refinement to become truly universal, if such a thing is even possible.
    It does not disregard context. I won't repeat my point above, but basically Natural Law posits a starting precept or position against which everything, including the context, must be weighed. If there were not natural laws around the areas you mention you wouldn't need to think about context, or how the right may be outweighed here, or shouldn't apply to this because it isn't a life, or should be balanced here. Precisely because there is a natural law means that this central hurdle must be navigated via the type of discernment process you talk about. If there were not a natural law none of this would matter, we would be like the animals. Of course, people can, and have, gotten this discernment process very wrong at times.

    I agree that our understanding of how the natural law is applied and our discernment of it can change over time. For example, the Catholic Churche's position on slavery.
    Of course we have got things wrong in the past, in hindsight most people would do certain things differently. We consider many aspects of the past to be barbaric, e.g. my daughters flinch when I tell them that homosexuality was illegal in this country until 1993 and yet we have since had an openly gay Taoiseach. Our morality is changing and I for one believe we are becoming a more tolerant and less rigid society.
    But on what basis, on what foundation, can you say that this was wrong, other than you, at this point of time, think it is? If in twenty years time someone has a daughter who flinches when told that 6,666 children were killed in 2019 under Ireland's abortion law, does that mean that abortion is morally wrong? I mean, if your standard for morality is what you (or your daughter) find agreeable or palatable then why shouldn't this apply all round? Again we are back to the individual basis or personal agreement being the basis of morality. Its individual, because you will find it unpalatable to say that something is moral, that you disagree with, even if it is a majority position.

    You seem to be missing the notion of consensus here, the idea being that rather than talking about "people like me" or "people like them" we start talking about "people like us". With respect to the Muslim world, and human rights being a Western Judeo-Christian thing, perhaps have a look at the list of countries that have adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    I would agree that natural law, and hence human rights, are universal, discernible by all mankind. But if you don't believe this, in eternal truths and natural law, you must say that the concept of human rights was first "thought up and invented" by western philosophy and civilization and not first "uncovered or discovered", as I would suggest. The fact that there can even be a consensus on issues like these suggests the existence of a natural law. My point is, that should a similar process to the declaration of Human Rights happen again, and for some reason the opposite position reached, I would say that it is not moral or good as it is in violation of Natural Law. You would probably also say it is wrong, but your justification for this position would not be based on anything external from your own feeling or opinion.
    And similarly to make the distinction between this and ovum that has come into contact with a sperm to form a zygote, that zygote as it implants on the wall of the uterus and becomes a fetus and all the developmental stages of that fetus. Personally, I don't hold a first trimester fetus as deserving of any rights beyond what the pregnant mother would accord to it. Third trimester I probably would. Either way, it is first and foremost a concern for the pregnant woman and her doctors and medical team rather than mine.
    What this example shows us is that there is a natural law of a right to life which you (perhaps unthinkingly or in spite of yourself, or call it something different) fundamentally feel and agree exists. Hence your need to say that the unborn is not a life and shouldn't enjoy the right (well, at least until such a stage as it becomes too obvious to pretend otherwise). Then you retreat to position it is apparent you philosophy you subscribe to holds, that morality is based on personal opinion - except then you add that it isn't, that Doctors should have a say (hence the state and wider society). So again we have the position that, when played out, the philosophy you hold, which is typical and reflective of society today, is ultimately incoherent and unsatisfying when you play it out.
    Basically, because until comparatively recently there simply hasn't been that broad a consensus. You talk about Judeo-Christian morality, but have you read Lao Tzu or Confucious for example? There are many different moralities held by different cultures throughout history. Some with huge audiences, many which predate Christianity. Every major culture throughout history has had some kind of moral code, some common themes emerge, others do not. The consensus used to derive a modern understanding of human rights is intercultural.
    But what do you say that there is a consensus today where there is as wide a divergence as ever? In fact, on a local basis, this divergence is more pronounced than it was, say, in the middle ages. Your position is basically that you agree with the consensus today (in parts of the world only) hence it is a true and proper consensus - when in fact it is not really clear that, on your own terms, there is even that much of a consensus to begin with!
    But the mandate by which you seek to dictate the truth here is based on your religious beliefs, which I, and most others on this planet, do not share. In making such as statement, you are undermining the freedom of religious expression of others, which is of course a universal human right. The majority of humanity is not Christian. Even of the 31.4% of the worlds population that is nominally Christian, many do not practice and many others reject aspects of Christian morality.
    The level of practice or adherence to a moral truth has no bearing on whether this is in fact a truth. Your position is that there is no truth, or that maybe the true stuff is what you or a group happen to agree with at a point in time.

    Personally I find virtues a challenge. Living a moral life is a challenge. Just because I might not agree with something, or sit comfortably with, or find easy, it does not mean it is not correct.
    Possibly so, but the morality preached by the Catholic church seems very different to that practised. This is true for both the hierarchy and the laity. You can perhaps understand why I'm cynical.
    People are fallen, are sinners and can be hypocrites. No one is free from sin or lives a perfect moral life. It should not surprise you that this is the case with people in the Catholic Church, even Popes.
    I would say that my understanding of the world around me is dynamic and subject to both refinement as I broaden my knowledge and change where I get things wrongs. I am also aware and fully accepting that I will never comprehend all of its complexities. The difference perhaps between our respective understandings is that mine is based on multiple sources of truth that are often dynamic where yours is based on a single source of truth that is largely static.
    No, your position is that there is no truth or eternal truth. But again you reiterate that the basis of your morality is personal feeling and opinion. Why is yours more valuable than anyone elses? Why, even if a group are of a similar mindset to you, can you force your conception of morality on anyone else? What is your justification? Why should anyone be subject to any morality if everyone's basis and the source of it is personal feeling and opinion? We are back to mere majoritarianism being a justification - except of course when you find the majority position unpalatable.

    As for it being static - this may be the case, but our understanding of it certainly evolves. When we understand and can discern the natural law better it means just this - if a different position is arrived at it means that this is the moral position all along, not that what is moral has changed, we just couldn't see it before.


    My point here is that everyone can understand and is influenced by the natural law in their opinion on what is right or wrong. But many people obscure it, dress it up or otherwise hide from it. This is a serious problem for many reasons, not least that if we have an understanding conception of right and wrong divorced from the natural law it becomes easier to obscure the natural law and break it, while trying to rationalize that it is actually correct.


  • #70
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    So you have avoided the point here. Why do you say that things are progressing and not regressing with regard to human rights, our understanding of right and wrong?

    No avoidance intended. I see progress as that is what the historic data that we have at our disposal shows us. From https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights Plenty of ups and downs but the global trend over time is positive.

    536603.jpg
    That would be a problem with Natural Law where it true. It isn't. Proponents of Natural Law have forever argued that self defense is morally justified but has to be carefully discerned, balanced, based on context and can differ depending on the category of self defense, private or public etc. Perhaps our good friend St. Aquinas can help you here. I think the piece you have linked is most misleading on this point - that is not your fault of course.

    Perhaps you could give us your unambiguous definition of natural law so, as there seems to be quite a few variations the them. So for example Catholic natural law jurisprudence is rather different from Islamic natural law or Brehon law. These differences would imply that someone got it wrong or these are simply man made constructs that are far from universal.
    But now you seem to be retreating, natural laws are emerging? So they have been there all along or we have just agreed on something at a point in time, and we can "agree it away" in the future?

    Not at all. I'm saying that where we arrive at a consensus position and that position doesn't change over time, that would be similar to what you seem to be referring to as a natural law. Put another way, it is an emergent property of our discussion of human rights.
    It does not disregard context. I won't repeat my point above, but basically Natural Law posits a starting precept or position against which everything, including the context, must be weighed. If there were not natural laws around the areas you mention you wouldn't need to think about context, or how the right may be outweighed here, or shouldn't apply to this because it isn't a life, or should be balanced here. Precisely because there is a natural law means that this central hurdle must be navigated via the type of discernment process you talk about. If there were not a natural law none of this would matter, we would be like the animals. Of course, people can, and have, gotten this discernment process very wrong at times.

    Again, I think you'll find all these natural laws have human authors. Once you start apply weight for context, your law is not a universal law, it is a broad principal you choose to apply and has a subjective interpretation.
    I agree that our understanding of how the natural law is applied and our discernment of it can change over time. For example, the Catholic Churche's position on slavery.

    Again, I'd see no natural law here in the first instance, merely the evolution of human rights.
    But on what basis, on what foundation, can you say that this was wrong, other than you, at this point of time, think it is? If in twenty years time someone has a daughter who flinches when told that 6,666 children were killed in 2019 under Ireland's abortion law, does that mean that abortion is morally wrong? I mean, if your standard for morality is what you (or your daughter) find agreeable or palatable then why shouldn't this apply all round? Again we are back to the individual basis or personal agreement being the basis of morality. Its individual, because you will find it unpalatable to say that something is moral, that you disagree with, even if it is a majority position.

    The foundation is that those countries with a shared understanding of fundamental human rights agree that it is a human right not to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. This is not a position arrived at based on personal preference, it is a position arrived at on the basis of global consensus following extensive discussion. Personally, I would dispute any children have been killed in 2019 under Ireland's abortion laws and would also consider bodily autonomy a basic human right. Most human rights organisations would say the same.
    I would agree that natural law, and hence human rights, are universal, discernible by all mankind. But if you don't believe this, in eternal truths and natural law, you must say that the concept of human rights was first "thought up and invented" by western philosophy and civilization and not first "uncovered or discovered", as I would suggest. The fact that there can even be a consensus on issues like these suggests the existence of a natural law. My point is, that should a similar process to the declaration of Human Rights happen again, and for some reason the opposite position reached, I would say that it is not moral or good as it is in violation of Natural Law. You would probably also say it is wrong, but your justification for this position would not be based on anything external from your own feeling or opinion.

    What this example shows us is that there is a natural law of a right to life which you (perhaps unthinkingly or in spite of yourself, or call it something different) fundamentally feel and agree exists. Hence your need to say that the unborn is not a life and shouldn't enjoy the right (well, at least until such a stage as it becomes too obvious to pretend otherwise). Then you retreat to position it is apparent you philosophy you subscribe to holds, that morality is based on personal opinion - except then you add that it isn't, that Doctors should have a say (hence the state and wider society). So again we have the position that, when played out, the philosophy you hold, which is typical and reflective of society today, is ultimately incoherent and unsatisfying when you play it out.

    But what do you say that there is a consensus today where there is as wide a divergence as ever? In fact, on a local basis, this divergence is more pronounced than it was, say, in the middle ages. Your position is basically that you agree with the consensus today (in parts of the world only) hence it is a true and proper consensus - when in fact it is not really clear that, on your own terms, there is even that much of a consensus to begin with!

    The level of practice or adherence to a moral truth has no bearing on whether this is in fact a truth. Your position is that there is no truth, or that maybe the true stuff is what you or a group happen to agree with at a point in time.

    Personally I find virtues a challenge. Living a moral life is a challenge. Just because I might not agree with something, or sit comfortably with, or find easy, it does not mean it is not correct.

    People are fallen, are sinners and can be hypocrites. No one is free from sin or lives a perfect moral life. It should not surprise you that this is the case with people in the Catholic Church, even Popes.

    No, your position is that there is no truth or eternal truth. But again you reiterate that the basis of your morality is personal feeling and opinion. Why is yours more valuable than anyone elses? Why, even if a group are of a similar mindset to you, can you force your conception of morality on anyone else? What is your justification? Why should anyone be subject to any morality if everyone's basis and the source of it is personal feeling and opinion? We are back to mere majoritarianism being a justification - except of course when you find the majority position unpalatable.

    As for it being static - this may be the case, but our understanding of it certainly evolves. When we understand and can discern the natural law better it means just this - if a different position is arrived at it means that this is the moral position all along, not that what is moral has changed, we just couldn't see it before.


    My point here is that everyone can understand and is influenced by the natural law in their opinion on what is right or wrong. But many people obscure it, dress it up or otherwise hide from it. This is a serious problem for many reasons, not least that if we have an understanding conception of right and wrong divorced from the natural law it becomes easier to obscure the natural law and break it, while trying to rationalize that it is actually correct.

    The issue as I see it is that is where one group asserts that something is a God given natural law and other groups disagree, how is it resolved? Different religious and non-religious groups have different understandings of what is and is not a natural law, yet by your definitions if something is a natural law it is also universal. We have seen this contradiction already in my previous example, where it was asserted that "taking another life is forbidden, no matter the circumstances involved, including self-defense" which you then refuted. Your understanding of natural law derive to an extent from your religious beliefs, as illustrated by your reference to Thomas Aquinas as your source in your previous post. If I were to suggest the "Tao te ching" as another alternative source, we would see other contradictory assertions in relation to natural law. What this shows is that these natural laws are actually a part of the personal belief system of those state a thing is a natural law. This can be resolved in one of three ways. Firstly by agreeing to differ, the natural law remains subject to a belief system. Secondly, forcibly trying to impose your beliefs on others. Thirdly, discussing your understanding of natural laws with others in the attempt to achieve consensus. I go with number three here and do not accept you can state such and such is a natural law purely because it accords with your own belief system.

    You ask why my opinion is more valuable than anyone else's and I am clearly and repeated stating that it is not, and nor for that matter is yours. At the same time we should all be allowed our own voices from whence we might find agreement. While you might have an issue with majoritarianism, it is worth pointing out that human rights treaties arrived at by consensus predominantly set out to protect minorities with imposing foreign belief systems. This is not the case for religions.


  • #71
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Yet again you miss the point. Let's avoid having massive posts and distil it down.

    If you say that things are improving, you must have some objective standard against which to measure it in order to make this statement.

    What is it?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Yet again you miss the point. Let's avoid having massive posts and distil it down.

    If you say that things are improving, you must have some objective standard against which to measure it in order to make this statement.

    What is it?

    As above, improved situation for most of the worlds population with respect to human rights. As illustrated in previous posts, reduced deaths due to preventable causes, reduced death and injury due to wars. The list goes on. Yes, there are also negatives, some such as climate change which may setback humanity considerably, and injustices such as distribution of wealth, but as a species we are progressing.

    What are your objective standards that suggest the reverse?


  • #73
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Double post


  • #74
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    As above, improved situation for most of the worlds population with respect to human rights. As illustrated in previous posts, reduced deaths due to preventable causes, reduced death and injury due to wars. The list goes on. Yes, there are also negatives, some such as climate change which may setback humanity considerably, and injustices such as distribution of wealth, but as a species we are progressing.

    What are your objective standards that suggest the reverse?

    Hang on a second. Reduced death and injury due to war when the 20th century was the bloodiest ever by many orders of magnitude? 2 World Wars, significant Cold War related wars, Stalin and Mao's own efforts? We have been in constant regression wrt to war, probably in the measure that technology has been developed and applied to that pursuit. A mere 10 years after man managed his first tentative numbers of metres of flight, they were machine gunning each other out of the sky over France in comparatively sophisticated flying machines.

    Are you being selective? Taking slivers of data and ignoring the graph trend. That'd be like looking an an uptick in Irish house prices 2007-2013 and supposing ourselves on an upward trajectory.

    Since war, like the poor, will always be with us, surely you're not taking the view that the technology will never be used again (and I'm not talking just nuclear weaponry, there is conventional weaponry, developong economic weaponry, and cyber weaponry that can lay waste). And when it is, as it surely will be - there is zero reason to suppose it won't be other than vacuous faith - you think multitudes won't die?


  • #75
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    You make it sound like war is new thing, but the amount of time we are spending at war has been in decline for a long time, as shown below. Source

    536770.jpg

    In more recent times we see sharper decline

    536771.jpg

    While you might not see it as such, formation of the United Nations was a major stepping stone in our history. At this point in time, realising the fragility of peace, we have come to collectively strive to protect it from all sides.


  • #76
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    As above, improved situation for most of the worlds population with respect to human rights. As illustrated in previous posts, reduced deaths due to preventable causes, reduced death and injury due to wars. The list goes on. Yes, there are also negatives, some such as climate change which may setback humanity considerably, and injustices such as distribution of wealth, but as a species we are progressing.

    What are your objective standards that suggest the reverse?
    But why do you think that human rights are a good thing? Why do you think that we, as a people, think of these as a good thing? Animals don't, at points in time societies have disregarded them entirely - we view this as horrific and an aberration. Why? It is easy to conceive of a dystopian alternate reality, or perhaps an alien species (millions of TV shows, books and films) where, despite great technological and intellectual advancement what we view as "good", rights etc, just are not a consideration. There is nothing to little to suggest that education necessarily inevitably leads to what we view as "good" not that our views on what is "good" have arisen from the materiality of life and existence.

    I never said I think things have gotten worse. I'm asking why you think that what you view as moral and good is actually good and why you think it is better now. You have no objective basis - for you there is no eternal truths, just mere opinion and consensus, which in your own conceit you presume your own opinion to be "the best" and better than the mere opinion and consensus of other people, both today and in the past. If you were transported to a time and place where an unspeakable evil was accepted and viewed as being good you would have no objective basis to say that it was not, for under your philosophy your own discomfort with something is just a mere personal opinion and nothing deeper. Because for you there are no natural laws to bound the behavior of man, no actions that are intrinsically evil or good, and that good and evil depends on a consensus opinion.

    Of course, the reality is is that you and everyone is under the influence of natural laws whether you acknowledge them or not. As you are not suffering from severe mental illness you naturally (and would, deep down, no matter the circumstance) view evil as evil. However, with the obscuring of the natural law, the attempted burying of objective truths intrinsic in the nature of man, the table is being set for great evils to be rationalized under a secular incoherent and disordered philosophy, where evil is fine as long as it is "consented" to. Where morality is a matter for the individual, where mass cowardice rules the day, where evil committed by others is allowed happen as it is "up to them/none of my business" no matter how disturbing or appalling you personally find it deep down. Your own conscience becomes a problem, to be "rationalised" away by an incoherent philosophy - you thinking something evil becomes the problem, not the evil itself. This is how good people commit and allow evil - they think that their own deep seated concerns and objections are either irrational, or they are completely obscured and hidden by a confused zeitgeist to the extent that they convince themselves that the evil is actually good. Of course, such a society, in denial of reality, cannot endure forever and will surely fall. But what misery!

    The coherent basis for morality and society must be that there are eternal truths. That there are acts which were, are and will always be evil, or good. That knowledge of these is intrinsic in every man, that they can and must be discerned - that these natural laws must be the guiding lights of society against which all positive law is weighed. Of course, these may be discerned incorrectly, sometimes disastrously so. But this will have been an error that will be corrected - a mistake made, a wrong turn when upon traveling on it we find the light of truth dimming, we turn around back onto the correct path. If we did and thought this much it would be progress.

    But eternal truths, natural laws, are things which are written by God on the hearts of men. True discernment of good and evil necessitates reference to God. Without theology even those of best intentions are winging it in the dark, occasionally stumbling on the right path - it is far easier to discover Gods will for man when you seek God, and not ignore Him.

    But today even our own consciousness and rational mind is hidden behind slavish indulgence to the senses, where dopamine hits are the biggest priority and a measure of whether something is good. The "if it feels good", "yolo" nihilism, again where everything is reduced to the individual. Where everything is socially constructed and hence can be deconstructed and disregarded. Blind, and bound for disaster.

    On a positive note, as I alluded to earlier, this cannot endure, not least for the fact that this philosophy is completely incoherent.


  • #77
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Relevant statement from the Vatican today:
    CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH


    Note on the morality of using
    some anti-Covid-19 vaccines



    The question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion. In recent months, this Congregation has received several requests for guidance regarding the use of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, which, in the course of research and production, employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century. At the same time, diverse and sometimes conflicting pronouncements in the mass media by bishops, Catholic associations, and experts have raised questions about the morality of the use of these vaccines.

    There is already an important pronouncement of the Pontifical Academy for Life on this issue, entitled “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” (5 June 2005). Further, this Congregation expressed itself on the matter with the Instruction Dignitas Personae (September 8, 2008, cf. nn. 34 and 35). In 2017, the Pontifical Academy for Life returned to the topic with a Note. These documents already offer some general directive criteria.

    Since the first vaccines against Covid-19 are already available for distribution and administration in various countries, this Congregation desires to offer some indications for clarification of this matter. We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies. Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.

    1. As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil. For example,“in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]

    2. In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

    3. The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]--in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

    4. In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4] Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

    5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

    6. Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty.[5]

    The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 December 2020, examined the present Note and ordered its publication.

    Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 21 December 2020, Liturgical Memorial of Saint Peter Canisius.


    Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I. + S.E. Mons. Giacomo Morandi
    Prefect Titular Archbishop of Cerveteri
    Secretary



    [1] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8th December 2008), n. 35; AAS (100), 884.

    [2] Ibid, 885.

    [3] Cfr. Pontifical Academy for Life, “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human foetuses”, 5th June 2005.

    [4] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruct. Dignitas Personae, n. 35: “When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust. Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles”.

    [5] Cfr. Francis, Address to the members of the "Banco Farmaceutico" foundation, 19 September 2020.
    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html?fbclid=IwAR3evf3hB99wTjzNtzRTxvL8jxqgQqbpNxLxJT2PZ9H70a3fLgNUWKlLT1s


  • #78
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    But why do you think that human rights are a good thing? Why do you think that we, as a people, think of these as a good thing? Animals don't, at points in time societies have disregarded them entirely - we view this as horrific and an aberration. Why? It is easy to conceive of a dystopian alternate reality, or perhaps an alien species (millions of TV shows, books and films) where, despite great technological and intellectual advancement what we view as "good", rights etc, just are not a consideration. There is nothing to little to suggest that education necessarily inevitably leads to what we view as "good" not that our views on what is "good" have arisen from the materiality of life and existence.

    I never said I think things have gotten worse. I'm asking why you think that what you view as moral and good is actually good and why you think it is better now. You have no objective basis - for you there is no eternal truths, just mere opinion and consensus, which in your own conceit you presume your own opinion to be "the best" and better than the mere opinion and consensus of other people, both today and in the past. If you were transported to a time and place where an unspeakable evil was accepted and viewed as being good you would have no objective basis to say that it was not, for under your philosophy your own discomfort with something is just a mere personal opinion and nothing deeper. Because for you there are no natural laws to bound the behavior of man, no actions that are intrinsically evil or good, and that good and evil depends on a consensus opinion.

    Of course, the reality is is that you and everyone is under the influence of natural laws whether you acknowledge them or not. As you are not suffering from severe mental illness you naturally (and would, deep down, no matter the circumstance) view evil as evil. However, with the obscuring of the natural law, the attempted burying of objective truths intrinsic in the nature of man, the table is being set for great evils to be rationalized under a secular incoherent and disordered philosophy, where evil is fine as long as it is "consented" to. Where morality is a matter for the individual, where mass cowardice rules the day, where evil committed by others is allowed happen as it is "up to them/none of my business" no matter how disturbing or appalling you personally find it deep down. Your own conscience becomes a problem, to be "rationalised" away by an incoherent philosophy - you thinking something evil becomes the problem, not the evil itself. This is how good people commit and allow evil - they think that their own deep seated concerns and objections are either irrational, or they are completely obscured and hidden by a confused zeitgeist to the extent that they convince themselves that the evil is actually good. Of course, such a society, in denial of reality, cannot endure forever and will surely fall. But what misery!

    The coherent basis for morality and society must be that there are eternal truths. That there are acts which were, are and will always be evil, or good. That knowledge of these is intrinsic in every man, that they can and must be discerned - that these natural laws must be the guiding lights of society against which all positive law is weighed. Of course, these may be discerned incorrectly, sometimes disastrously so. But this will have been an error that will be corrected - a mistake made, a wrong turn when upon traveling on it we find the light of truth dimming, we turn around back onto the correct path. If we did and thought this much it would be progress.

    But eternal truths, natural laws, are things which are written by God on the hearts of men. True discernment of good and evil necessitates reference to God. Without theology even those of best intentions are winging it in the dark, occasionally stumbling on the right path - it is far easier to discover Gods will for man when you seek God, and not ignore Him.

    But today even our own consciousness and rational mind is hidden behind slavish indulgence to the senses, where dopamine hits are the biggest priority and a measure of whether something is good. The "if it feels good", "yolo" nihilism, again where everything is reduced to the individual. Where everything is socially constructed and hence can be deconstructed and disregarded. Blind, and bound for disaster.

    On a positive note, as I alluded to earlier, this cannot endure, not least for the fact that this philosophy is completely incoherent.

    I find it rather sad that the best you can manage here is to resort to ad hominem attacks and call me conceited. Similarly the assertion that one would have to have a mental health issue should they disagree with your preferred position. This vitriol and empty rhetoric does little other than undermine your own argument. I'm going to leave this discussion at this point on that basis.


  • #79
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    I find it rather sad that the best you can manage here is to resort to ad hominem attacks and call me conceited. Similarly the assertion that one would have to have a mental health issue should they disagree with your preferred position. This vitriol and empty rhetoric does little other than undermine your own argument. I'm going to leave this discussion at this point on that basis.

    Try reading it again please.

    I said that someone (I explicitly said not you, and you clearly dont agree with me!) who cannot recognise or discern any evil is mentally ill. I did not think this needed elaboration - what I mean here is severe personality disorders and the like, where due to mental illness certain people cannot be expected to think and function as the majority do (without appropriate treatment at least). I clearly outlined in my posts how I think some people have gotten things wrong, I am not saying that everyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill. I am sincerely sorry if you took it up that way.

    As for my use of the word conceit, I do believe that a position that essentially posits that morality is what a majority of people considers to be good with no objective foundation or boundary markers for this opinion, with the caveat that this is only the case when this majority reflects my own personal opinion, is indeed a conceited one. How could it not be?


  • #80
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,832 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Yet again you miss the point. Let's avoid having massive posts and distil it down.

    If you say that things are improving, you must have some objective standard against which to measure it in order to make this statement.

    What is it?

    Well there is the people living longer and healthier lives than ever before in history thing.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #81
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Well there is the people living longer and healthier lives than ever before in history thing.
    I absolutely agree that life is precious, valuable and should be protected. People living longer and being healthier is an objective good.

    I believe that the sanctity of life is a belief that is inherent and intrinsic in man- it is eternal and not a consequence of material circumstances.

    Thus, individual life is, was and always will be valuable and should be protected.

    Do you think so as well? You seem to, otherwise why would you raise something as an objective good against which to evaluate society if it was actually subjective and dependent on circumstance?

    (we will leave aside the unborn for now)


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Well there is the people living longer and healthier lives than ever before in history thing.

    You could argue that this robs people to come of a chance to enjoy the fruits of the earth.

    There is much ado at present about our gifting a destroyed planet to future generations afterall.

    If we didn't live so long, consuming vast resources in the attempt to drag the last dregs from decrepit bodies, others to come would have more.

    Unless, of course, you belong to that same mindset that cryogenically freezes their heads and figure we can go mine the far flung universe ad infinitum.


  • #83
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,705 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If we didn't live so long, consuming vast resources in the attempt to drag the last dregs from decrepit bodies, others to come would have more.

    I agree, increased longevity without a reasonable degree of physical and mental health is something that many people would not want. This is a common argument for voluntary euthanasia.

    That aside, the biggest problem for over-consumption of dwindling resources is overpopulation. Past solutions to this have been natural culling events such as famine and plague and man-made ones such as war. Some of us would consider family planning a rather more enlightened approach and might likewise consider those that oppose it to be deeply immoral in doing so.


  • #84
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Our living longer is destroying the planet


  • #85
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    The solution to overconsumption is not to engineer lower population levels in developing nations so we (i.e. the wealthy west) can continue to over-consume, 'enjoy' and extend the era of late stage capitalism. Nor is the solution for the entire world population to live and over consume like we do in the west - this is not good for anyone, including the over-consumers. The solution is fair distribution of wealth and appropriate and sustainable levels of consumption . (This doesn't mean everyone - or anyone - living in poverty).

    The world is not overpopulated. Population growth is projected to reduce to very low levels (0.1%) by the end of the century. Through efficient use of land and resources the Earth will be able to sustain a population of 11 billion. Of course, who knows what technological advances there will be by then, maybe we will be living on Mars or the Moon :)


  • #86
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    I agree, increased longevity without a reasonable degree of physical and mental health is something that many people would not want. This is a common argument for voluntary euthanasia.

    Chicken feed in the scheme of things. Most people will be happy to avail of everything that can eek out a tolerable existence, whatever about bits and pieces falling off around the edges, whatever the expense.
    That aside, the biggest problem for over-consumption of dwindling resources is overpopulation.

    I would have thought obscene consumption was the problem. Flying bananas from the other side of the world or basil from Kenya and vs. denying others the chance of life?


    Past solutions to this have been natural culling events such as famine and plague and man-made ones such as war. Some of us would consider family planning a rather more enlightened approach and might likewise consider those that oppose it to be deeply immoral in doing so.

    Well you'd probably have to do something about child mortality rates and security into old age before you'll convince many Kenyan basil growers of your solution allowing you to fufill a desire to visit some mates in Brisbane to sink a few stubbies.


  • #87
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,569 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    A few weeks ago some zoologists pointed out how endangered shark squalene oils are commonly used in vaccine manufacture. There are many ethical issues to consider. It can be difficult to get reliable information. The issues in the Henrietta Lacks case is another example of the ethical issues involved. I understand the baby parts used by Astrazenca died half a centrury ago but were the families of the children asked permission?


  • #88
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    John Hutton wrote: »
    The solution to overconsumption is not to engineer lower population levels in developing nations so we (i.e. the wealthy west) can continue to over-consume, 'enjoy' and extend the era of late stage capitalism. Nor is the solution for the entire world population to live and over consume like we do in the west - this is not good for anyone, including the over-consumers. The solution is fair distribution of wealth and appropriate and sustainable levels of consumption . (This doesn't mean everyone - or anyone - living in poverty).

    The world is not overpopulated. Population growth is projected to reduce to very low levels (0.1%) by the end of the century. Through efficient use of land and resources the Earth will be able to sustain a population of 11 billion. Of course, who knows what technological advances there will be by then, maybe we will be living on Mars or the Moon :)

    We need cheap labour. And to get cheap labour you have to have a big pool of very poor. But the very poor tend to have big families (and not because their religion tells them to).

    Smacl's argument appears to be: make the very poor as educated as we are regarding family planning. And get the infrastructure required to issue family planning aids up to Western levels of scratch. But leave the rest. Because we all know what would happen if they turned into us. Population would go down, but consumption would skyrocket.

    Do the maths: if you've boohoo workers on 29c and hour, how much can they consume, even at the family sizes they might have? I mean, fuel, food and goods are all priced as global commodities. 29c am hour can only consume so much. Which is not much. I doubt they have the advanced systems that we have to extract from the land. Look at green Israel and the desert surrounding her.

    So reduce their family size by 70% and raise their wage (aka ability to consume) 40-fold to our minimum wage.

    Er...nope.



    Well it wouldn't happen anyway. Cos there'd be no poor to fuel our consumption..What possible benefit is there for consumption addicts to cut off one of the primary ways of fueling their addiction?? We need poor countries to dump all our waste onto. Long before we get to the utophia of recycling our way to perpetuity, we'd need to figure out how to pay to recycle in to perpetuity. Just like there being nothing cheaper than digging a hole in the ground and pumping free energy from it, there ain't nothing cheaper and more attractive than using poor countries as a dumpster.

    Anyone who thinks the world is going to change of it's own accord and without a lot of war embarked on in order to maintain the status quo has got their head in the sand. Sure, it's precisely what the bible says, but even if you don't believe that, you'd have to have some truly religious faith to suppose mankind will go quietly.

    Less than one-quarter of the world's people, those who live in the developed countries of both West and East, consume 80 percent of the energy and metals and 85 percent of the paper used each year.

    I wonder are they including China as a developed country. Apparently it has become a high income nation. Even if the per capita production is perhaps 25% of the US. Cos if you took China out of the equation, the above figures would really turn into something else!


  • #89
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    . I understand the baby parts used by Astrazenca died half a centrury ago but were the families of the children asked permission?

    In a world of a squillion abortions a year? Such an ethical question is the preserve of the person interested in dotting ethical i's and crossing ethical t's.

    And with species being wiped out daily for rather more humdrum needs, shark in vaccines won't receive much of a welcome. Now, if it were Koala bears...


  • #90
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,569 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    In a world of a squillion abortions a year? Such an ethical question is the preserve of the person interested in dotting ethical i's and crossing ethical t's.
    It can be easily avoided if it is taken on board early on.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    And with species being wiped out daily for rather more humdrum needs, shark in vaccines won't receive much of a welcome. Now, if it were Koala bears...
    maybe but i hope you are wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    It can be easily avoided if it is taken on board early on.

    What? Asking the parents permission if they'd be happy their aborted baby was used for vaccines. Better to ask forgiveness than permission I'd guess.


    Although it's moot. Somebody'd have given the nod somewhere.


    But there'd be some court case in there if the babies could be ID'd and permission hadn't been sought.

    maybe but i hope you are wrong.

    You read the papers much? It's a bit like the last housing crash. You didn't have to be an economist to understand that the party bus had gone over the edge of a cliff.

    -

    Now a big, non-nuclear war which blows a hole below the waterline of our way of living would do the trick. Reduce the population right down and perhaps, just perhaps, set them off on a wiser course. Nature would recover to a degree.

    I don't see any other kind of ..er.. circuit breaker that man has a desire to trigger.


Advertisement