Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists

These guys that think the herd needs to be thinned should off themselves before anyone else.

I agree with them in principle, it is not morally wrong to take a life. Only to take a life that is human and with a living and developed higher brain cortex present is wrong.

“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

Ultimately their aim is to justify organ donation after cardiac death (DCD).

But I disagree with this. Only donations after brain death should generally be justifiable.

________________________

Should rape be legal with out consent ?

Last I heard, to take a life is called murder and a crime;
Disturbing that the reptilians can not comprehend this fact.

________________________

reply to post by ToneDeaf

Last I heard, to take a life is called murder and a crime

Well, you heard wrong. To unlawfully take a life of a human being between the stages of birth/late-term pregnancy and brain death is called murder and a crime, and even this definitions tends to differ from country to country and from person to person.

reply to post by Maslo

I agree with them in principle, it is not morally wrong to take a life. Only to take a life that is human and with a living and developed higher brain cortex present is wrong.

Thats the kind of thing they were pointing out. People think life is precious, but only when its human or perhaps a pet. We eat billions of animal breed for the sole purpose of a food source without a second thought. We forget that these things are life too.

Now, morals don't exist is the first place. They are concepts. Like marriage and ownership. These are not things that exist except in our minds.

Now, why is everyone so outraged at this? Can bioethicists engage in philosophical discussion or is that against ats's policy?

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists

www.bioedge.org

Is it morally wrong to kill people? Not really, argue two eminent American bioethicists in an early online article in the Journal of Medical Ethics....

...“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

How can they be called bioethicist if they have no ethics? No surprise here. We have been convinced that there are too many people on this planet so the next logical step would be to convice the population that there is nothing wrong with extermination! Yet 70 years ago hitler had the same idea and he was called a mad man! I fear the direction we are traveling in will bring us to our own destruction! Even knowing this wont change anything because of how pliable our minds have become! Ours are like play dough at the hands of children, though these children are insane, apathetic and stupid! A destructive combination! Get ready for a rough ride cause the next decade will be a tough one! We will be lucky to make it through to the next year! Prophecy or not i fear things are about to change though whether it's for our benifit or our destruction is entirely up to whether we take action or continue to sit on our asses and wait for someone to save us from ourselves!

"Ethicists" desperately want to equivalence ethics and morality; otherwise ethics has little meaning other than a temporary social convention. There is no equivalence. Morality supersedes ethics at all levels as morality springs from time-tested concepts which have survived, often with very little change, for thousands of years. Indeed, moral concepts are often found at the core of our great religions. Indeed, ethics, when allowed to enter religion as if morality, leads to corruption, oppression, and tyranny.

Ethics are merely a specific group's mutually accepted conventions of the moment which are often modified as seen expedient by the elite of the same group. So, IMO, it's not worth discussing in great depth anything of the pretended morality which a "bioethicist" believes at a given moment in time precisely because it will change in historically short order. That change may be driven by new technical insight, lack of (or abundant) funding from the party in power to push a political view, or mere expediency of nearly any other kind.

What is worth discussing IMO is how a self-proclaimed bioethicist could possibly believe something which goes so deeply against the morals of civilized society. Shame on them! What expediency or inflated sense of elitism drove these poor souls to such concepts? Where and how has society failed these individuals? Another good topic of discussion might be: can these "bioethicists" be rehabilitated, or must society take the drastic step of self-preservation and permanently imprison them as insane social deviants?

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Speak for yourself, I personally find all life valuable, even bugs

People that go around killing bugs for no reason (especially when outside) are vile in my opinion.

If you're going to kill an animal, then make sure its used...if not you're just senselessly killing things. Like people that hunt JUST to hang an animal head on their wall. It's just weird and primitive to me.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Magnum007

 

That is fine for a round of philosophical discussion. In practice however that idea has always led to human suffering.

As to what I do to help others, talk about a straw man

As to priorities, ones loyalty has to be to family, community and country first or you will not have the resources to help anyone beyond that.

the priorities you mention are hardwired in our brains. we are animals that are hardwired to live in small groups which fight other small groups for food, water, shelter, the best grounds, and other life essentials...

today this hardwiring has been challenged and the fighting over food, water, shelter etc... has been replaced in the modern world with fighting over who has the best clothes, or the fastest car, or the biggest this or the best that...

we are still animals... we live, we die, and we must follow nature just as much as the rest of the animal kingdom does...

there is a reason why we have a messed up world today... it's because we think that we are better and deserve more... we are the only creatures who believe that to live is not enough, that we need to "be happy"... that's BS

now that access to food and basic necessities is so easy, we need to find other things to do to keep us occupied... this makes people believe that they "deserve" to live...

well now... why should the weed die? why should the bacteria die? well... because we are cruel that's why! but are we really cruel? isn't cruelty something based on emotions also? the animal kingdom seems cruel as well...

some males kill the offspring of other males before mating with females... food is stolen from other animals and some animals are killed in the process... hmmm... doesn't that last part sound like us?

replace food with "natural resources"...

so in essence we are just animals... we are just organic material which believes it has a "right" to live when in fact we are put on this planet for whatever reason and must survive...

Here's an interesting video to illustrate my point :

Actually, this is nothing new. The US, Sweden and Germany were using Eugenics for years. In the 1930s Eugenics was all the rage across the 'civilised' world.

It is morally wrong to kill if you cannot reasonably justify it. Try living somewhere remote without killing living things and consuming them to survive. I'd love to know how anyone avoids consuming anything that was produced from plants or animals - if you manage it then congratulations but personally I think that you're a complete sadact.

Generally it's only seen as morally wrong to kill because people have spent so long allowing someone else to do it for them. You might think twice about eating that gorgeous fry-up if you had to knife the pig yourself and that's a bloody shame.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Without reading more, would bet they are UTILITARIAN bioethicists. That sort thinks that people that aren't "productive enough", "healthy enough", etc, should be killed, so they don't "waste resources". SICK thinking. Unfortunately, it seems to be catching, though. Just look at the anti-child trend you can see some places online. Anti-elderly. Anti-disabled. And so it goes. Same types that have been pushing for a LONG time now for "euthanasia centers" for people. Type that thinks they are better than all others, and that there is no value to life, treating people the same as weeds!

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Without reading more, would bet they are UTILITARIAN bioethicists. That sort thinks that people that aren't "productive enough", "healthy enough", etc, should be killed, so they don't "waste resources". SICK thinking. Unfortunately, it seems to be catching, though. Just look at the anti-child trend you can see some places online. Anti-elderly. Anti-disabled. And so it goes. Same types that have been pushing for a LONG time now for "euthanasia centers" for people. Type that thinks they are better than all others, and that there is no value to life, treating people the same as weeds!

Lets not throw all utilitarians in the same basket. Most utilitarians consider wellbeing as utility and suffering as anti-utility, not productivity. Thats not mainstream utilitarianism.

And there is indeed nothing wrong with voluntary euthanasia, in case of terminal illnesses.

reply to post by Blaine91555

I do not, nor does a doctor have the right to make that decision for anyone else.

I tend to agree with you, the doctor shouldn't be able to make that his own, however I don't think it's black and white either. If there's a brain dead child on life support with a healthy kidney in a bed next to a child desperately in need of a kidney transplant the issue becomes morally hazy - I still tend to side with you, that the doctor should not be the one to decide in that case, however I'd question the moral decision of a parent who refused to let their child's death bring new life to another suffering child.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Killing is ok? AlrIght let's go to war because AMERICAN ethics says it's ok because pulling weed and bleeding an innocent to death is the same thing. Wow! So why is it illegal then hmmm?

I've recently started reading Chronicles of Narnia. Those books best expose this sort of mindset.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by r3axion

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
there is value in all life, but human life is more valuable than every other form on this planet. it isn't because we deserve it either.

I'm curious as to your reasoning of why human life is more valuable.

If anything, we work against nature. Our species is a cancer.

Well then, commit suicide.

Problem solved.

Not quite...

How very mature of you to tell someone to kill them self, though. Care to add anything meaningful to the topic?

reply to post by prettylittleidiot


A few posts later I explained that I understand human potential, but as we stand as a species currently, we act as a cancer.

The special thing about humans is we are given the capability to consciously decide how we want to live our lives, and weigh out the consequences of our decisions. Unfortunately there is still a right and wrong way. The wrong way will ultimately lead to our downfall in the long run. We can either build the Earth, or destroy it.

You should see the impact of Negative value judgements towards one another based in false belief systems does to you all at the molecular level. The way the few control the many is really very simple. Matter fact when all is said and done you will be outraged at how simple it was.

Those people that rule, have the money power and prestiege, the wonderous technologies and influence etc really arent all of that