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?
Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex
Moderator: Moderators
- RobertUrbanek
- Apprentice
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:51 pm
- Location: Vacaville, CA
Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex
Post #1Untroubled, scornful, outrageous — That is how wisdom wants us to be. She is a woman and never loves anyone but a warrior — Friedrich Nietzsche
- 2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Post #81
RightReason wrote: [Replying to 2ndRateMind]
OK, but even you must admit that too many exceptions will negate a rule. If the rule is 'in bed by seven', but on Mondays they stay up for TV, on Tuesdays they stay up for the homework they didn't do on the Monday, on Wednesdays they stay up to play computer games, on Thursdays they stay up for dance classes, on Fridays they stay up for a family takeaway meal, on Saturdays they stay up to visit friends, and on Sundays they stay up for devotional practices, then really, the rule is pretty much irrelevant to their lives. Don't you agree?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.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Not all who wander are lost
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #82
[Replying to post 81 by 2ndRateMind]
But, if it is true that there exist some group/individual out there who believes it never ok to harm another person, they are obviously free to do so. Quite frankly, I personally would never own a gun. I really don’t think I would ever be capable of using it. I would do everything I could to keep safe, but cannot see myself ever purposely killing another. Although, I do not believe it would be immoral to do so. If the attacker is unhinged and acting in such an immoral/harmful way, it would not be immoral to protect good from evil.
So, to answer your question, it wouldn’t be immoral not to defend oneself, but it also isn’t immoral to do so. So, in your example, they are not wrong. We both are right.
Now, compare that to walking into a supermarket and killing Joe because he took your parking spot. Sure, it probably was your spot and Joe was being a jerk, but can’t we all agree it would be immoral for you to kill Joe, even if he were in the wrong?
Like I said, most people are capable of recognizing the, “Thou shall not kill� commandment and when it applies.
I would say you are incorrect in your assessment of Quaker/Amish belief. I have spoken with Quakers on other forums who admit that if they or their family was being violently attacked, they could fight back and would not just sit their and allow themselves to be killed.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?
But, if it is true that there exist some group/individual out there who believes it never ok to harm another person, they are obviously free to do so. Quite frankly, I personally would never own a gun. I really don’t think I would ever be capable of using it. I would do everything I could to keep safe, but cannot see myself ever purposely killing another. Although, I do not believe it would be immoral to do so. If the attacker is unhinged and acting in such an immoral/harmful way, it would not be immoral to protect good from evil.
So, to answer your question, it wouldn’t be immoral not to defend oneself, but it also isn’t immoral to do so. So, in your example, they are not wrong. We both are right.
You tell me. If some monstrous human being barges into your home and proceeds to violently murder your family members one by one is it dangerous or mere rationalization to recognize we are permitted to take means to stop them, even if the only way to do that would result in the death of the monster?Are we 'dangerously rationalising?' If not, why not?
Now, compare that to walking into a supermarket and killing Joe because he took your parking spot. Sure, it probably was your spot and Joe was being a jerk, but can’t we all agree it would be immoral for you to kill Joe, even if he were in the wrong?
Like I said, most people are capable of recognizing the, “Thou shall not kill� commandment and when it applies.
Yep. Not too difficult to recognize, right? But is that what we see with, “Thou shall not kill�? I don’t think so, which is why I can confidently say, “It’s not right to purposely take the life of another innocent human being.� Period. It’s not really that difficult. And I think this is something rational human beings can all recognize and acknowledge.OK, but even you must admit that too many exceptions will negate a rule. If the rule is 'in bed by seven', but on Mondays they stay up for TV, on Tuesdays they stay up for the homework they didn't do on the Monday, on Wednesdays they stay up to play computer games, on Thursdays they stay up for dance classes, on Fridays they stay up for a family takeaway meal, on Saturdays they stay up to visit friends, and on Sundays they stay up for devotional practices, then really, the rule is pretty much irrelevant to their lives. Don't you agree?
- 2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Post #83
And, sadly alas, many aren't. Accurate recognition of evil, it seems to me, requires some degree of spiritual stature, or character development, which we cannot rely on in everybody, or there would be no tobacco industry, no opium production, no manufacturers of combat aircraft, and no need for missiles and tanks and guns anywhere, etc.RightReason wrote:
Like I said, most people are capable of recognizing the, “Thou shall not kill� commandment and when it applies.
What is required is a rational approach based either on fundamental truths everyone accepts, or else on aspirational ideals everyone accepts, or maybe some mixture of both.
More later, as time and inclination permit.
Best wishes, 2RM
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Not all who wander are lost
-
- Student
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am
Post #84
Like I said, most people are capable of recognizing the, “Thou shall not kill� commandment and when it applies.
Nope. Most people are capable or recognizing when suspension of the rule is beneficial to them, and declare an exception then. This is what we see over and over in the bible. The clear rule becomes meaningless, as in the interest of expedience,the rule is jettisoned.
Nope. Most people are capable or recognizing when suspension of the rule is beneficial to them, and declare an exception then. This is what we see over and over in the bible. The clear rule becomes meaningless, as in the interest of expedience,the rule is jettisoned.
- amortalman
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex
Post #85RobertUrbanek wrote:My first reaction was: Would it be wrong if the woman was unattractive?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?
Of course, there are extenuating circumstances that would naturally come into play in a situation like this. But all things considered, I would vote to give the boy his wish. Why should he be denied his last request?
It should not matter is the teen is a girl, or gay, or lesbian.