Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:09:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
553 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote:
> I went on to suggest another example of our recognition of teleology:
>
> > > Here's the other side of the coin: It's also possible
> > > with technology to breed paralytics, those blind/deaf/dumb,
> > > or people missing their limbs or other bodily systems.
> > > Is an individual who has been genetically altered to
> > > be blind entitled to their sight in some way? Are they
> > > genuinely missing something?
>
> You responded with, "If they request it, yes...If they believe they are,
> yes. If they believe they are not, then no. It's not up to anyone but THEM
> to decide."
>
> Applying this to Lott's case, I think we arrive at the conclusions I
> outlined above: "If Lott believes that he is not missing out on something
> [intellectually and/or morally], he is not. It's not up to anyone but HIM
> to decide."
>
> Turning to the more specific point, I personally find it odd that you are
> willing to say that if a person's sight were genetically eliminated by other
> human beings that there would be no sense of the individual missing
> something. I think that most people would understand that to be crippling
> to the individual, if not a great injustice.
You must not have talked to very many blind people. Many consider it an
inconvenience, not crippling. Only the blind can truly state whether it is
crippling or not, and that on a personal basis.
> More than that, your position would logically lead to the fact that if we
> could genetically breed individuals _without certain desires_, there would
> be no obligation on our part to see that they were outfitted with those
> features (of whatever kind) that they might be without due to our
> intervention. Again, I find this counterintuitive.
Good luck breeding/not breeding desires ;-)
> Would you also, based upon someone's desires (according to what you've said
> above), put as much weight into someone's "entitlement" to having, say, eyes
> surgically installed in their palms, or three additional pairs of arms being
> attached to their sides, as you would applying medical technology to help a
> blind person see?
IF we had the technology to do so, and IF the person requested it, and IF they
could pay for such modifications, why would you deny them? I wouldn't say they
were entitled to them, but I also wouldn't deny them.
I think pianists would love to have extra fingers. I know *I* would when
working on cars or playing with Lego. A third/fourth arm/hand would be handy
too ;-)
> Are you willing to say that one is not more deserving
> than the other?
No, I'm not. "Deserving" doesn't enter the equation. DESIRE of that individual
does, however (as long as it doesn't hurt others).
> Finally, you wrote:
>
> > BTW, I'm getting kind of tired of everyone stating
> > Christian Morality as something that just popped
> > into existence in the Bible, like it never existed
> > before then. Pishtosh. True Morality (capital M)
> > existed long before Christians wrote it down, they
> > can't lay claim to it as being Their Idea.
>
> The Bible says as much, Todd. As far as I know, no Christians believe that
> it "popped into existence" when the ink and paper of the Scriptures finally
> met. Paul, for example, speaks to this point in the first chapter of
> Romans. What I've articulated so far finds a great deal of support from
> thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and others in the Western Tradition.
> The greatest contribution of Augustine and Aquinas was their synthesis - the
> "finding coherence between" - of Christian belief and the works of Plato and
> Aristotle, respectively. So both the Bible and the tradition of the church
> acknowledge a Morality that can and is known at some level by all men
> (typically referred to as general revelation by theologians) apart from
> Scripture.
>
> Of course, I do believe that the TM is (ideal) Christian morality, but
> everyone has to take a position at some point; the question is always, Which
> worldview is true? Which provides an adequate ontological account of that
> morality?
>
> Do you believe in a "True Morality" - capital "M"?
Yes I do. And I believe it has nothing to do with Christianity or ANY other
religion whatsoever, except that religions codified it in literature. They
can't lay claim to CREATING it, only codifying it.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A412021.29594A...ape.com... Tom, Thanks for your reply. I hope to get to this soon, but in the meantime, I was wondering if you had any feeback on the rest of my post. I had some (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A3E5530.B9A803...ape.com... Tom, Recently you responded to something I wrote as follows: (...) I agree completely with your assessment, Tom, in that it raises a "larger question" as (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
