Immorally produced vaccines

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about me getting sick from a vaccine and being an unnecessary burden?

What are my chances of being a burden? What, indeed, are my chances of even catching Covid?

What about participation in hazardous pursuits: skateboarding, mountain biking, motorcycling ..and putting an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system? Ban those?

I'm not sure about your whataboutery. You seems very concerned about peoples welfare and how our individual behaviour impacts on others.

John Hutton wrote: »

As I mentioned a few times in my posts, this is where the argument ends up. That the destruction of a certain category of human life is not immoral or unethical, perhaps because it is not really human life at all? This is important because it is an acknowledgement that medicines etc. should be developed ethically and there should be limits and such, particularly with regard to the destruction and experimentation upon human life. We could be in broad agreement on that principle (or maybe not as I will elaborate on below, but hold that thought) and disagreement, then, is centered around the right to life and cannot be ignored or swept aside. (Of course others might make the argument that it may be unethical but the ends justify the means).

You seem to believe that whether something is ethical or morally good (or evil etc.) rests upon a majority feeling at a point in time? This is a dangerous and unworthy position - not to mention patently untrue. Do you believe in universal human rights? Human history is full of instances where people believed and acted in ways which they viewed as acceptable in a society but were later viewed to be deeply wrong. Someone who seems to advocate that morality is relative and based upon majority opinion cannot say that these people were wrong at the time, but only that it is wrong now (unless opinion were to change of course, then it would be right again). It is no proper way for a society to be run - although this materialist conception of right and wrong is quite popular at the moment.

As for veganism, we are back to my original point, this is really about human rights. Animals, while important and are undoubtedly horribly mistreated the world over, are not the same as humans and I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why they should have the same rights as humans.

But if we expand your argument, you are basically saying here that morality and ethics should not be a consideration as any actions could conceivably be viewed as immoral or unethical by someone. Or, in conjunction with your above point, something is only immoral or unethical when a majority of people at a snapshot in time think it is, an opinion which can of course change, perhaps many times. Yes, if such a position on right and wrong was indeed true I would agree that it is a waste of thing to even think about these things.

But I don't, I believe that there is such a thing as universal right and wrong - in other words such a thing as universal human rights. I would argue that the majority agree with this point. The fact that some simultaneously say they believe in human rights yet then display (a probably unthinking) position based on a materialist philosophy only serves to underline how the philosophical foundation of western post christian society is fundamentally incoherent and schizophrenic.

Yes, the Irish Catholic church, noted for going with the flow, seeking popularity and saying what it thinks society wants to hear. I did say you were unbiased in another post, but this is worrying. I give you a document from 15 years ago where these very issues are deeply considered, logically played out (this is not a new issue after all) and a conclusion reached. The Church essentially reiterate this guidance today, you say there is "no doubt" that the guidance is based on the reasons outlined, yet you then wonder if they did it because it would be unpopular to do otherwise? When it is clearly demonstrated that this has long been considered in a thoughtful, extensive way, and the rationale for the explanation clearly explained? When the conclusion seems to be one you agree with? I would not use the word cynical" to describe your argument here, it is most unworthy of you.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

John Hutton wrote: »

Population growth is projected to reduce to very low levels (0.1%) by the end of the century

John Hutton wrote: »

Your point? You claimed earth is overpopulated. It is not. Nor is it projected to be.

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.