God, Fantasy and Belief

[Yobmod]

Your books sound more interesting all the time. But i break my 'no unfinished series' rule for no man

It would be cool to have a drug that made one actually religious (as opposed to simply trancendental). How is it possible to ascribe to a moral code that doesn't feel ineffably 'right'? I don't think i could.

But I know people that believe that anthing illegal is evil. And conversely, if its not illegal its acceptable. The fact that laws change all the time doesn't seem to phase them. They will quite happily see soft-drug dealers go to prison, but will smoke and drink until they are sick.

 

[Gary Wassner]

How then do you decide between issues like this: abortion - the mother is raped and is 12 years old. What feels right to you?

And BTW, though the series is not finished, each book concludes satisfactorily. I don't know if it will ever be finished. How do issues like the one we are talking about here and now, ever resolve? That's my problem. How do I end the book when I haven't answered all my own questions?

 

[Yobmod]

How then do you decide between issues like this: abortion - the mother is raped and is 12 years old. What feels right to you?

Well i'm pro-abortion (up until the baby is independantly viable). So i would say allow the child an abortion, and severly punish the father. If she wants to keep it, her family should agree. Counselling all round....


As for writing you're series. Can't it stop when the plot demands, and any philosophical exploration left go in a different book? Even if its the same world / characters, like Hobb does?

 

[Gary Wassner]

You seem to apply an internal logic to your moral choices. I think that's healthy even if they might be arbitrary on a purely intellectual level. We need to make choices each and every day, so we need some standard for ourselves. The justification of that standard is another thing altogether.

I don't want to debate abortion, so I won't delve any further into that subject. But talk about the death penalty? Where do you stand on that and why? Tell me your moral basis for your feelings about it, if you don't mind.

As far as the series ending, yes, of course it can. I'll never resolve these issues for myself, let alone in a series of books. The best I can do is ask the questions and explore the emotions and situations. This has been a quest for me for my entire life.

Gosh, if we could really solve problems by writing books, just think!

Oh, Sephira! I wanted to address your questions as well, but I got caught up in the debate with Yob. If you're still around and still interested, raise some of them again please. You made some interesting points and if I didn't answer them already, it would be helpful.

 

[Yobmod]

I'm against the death penalty. Murder is wrong, and all because its popular doesn't make it right. So in terms of Justice or Revenge it is wrong.

How many people have to support a murder for it to be right? No number is large enough for me.

As for it being most effective (cheapest?) for removing undesirable people from society, i think the Jury gets it wrong way to often for it to be used as a money saving device. In Britain the Birmingham 6 were convicted of terrorism and imprissoned for 16 years. They would have been candidates for capital punishment in other countries. It was eventually shown that the police had made up evidence. Life imprisonment was a huge misscariage of justice, but could be somewhat rectified.

 

[sephira]

I have to say I am pro-capital punishment. Just don't ask me to do the deed. I honestly don't think I could go through with it.
Personal experience here: My aunt was brutally raped and murdered by 3 men in a third-world country. She lived long enough to give descriptions of the men. After a long-drawn out and rather shady process, the police arrested 2 of the men. One died while in prison, the other executed, the third never found.
My family was invited by the government to witness the public execution, we declined.

Justice had been served for two of the men, IMO. I FEEL this, however again, if I had been the one asked to kill my aunt's murderer, he would have lived. I do not feel it is my place in this world to take the life of another, no matter what the crime or who it is done to.

This being said, I can not honestly say I would feel the same if it had been my own child. I loved my aunt dearly, but I do wonder had it been my own child, if revenge would have become a natural instinct (like the one to protect) and therefore I would have been the first in line to kill.

 

[Yobmod]

I have to say I am pro-capital punishment. Just don't ask me to do the deed. I honestly don't think I could go through with it.
Personal experience here: My aunt was brutally raped and murdered by 3 men in a third-world country. She lived long enough to give descriptions of the men. After a long-drawn out and rather shady process, the police arrested 2 of the men. One died while in prison, the other executed, the third never found.
My family was invited by the government to witness the public execution, we declined.

You admit the police investigation was 'shady'. If they had arrested you or someone in your family would you be satisfied that they were 'guilty in the eyes of the law'?

I don't trust people to be honest nor capable enough to get it right everytime.

 

[sephira]

You admit the police investigation was 'shady'. If they had arrested you or someone in your family would you be satisfied that they were 'guilty in the eyes of the law'?

I don't trust people to be honest nor capable enough to get it right everytime.

This is true. I don't trust that country's government anymore than I trust the men who they did grab claiming "innocence". It's a very long story, and I apologize for being short and vague on details, but I don't see where details actually come into play for this discussion.

For peace of mind, I chose to believe that justice had been served. And I find it impossible to put myself or a member of my family in the accused shoes. Like I said, my aunt lived long enough to give description of the three men. We weren't even in the same country at the time of the crime.

And as for other cases, call it apathy if you will, but I choose to not "care". I am not a one-woman army for the betterment of society. If it doesn't personally involve me, then I don't get involved.

**If this had occurred in my country, sure I would have expected better of the investigation. But again, I think those are only "details" and not a part of my opinion on the death penalty.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Why is murder wrong Yob? I am not saying that it isn't, I'm just asking you to explain your logic? I don't think it's sufficient to say that it just feels wrong. Let's try to analyze that feeling.

With DNA testing, it's much easier to be certain about crimes and criminals. Let's say that we could be 100% certain, would you then condone the death penalty for a person who willfully kills?

How do we justify revenge? Is revenge ever a justifiable reason? I suppose since we are playing fast and loose with all of our moral guidelines here, if it feels right then it is. Revenge usually feels very right.

I used to think that one way of beginning the process of establishing a working etical system was to make a kind of limited categorical imperative to avoid cruelty. Now that sounds simple, but we would have to define the word so precisely in order for it to be of any use, and I'm not sure that we could. But for me, that feels right. But again, it's a guideline for behavior so we could refer to it when we are making judgments. All ethical proclamations have holes in them it seems.

Still, without God or gods as a foundation that defines good and bad, right and wrong, it becomes relative and personal. One reason is as good as another, though one may seem so alien and abhorrent to many of us. Without the ultimate grounding us all, anything goes. I can make everyday decisions, but I assume so much. And many of my assumptions, even the foundations of our languages, are based upon a judeo christian ethic that we unconsciously adhere to. Right and wrong is manifest. It is real. Good and bad are real things, out there for us to touch and react to. We assume all of this, when if fact, without God, there is very little we can accept as absolute and certain. We can only accept my way and your way and his way. And when they deviate too far from the norm, we reject that way. But we have few real, logical reasons. If science could provide some, there might be some hope for philosophers, but sadly, science has done just the opposite for us. It has levelled the playing field and stripped us of even our free will and our responsibilty.

 

[Yobmod]

And as for other cases, call it apathy if you will, but I choose to not "care". I am not a one-woman army for the betterment of society. If it doesn't personally involve me, then I don't get involved.

Oh, i'm the same. I would vote against a political party that tried to bring it in here, and i wouldn't like to live in the US, but i make no effort to change the world.

How about Euthanasia? I'm also against this. Ending suffering is all well and good - but i would never trust a Doctor in this (like the do in Hollans i think?)

Recently we had the worlds most prolific serial killer convicted here. Dr. Harold Shipman killed over 400 elderly vulnerable women who mostly lived alone. Apart from this he was a beloved village doctor.

Suicide i'm ok with, so a system that allowed terminally ill patients to arrange their own deaths without doctors would be acceptable to me.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Try this one:

A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

 

[sephira]

Oh, i'm the same. I would vote against a political party that tried to bring it in here, and i wouldn't like to live in the US, but i make no effort to change the world.

How about Euthanasia? I'm also against this. Ending suffering is all well and good - but i would never trust a Doctor in this (like the do in Hollans i think?)

Recently we had the worlds most prolific serial killer convicted here. Dr. Harold Shipman killed over 400 elderly vulnerable women who mostly lived alone. Apart from this he was a beloved village doctor.

Suicide i'm ok with, so a system that allowed terminally ill patients to arrange their own deaths without doctors would be acceptable to me.

Yob, do you have "trust" issues?
And yes, I am all for euthanasia if the person has a living-will that requests it. I'm not sure what the point of long-time suffering if you don't have to.

However it gets into a gray area when you ask the subjective question, "What is suffering?"

By and large, I'm comfortable with ending a life if I FEEL like all quality of life is gone...meaning no hope for a better tomorrow.

 

[Gary Wassner]

What if a person's suffering is mental? Isn't it the individual's choice? Or is someone else ultimately in charge of our own life?

 

[Hereford Eye]

Try this one: A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave...What should they do?

It's a no-brainer. No one person's life is more valuable than a group of people's life. The greatest good for the greatest number applies. Much more interesting if the fat man is leading just you. Now, what should you do?

 

[sephira]

Try this one:

A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

If the man holding the stick of dynamite in his hand is also the one with the matches, then I would say it becomes a one-man decision. Good luck on getting everyone in the group to agree to a decision.

Mmmk, with that being said, if it was me, I would love to say I would be able to go down with dignity, but I can't. The will to live could very well overcome the "morality" of the situation for me. Suffice to say, I wouldn't know how I would act unless it actually happened.

Not the answer you wanted, but it's all I have to give. I don't like to underestimate myself on any level, whether it be survival or empathy for others.....

 

[Yobmod]

Why is murder wrong Yob? I am not saying that it isn't, I'm just asking you to explain your logic? I don't think it's sufficient to say that it just feels wrong. Let's try to analyze that feeling.

With DNA testing, it's much easier to be certain about crimes and criminals. Let's say that we could be 100% certain, would you then condone the death penalty for a person who willfully kills?

How do we justify revenge? Is revenge ever a justifiable reason? I suppose since we are playing fast and loose with all of our moral guidelines here, if it feels right then it is. Revenge usually feels very right.

The nearest i can come to a logical reason is purely that doing things to other people that i wouldn't want done to me is wrong. I guess that is empathy, huh?

Even in cases of absolutely certain guilt i would be anti death penalty. I don't see at what point it should apply - serial killers? all murderers? rapists? thieves? To me it seems purely a revenge issue, and to me revenge doesn't feel right - it simply feels good.

It seems to me that any arguments for capital punishment as revenge would apply equally to using proportional punishment. So rapists should be raped, child killers have their children killed. Why is murder the only crime condoned if the person is 'guilty'. Its the only punishment in the west that makes no pretence at trying to rehabilitate the prisoner - its all about vengeance.


I would kill the fat man too. Needs of the many and all.
I would probably do it if it was only me and 2 fat men also - in this case i would know i was wrong, but do it anyway.

 

[Gary Wassner]

But we are all forgetting that there is still some remote possiblity that they could all be saved. If they don't wait, they will never know. And if they wait, it might be too late.

Try this one HE, and tell me if your theory still holds. This one's true:

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard.

 

[Gary Wassner]

What if you were a sadist Yob? You would then be right in inflicting pain on others? The relativism you propose has flaws. And the imperative, the golden rule so to speak, seems nice, but it's hard to cover all bases with it.

You cannot divorce moral reasoning from moral values. If you are going to do one, then you have to have a preconceived notion of the other. That's the bottom line. So when you evaluate these dilemmas you have to figure out what values are pertinent to the specific moral dilemma?

I read this somewhere and it's used in discussions of ethics often. You speak of feelings and conscience, and of sensing the rightness of wrongness in a situation, and acting accordingly. Read this:

The Sawi people of New Guinea (now called Irian Jaya), in the early 1960s, were cannibals. In Sawi legend, their heroes weren't those who took the greatest number of heads, but those who were the most deceitful in befriending their victims before taking their heads. Friendship before betrayal would not prick their conscience because treachery was an ideal. So when missionaries, Don and Carol Richardson told them the story of Christ's life, who do you think was the real hero to the Sawi people? Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Jesus!

 

[sephira]

But we are all forgetting that there is still some remote possiblity that they could all be saved. If they don't wait, they will never know. And if they wait, it might be too late.

Try this one HE, and tell me if your theory still holds. This one's true:

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard.

Question....are the survivors members of the crew or just innocent passengers?

And yes, I am Vern from Stand By Me......

 

[Gary Wassner]

The survivors were just passengers.