|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 1, 2008 8:49:38 GMT -8
Moritz, I don't appreciate people pointing out the errors in my statements. In the future, please nod and smile. Hahaha. OK!  |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Nov 3, 2008 22:38:55 GMT -8
Let's take the old and often quoted example of the railtrack dilemma to make this clearer. You are a railroad worker responsible for the turnouts. You realize that two trains are about to collide at full speed which would cause the death of hundrets of people. You could work the switches and avoid the collision but unfortunately there is a single railroad worker on the alternative track. There's no way to warn him, if you change the course of the train, he'll be dead. What do you do? Kill one man or watch how hundrets of people meet their fate? Okay, I'm sure you already know this dilemma. And it is unimportant what your individual choice would be. What I'm trying to get at is, that a Utilitarian would probably get to the conclusion that many lifes are worth more than an individual life. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't see the worth in the individual life. That doesn't mean the decision is easy. That doesn't mean he will joyfully work the switch. That doesn't mean he doesn't consider the single person to be a human. That doesn't mean he would eat this person*. Am I off base, or isn't there only one right answer to this dilemma? Save the the majority. And doesn't this dilemma not speak directly to the situation? In this dilemma you have a certain loss of one life versus a certain loss of hundreds of lives. In the stem cell dilemma there is a life, that doesn't need to be taken, versus "potential" lives being being saved, or improved. That seems like a big difference. Maybe I missed the point, though, too? I suppose this is all a moot point (pheew!) if they have found a way around the problem. Although, I'm sure thoughts about this can be applied to other situations. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 4, 2008 7:17:26 GMT -8
Am I off base, or isn't there only one right answer to this dilemma? No way man! Of course, "save the majority" is the first thing that comes to ones' mind. But you can spice it up if you imagine the single person on the other track being your father. Or your mother, brother, sister, wife, son, daughter, best friend or any person you love. And if that isn't enough you just picture the two colliding trains to be full of felons. You get the idea. What this dilemma comes down to is the weighing of one life against another life. In Germany, where I come from, this is no option. The worth of one life may not be charged up against another life. I studied law for two semesters and this dilemma was one of the first lessons. According to the German law, what you considered to be the only right answer would be the wrong answer. You see, it's all relative! And doesn't this dilemma not speak directly to the situation? In this dilemma you have a certain loss of one life versus a certain loss of hundreds of lives. In the stem cell dilemma there is a life, that doesn't need to be taken, versus "potential" lives being being saved, or improved. That seems like a big difference. Maybe I missed the point, though, too? Hm, so I guess one of us is missing the point.  I think the train dilemma nails it because it really comes down to the question of whether it's okay to sacrifice one life for the sake of many lifes. You said: "save the majority!" And this is precisely the point of the scientists. Then you'll say something like (correct me if I'm wrong): "It isn't even clear that anyone will ever be saved thanks to stem cell research." And that's a valid point but as far as I understand it, the prospect of signficant medical breakthroughs is realistic. And then there is the question of whether a 10 days old embryo can be considered a human. You say yes and I say clearly no way! The question, as it presents itself to me, is: Is it worth to create and destroy this: diepresse.com/images/uploads/3/5/0/373584/stammzellen_ap_ADVANCED_CELL_TECHNOLOGY_Kopie20080331212038.jpgin order to save this: www.pcfwalk.org/images/patient.jpgI don't think it is moot to discuss all this even if science can ship around embryonic stemcells now (by the way, did anyone read the article about the chimera embryos the British are about to produce in order to get stem cells?). Its a debate on principles. And similar question may arise in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 6, 2008 21:23:40 GMT -8
No, we certainly don't want to debate whether stems cells could be an effective treatment for fatal conditions. That point is ethically irrelevant if you believe in Christian ethics; ends don't ever justify the means. If you are a Christian and don't believe that, then I have an angry mob and a large wet noodle waiting for you. Moritz can weigh an issue in that way, but he has the good sense not to pretend that his ethical system is entirely derived from the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
That said, as far as I understand the science, stem cells are phenomenal. They have more to teach us than we can imagine, and stem cell research would probably save thousands, even millions, of lives.
Christianity is not concerned with saving lives, so...the effectiveness of stem cells isn't a relevant issue to Christians.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 7, 2008 1:51:13 GMT -8
No, we certainly don't want to debate whether stems cells could be an effective treatment for fatal conditions. That point is ethically irrelevant if you believe in Christian ethics; (...) Christianity is not concerned with saving lives, so...the effectiveness of stem cells isn't a relevant issue to Christians. I find this position truly immoral. Furthermore I'm wondering where you get that from. If saving lives isn't a relevant issue for Christians, why do Christians make such a fuss about abortion? Why even bother about embryonic stem cell research?? If easing pain hadn't been a relevant issue for the Christ, how come he was a healer? I'd like to ask you to back your immoral claim with scripture.* *Note: I'm not saying you aren't right. But I'm wondering. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 7, 2008 8:47:08 GMT -8
Marcus is baiting us I felt it coming a mile away you sly dog. Man, I wish I had the time to get in on this one. Maybe soon. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 7, 2008 8:59:02 GMT -8
Marcus is baiting us I felt it coming a mile away you sly dog. Man, I wish I had the time to get in on this one. Maybe soon. I've been thinking whether or not his entire post was ironic. It seemed so but I don't know him and I've already seen pigs fly... (especially on this forum ) |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 7, 2008 10:01:07 GMT -8
Well, it's not irony. He's going to pounce on, "he who would seek to save his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it" as a central ethic of the kingdom of God. And good for him, though I'm sure we'll end up having some discussion about the implications of such an ethic. One thing I really appreciate about Marcus is his ability to become myopic in order to drive home an aspect of the kingdom of God most of us might excuse away as mere hyperbole (such as losing our lives, etc..) Just my guess on where this is going, and, indeed, let's go there. *This should read as 95% compliment and 5% sass to Marcus  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 7, 2008 10:29:24 GMT -8
Well, it's not irony. He's going to pounce on, "he who would seek to save his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it" as a central ethic of the kingdom of God. And good for him, though I'm sure we'll end up having some discussion about the implications of such an ethic. I think your scripture quote is pulled out of context and doesn't apply to this case. I'm not sure and I haven't checked but it sounds to me as if it was referring to those who would rather deny God and save their skins in the face of a direct threat by other humans. Like Peter in the aftermath of the crucifixion. I don't think it's directed at sick people. Furthermore, it would be a bit bolt to assume that a scientist who is working on a remedy for cancer is doing this merely to save his own skin. And I don't even wanna start with the implications... Let's hear what he has to say. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 7, 2008 10:34:51 GMT -8
Do dee doo doot doo...
Kind of a fun game I've started: Guess where Marcus is going!?!
But to avoid being too egotistical, I'll follow up with this later tonight. I've got to fumble my way through three simulated patients first.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 7, 2008 16:43:30 GMT -8
Sim Patient #1: Irritable bowel syndrome. Sim Patient #2: Hyperthyroidism. Sim Patient #3: Herniated L5 disc with associated radiculopathy. The best part? If I'm wrong, nobody dies or anything.
It's important to understand that death is 1) morally acceptable, 2) natural, and 3) inevitable. Everyone lives, everyone dies, and the length of time that passes in between is morally and ethically irrelevant (remember that everything I say argues Christian ethics/morals; I'm trying to lay out what those are, but I'm not trying to argue their merits against other ethical/moral systems). If someone is killed at age eighty three, it is every bit as horrible as a three year old being killed. Because of eternal life, Christians do not consider time spent on earth to be the highest moral gift (and therefore, not the worst thing that can be taken away). If you believe that death is the end, you are going to disagree with me on this point.
So when I said that it isn't a concern of Christians to save lives, that's the first part of what I meant; namely, there is no "perfect age" at which to die. So if someone is killed, it is not the loss of "X" number of years of living that we mourn, because no life was actually lost eternally. That is why Christians aren't afraid of death; we believe that life can't be taken away. We really don't fear anything except God. And Rosie O'Donnell, obviously.
You have to understand the Sermon on the Mount to be a Christian. If you believe that God will bless the persecuted, the martyred, those who suffer, those who mourn, and those who live righteously, then the fear of death and suffering goes away, as does mourning for those who have suffered or died.
You see the brilliance of that? No one, and no form of evil, has any real power. What can an evil person do? Torture and harm someone? No problem, "blessed are those who are persecuted." What about the family of the victim? "Blessed are those who mourn." Why is it pointless to go around trying to protect and defend the innocent, the sufferers, and the martyrs? Because God already has their backs: "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
The Beatitudes, like most of Jesus' teaching, set us free. We don't need to run around trying to save everyone who faces evil; God already has them covered. And I'm pretty sure that the Creator of the Universe knows how to reward and bless those who were meek, peaceful, and defenseless in the face of evil.
And how can we go through life any other way? Honestly, if I had to carry the burden of sadness and mourning for the millions of lives that were lost through abortion, genocide, persecution, famine, disease, or any other form of immoral death, my head would explode. God freed me from that kind of permanent sadness and guilt. Those unborn babies are being blessed beyond our imagination. Jews killed in concentration camps, Japanese killed from the bombs, Americans killed in the WTC towers...no need to mourn for them, they're in God's hands. And I trust those hands.
Not to say that we shouldn't mourn those terrible atrocities. We should lament the days that concentration camps opened shop, that bombs were dropped, that the towers fell. We need to mourn the immoral, evil acts performed by people who obviously don't know what they are doing. The Church has failed to bring peace to the world, and every time sinful acts are performed, we need to try like hell to stop it from happening again. Not because we're worried about the victims (we're not - they're just fine), but because we love and care for the soul of the evildoer.
American Christianity isn't Christianity. When the towers fell, national sentiment was something along the lines of "Kill the bastards who did this." Christian response? "Pray for the bastards who did this." Because if your life's ambition and purpose is to fly a plane into a building full of people, you probably haven't experienced the freedom offered in Jesus of Nazareth's life, death and resurrection.
So Moritz, when I said that it isn't our job to save lives, I hope you understand what I meant. The loss of life isn't a major concern when you believe what I believe; the world doesn't need a bunch of people trying to save other people from something that is inevitable anyway. I mean, we are followers of Jesus, who is well known for being nailed to a cross yet having the presence of mind to ask God to forgive those who were pounding in the nails, because they obviously didn't know what they were doing. Anyway, I understand and respect that the preservation of life is the highest moral virtue to most systems of belief. I just disagree (and don't expect agreement from anyone who isn't a disciple of Jesus, because apart from his message, it wouldn't make any sense).
Oh, and I suspect that Christian readers may be thinking: What about the victims who died in the towers or the Holocaust who weren't Christians? Don't they go to hell, and didn't they lose their chance to become saved while here on earth? The answer: why are you even asking that question? Are you really worried that God isn't qualified to make those kind of judgment calls? Seriously, our IQs are somewhere around 100. God's IQ is...at least...double that! Let's let him tackle those issues, and trust him to do a darn good job.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Nov 7, 2008 20:01:18 GMT -8
Hmmm? I'm pretty sure I completely agree and completely disagree with your post. As a fellow Christian I apologize for not giving you the full agreement you expected. Although I'm pretty sure you didn't expect it. I agree and love thoughts like this... When the towers fell, national sentiment was something along the lines "Kill the bastards who did this"; Christian response? "Pray for the bastards who did this" Because if your life's ambition and purpose is to fly a plane into a building full of people, you probably haven't experienced the freedom offered in Jesus of Nazareth's life, death and resurrection. ...and this If someone is killed at age eighty three, it is every bit as horrible as a three year old being killed. Because of eternal life, Christians do not consider time spent on earth to be the highest moral gift (and therefore, not the worst thing that can be taken away). but, for me, it gets a little murky here. You see the brilliance of that? No one, and no form of evil, has any real power. What can an evil person do? Torture and harm someone? No problem, "blessed are those who are persecuted." What about the family of the victim? "Blessed are those who mourn." Why is it pointless to go around trying to protect and defend the innocent, the sufferers, and the martyrs? Because God already has their backs: "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." I'm down with, "no one, and no form of evil, has any real power." But then this is where it derails for me, "Torture and harm someone? No problem..." If we decide to make ourselves susceptible to these things (out of love), fine. But to stand by and watch, and/or not mourn this happening to someone else, I think is more callous than it is an ethic of the kingdom. How would you square this in light of the story of the good Samaritan, or "mourn with those who mourn". Or even with the general idea of helping those in poverty (the poor, the fatherless, etc). IMO, we need to mourn differently than "the world" and defend the defenseless differently than "the world", but mourn and defend we must do. Si o' no? PS there's much more I agree and disagree with in your post. I just picked a few examples. PPS I think we may have just made a little jump from the topic of stem cell research. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 7, 2008 21:36:15 GMT -8
Nate, you beat me to the punch.
Yeah, I kept thinking of how even Jesus himself mourned, and, again, it's not that we don't mourn, it's that we don't mourn like the world does ("like those who have no hope").
I also thought of how Jesus insists that we help the poor, those in prision, etc.. and not stand idly by. I'm not saying that you were saying we should ignore this, Marcus, but some of what you were saying sounds a bit too close to a Hindu viewpoint on suffering- namely, that we should not interfere in someone else's karma.
Also, I thought of how though the Scripture points out that we will all experience suffering and trials, Jesus himself advised his followers to flee persecution if possible.
In the west, even the very notion of hospitals flows out of our Christian heritage. Had it not been for Christians who wanted to alleviate suffering, Sati would still be practiced in India, footbinding in China, slavery in Britian and the US, etc..
Part of the Lord's prayer is that God's kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. God doesn't do His work all alone- His purpose is usually to do it directly through people. And that means if he cares about the cause of the widow and the orphan, that we care about them, and that do something about it.
Still, I think your main point is that alleviation from suffering is not the be-all-end-all focal point of Christian service. But neither is sitting idly by. It's love, right?
So, if you were walking by a man beating up a child you'd just rejoice and go on your merry way?
I know that's not what you think, but how can you square your above comment with a scenario like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 7, 2008 21:44:52 GMT -8
Oh, also I wanted to say, Marcus, that I think you're right when you intimated that Christians shouldn't base arguments on topics such as this on "fundamental rights" (ala the deist beliefs of most of the founding fathers).
I don't think there's a lot of ground to stand on from the Christian perspective that we are born with inaleinable rights, etc.. The point isn't rights, the point to taking any moral stand is simply love. We love because he first loved us. We don't fight against abortion because everyone has a right to life so much as it's what love dictates.
Nate: yes, the topic is wandering but I'm okay with it. When the new update for this program comes, I'll be able to spit it out if need be.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 8, 2008 0:44:08 GMT -8
Still, I think your main point is that alleviation from suffering is not the be-all-end-all focal point of Christian service. But neither is sitting idly by. It's love, right? So, if you were walking by a man beating up a child you'd just rejoice and go on your merry way? I know that's not what you think, but how can you square your above comment with a scenario like that? I suppose I'm still guilty of baiting you guys. I guess I do that a lot - and it probably gets annoying, so I should stop. Obviously I wouldn't stand idly by while horrible things are being done to someone (a child in your example). But to hammer home a very, very important distinction, it is absolutely not our job to end suffering, to save everyone from evil, or to be the world's police force. American Christians tend to look at themselves as the world's saviors and moral police - like it's our responsibility to stand and fight for the underdog, to overthrow the evildoers, and to go thwart oppression at every turn, because gosh darn it, people need to be free, happy, and prosperous! That's how we find ourselves in these holy wars. We think we're God's chosen crusaders. But I think Nathaniel and Josh (with my baiting) have set up a false dichotomy: namely, that I am suggesting we do nothing because I said, "Why is it pointless to go around trying to protect and defend the innocent, the sufferers, and the martyrs? Because God already has their backs." I am not proposing a dichotomy - in this case, the dichotomy would be to either stand and fight to defend the innocent, or to stand idly by. Those aren't the only two options. Remember, what I am really getting at is motive - why do we do what we do? That question isn't rhetorical. Motives greatly influence actions. Take Iraq, for instance. At first, Bush told us that Saddam had disobeyed the UN by having weapons of mass destruction. We then invaded Iraq, disobeyed the UN, and found that our motives were unsubstantiated. But now we had a bigger problem - a country in disarray, one that remained evil, oppressive, and Muslim, and one that obviously needed our help. So we stayed, and continued to fight the bad guys, and continued to kill the bad guys, and continued to chase the bad guys, and continued to look for more bad guys. And now we're stuck, because to pull out at any point along the way would be to admit to failure. When we let outcomes and goals (in this case, Iraqi freedom and stability...oil excluded for simplicity's sake) determine our course of action, we must pursue those goals by any means necessary until the mission is accomplished. I probably don't need to point out the folly in this thinking. What I do need to point out is that Christians do the same stupid thing when they view their faith as a set of outcome markers and goals. "Let's defend the innocent, save the babies, stop the gay marriages, pass the moral laws, end starvation, cure diseases, whatever it is - we just need to accomplish SOMETHING, for the sake of Christ!" Here's a solid example within the Church. Pregnancy Resource Centers are the preeminent manifestation of the Protestant fight against abortion on the streets. PRC, a goal-oriented organization that focuses on saving babies, counts the number of babies they save as a measure of their effectiveness in a given location. Occasionally funds are low, and a branch needs to close to save money. PRC administrators then find the least "effective" branch (the one with the fewest number of clients choosing to go full-term with their pregnancies) and close it down. That is so messed up that I don't know where to begin. But I'll try. If PRC were a business, that would be the correct strategy, because businesses are goal-oriented. But PRC is a ministry, funded by individuals and churches, and should never never never ever pretend that it is their job to save babies. Instead, PRC should concern itself with one thing, and one thing only: fulfilling the calling that God has placed upon Christians to live out the Gospel message - in this case, to young, unwed expectant mothers who mistakenly believe that abortion is a sensible solution to their problems. You may be thinking, "Sure, I agree with that. But how should they measure if they are following God's call? Certainly they have to use something as a criteria, and the number of babies saved is the only logical choice, right?" Well, that would certainly be correct in a secular setting, but that isn't the case at PRC. This is where our understanding of the Prophets come into play. PRC, like Jeremiah, or Jonah, or Isaiah, has a message of truth and love to convey to people who don't know truth and love. How did God determine whether or not a prophet was successful? Did he count the converts, the repentors, and then do follow-up evaluations a year after a prophet's visit in a town to see if the message had a long-term effect? Of course not. God measured success by how faithful a prophet was to his calling. Jonah was successful by the world's standards - Nineveh actually listened. But he didn't obey God, and isn't known as much of a prophet. Jeremiah, on the other hand, spent his entire life as a failure, preaching to people who hated him and ignored his words. But because he was faithful in the most discouraging and oppressive circumstances, Jeremiah was hugely successful in God's eyes. So PRC should evaluate their success the same way. But their ethic sucks and they're asking the wrong questions, and they evaluate success the same way a business would. Where did we get the idea that our job is to be effective, or to "make it work", or to get results? We are followers of Jesus. The same Jesus who spent three years discipling and teaching, only to find that in his moment of greatest need, his followers and closest friends were nowhere to be found. Obviously he wasn't much of a teacher or motivator. It isn't our job to save the world. It isn't our job to end starvation, or abortion, or suffering. We aren't called to make it work, or to get results. We are called to be faithful to a message, a message that is essentially a way of life. Sometimes people will be fed, and babies will reach their birthdays, and refugees will find loving refuge. Sometimes they won't, and when that happens, God has their back. No guilt, no disappointment, no despair. Bringing this full circle (sorry about the length), the ends never justify the means. Christians are only concerned with the means, and the ends are no way to evaluate whether the means were performed properly. Scripture is our evaluator, not results. With Stem Cell Research, we aren't going to ask whether it will work or not - that doesn't matter. We aren't going to ask whether a stem cell is fully human, because we can't know that for sure and we'd rather die than risk killing. And since we know that stem cells will only prolong someone's life for a little while - because we will all die - it's our job to be compassionate to the dying, to bring a message of hope and peace and love, and to give both of our kidneys to a friend if that's what compassion and love require. There is no "standing idly by," and because our job is not to save lives but to show God's love, action is critical. But showing God's love is enough in and of itself; the ends are not our concern. Too bad that we don't teach that in churches, because there are too many faithful people out there who think that they have failed - people who have given their lives, their homes, their safety and security to live as Christ when they were called, and didn't see results. I know a few missionaries who have seen an entire life's work burn to the ground at the feet of hypocrisy, war, and in most cases, apathy. Too many people who set goals to achieve outcomes instead of prioritizing faithfulness to the Gospel become disheartened, burned out, or cynical. Interestingly, Hauerwas spends a lot of time speaking to medical students, because he is appalled that physicians are only trained to help someone live, and not also trained to help someone die. Physicians have more experience with the process of death than anyone, and yet they won't talk about it with patients, even though both doctors and patients know that death is inevitable. Doctors feel it is their sole resposibility to save and prolong lives, and maybe it is...but what a depressing career! Zero percent long-term success. You'd think that doctors, knowing that they are doing everything in their power to prolong life as illness and aging take over, would also have the good sense to walk their patients through the entire biological process, including death. And yes, Josh, part of what makes Christians able to give their lives is that we've already given our lives. And another applicable verse from the Sermon on the Mount, from Matthew 8, where performing God's will trumps "spiritual accomplishment": 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 8, 2008 0:47:05 GMT -8
I love ponies.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 8, 2008 3:02:13 GMT -8
|
|
