Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex

[RobertUrbanek]

Aside from legality, if a dying 13-year-old boy wanted sex with an attractive woman, would it be immoral to arrange for his wish to be fulfilled?

Would your answer be different if the dying teen was a girl or gay or lesbian?

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

So, do you spot the inconsistency between these two positions?

No. I don’t think there is inconsistency. Two things can be true and not contradict one another. Things aren’t always either or. For example, I can value youth AND value age simultaneously.

This, to my mind, is one of the problems with Kantian and deontological (rule based) ethical systems.

But even in rule based ethical systems, rarely is there one rule applied across all situations. That makes no sense. There are specific rules for specific situations. Rarely do we have a straight across the board type of application, because that would be silly.

For every rule made to cope with a complex phenomenon such as morality, and provide us guidance in a complex world, there seems to be one or more exceptions.

Of course. Thanks be to God! There are often exceptions to every rule. This shows our flexibility and humanity and reasoning. This doesn’t mean the rules are meaningless or we shouldn’t have rules. This is the damned if you do damned if you don’t argument. If the rule is everyone must eat bread, even if you don’t like it, don’t want it, or prefer not. People complain it is unfair to have such a strict across the board rules – tyrants! But Julie comes along and has celiac disease so therefore if she eats bread, she may die so we say ok Julie doesn’t have to eat bread. Then those same people complain, You’re so wishy washy – you can’t even stick to your own rules.

It might be easier just to find some principle that works invariably. If there is one.

There is a principle that works invariably. Each scenario/situation has a principle that works invariably. You are just bothered by the fact that there are a trillion and one different scenarios?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

So, do you spot the inconsistency between these two positions?

No. I don’t think there is inconsistency.

So, if you can't see the inconsistency in your position, wanting to value all lives equally, and valuing one life (say, a Jew, gassed at Treblinka, who we both agree it was immoral to kill), above that of Hitler, (who we both agree it would have been moral to assassinate) despite your stated opinions that:

If we value all human persons then right and wrong isn’t really difficult to know. We get into difficulty when we start to value some human beings over others...

And that:

[Replying to post 68 by 2ndRateMind]

...what makes Hitler's life more morally weighty...

...Nothing. It isn’t. All lives matter...

...why, then I start to despair of an intelligent dialogue. What makes us more ethically right to support the assassination of a demagogic dictator, than this dictator to murder this or that individual who is a member of some detested minority?

Incidentally, to counter one of your points, Just War Theory does not specifically address the assassination of enemy leaders, though this might be the most expedient manner in which to bring an end to a war. I see this as a disadvantage of the theory. If all the warmonger leaders everywhere were to be persuaded that they would be personally and relentlessly targeted, there might be considerably fewer wars.

Nevertheless, do not take my objections as personal criticisms. These are issues such that theologians and philosophers have argued over for millenia, and still do. It would be most unfair of me to expect you to resolve them in a few paragraphs.

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

This, to my mind, is one of the problems with Kantian and deontological (rule based) ethical systems.

But even in rule based ethical systems, rarely is there one rule applied across all situations. That makes no sense. There are specific rules for specific situations. Rarely do we have a straight across the board type of application, because that would be silly.

Kant thought he had come up with such a rule. He called it the Categorical Imperative. In translation: 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.' or, as derived, 'Act always as you would want all other people to act towards all other people.'

I wonder if you have any objections to these?

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

For every rule made to cope with a complex phenomenon such as morality, and provide us guidance in a complex world, there seems to be one or more exceptions.

Of course. Thanks be to God! There are often exceptions to every rule.

And also, I submit, the proof that rule based systems of ethics are unsatisfactory guides to morality. If we are going to allow exceptions to rules, and exceptions to exceptions to rules, etc, then when are we going to stop? At what point does a rule, dismembered by so many exceptions, become not a rule, at all?

Take, for example: 'Thou shalt not kill'. Some think that:

But it's OK to kill in war.
And it's OK to assassinate belligerent warmongers.
And it's OK to execute murderers.
And it's OK to euthanise those suffering from painful, terminal disease.
And it's OK to kill animals to eat.
And it's OK to cull diseased animals.
And it's OK to hunt animals for pleasure.

Is there really that much left of this rule, at all? Maybe we would be better off just admitting that sometimes killing is wrong, and sometimes killing is right?

More later, as time and inclination commit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

There are often exceptions to every rule. This shows our flexibility and humanity and reasoning...

If you are saying that our humanity, part emotional, part rational, should command our ethical positioning, then I would agree with that.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 75 by 2ndRateMind]

What makes us more ethically right to support the assassination of a demagogic dictator, than this dictator to murder this or that individual who is a member of some detested minority?

We are permitted to protect our life if someone else is attacking us. It’s really that simple. I’m very unclear on why you would think that unethical. You are allowed to stop someone from killing you.

Kant thought he had come up with such a rule. He called it the Categorical Imperative. In translation: 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.' or, as derived, 'Act always as you would want all other people to act towards all other people.'

I wonder if you have any objections to these?

Well, I think that is in fact what we do. That is what makes moral truth absolute and universal – that all men know that as human beings we deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (unless we give up that right by not granting the same dignity and respect to others – someone for example like Hitler or a serial killer). We universally recognize that all human life has value simply by being a human being.

And also, I submit, the proof that rule based systems of ethics are unsatisfactory guides to morality. If we are going to allow exceptions to rules, and exceptions to exceptions to rules, etc, then when are we going to stop? At what point does a rule, dismembered by so many exceptions, become not a rule, at all?

That’s inaccurate and short sighted, IMO. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater because the bathwater can’t remain constant.

Take, for example: 'Thou shalt not kill'. Some think that:

But it's OK to kill in war.
And it's OK to assassinate belligerent warmongers.
And it's OK to execute murderers.
And it's OK to euthanise those suffering from painful, terminal disease.
And it's OK to kill animals to eat.
And it's OK to cull diseased animals.
And it's OK to hunt animals for pleasure.

Is there really that much left of this rule, at all?

Uummmm . . . YES!

First, when we say, “thou shall not kill� it is because we acknowledge that human life has value. Now, if someone chooses to disregard that fact/truth, then certainly they are foregoing being themselves treated in kind.

Also, a minor side point . . . your comment that some people think “it's OK to euthanise those suffering from painful, terminal disease.� I would say is NOT morally acceptable. A human being does not have the right to take their own life or the life of another innocent human person. The life of all human beings should be protected from the moment of conception to natural death. To not acknowledge this truth opens the door for a myriad of dangerous rationalizatons.

Maybe we would be better off just admitting that sometimes killing is wrong, and sometimes killing is right?

I prefer to stand pretty strong and confident in proclaiming killing is wrong, because it is except in those rare and extreme situations which are nothing of what the overwhelming majority of us are faced with on a daily basis.

Again, you want to call contradiction or inconsistency where there is none. Non believers do this all the time with Sacred Scripture. They take two separate verses addressing 2 separate situations and claim God/Jesus contradicts what He said previously. That, I’m afraid is disingenuous and unfair.

If you are saying that our humanity, part emotional, part rational, should command our ethical positioning, then I would agree with that.

Of course our humanity commands our ethics. Ethics are based on humanity. Some animals kill their sexual partner after mating. It is not wrong/immoral for that animal to do that, however it would be unethical for human beings to do so.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 75 by 2ndRateMind]

What makes us more ethically right to support the assassination of a demagogic dictator, than this dictator to murder this or that individual who is a member of some detested minority?

We are permitted to protect our life if someone else is attacking us. It’s really that simple. I’m very unclear on why you would think that unethical. You are allowed to stop someone from killing you.

I'm not saying it is unethical. I am just saying some think so, and some do not. But either way, because of the controversy, there is an erosion of the commandment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

We are permitted to protect our life if someone else is attacking us. It’s really that simple.

The life of all human beings should be protected from the moment of conception to natural death. To not acknowledge this truth opens the door for a myriad of dangerous rationalizatons.

Hmmm. Most interesting. What disqualifies your view on killing in self-defense from being a 'dangerous rationalisation?'

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

I'm not saying it is unethical. I am just saying some think so, and some do not. But either way, because of the controversy, there is an erosion of the commandment.

I Disagree. If I am a parent and I have a strict 9pm bedtime for my children, the commandment isn’t eroded if I let them stay up 2 hours later one night when Aunt Sue comes for a visit. The exception doesn’t negate the need for or benefit of the rule. And then if even 2 short months later, I extend their bedtime yet again so they can watch fireworks, doesn’t mean I throw my arms up and say the bedtime rule is impossible to always implement so what’s the point/use. Being able to adjust to different circumstances doesn’t make one a hypocrite.

Hmmm. Most interesting. What disqualifies your view on killing in self-defense from being a 'dangerous rationalisation?'

Well, any rule can be abused/ignored or rationalized, but valuing life at all stages of development is a good starting point to prevent justification for immoral behavior. Typically, in regard to self defense, the person should be in immediate or imminent danger. I think this is something most reasonable human beings can understand.

[2ndRateMind]

Well, any rule can be abused/ignored or rationalized, but valuing life at all stages of development is a good starting point to prevent justification for immoral behavior. Typically, in regard to self defense, the person should be in immediate or imminent danger. I think this is something most reasonable human beings can understand.

Just so. And, incidentally, I would agree that self-defense is adequate excuse to kill. But many Christians do not. The Quakers, for example, and the Amish, and many other pacifists of disparate denominations. They point to the example of Jesus, who, when they sent the soldiers to arrest him, not only told His disciples to put up their swords, but even healed an injury one of them had inflicted. And this, though He knew perfectly well His arrest would lead to an excruciating death on the cross.

So what makes us right, and them wrong? Are we 'dangerously rationalising?' If not, why not?

Best wishes, 2RM