Her name is Yoshimi she's a black belt in karate working for the city she has to discipline her body 'Cause she knows that it's demanding to defeat those evil machines I know she can beat them Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me but you won't let those robots eat me Yoshimi, they don't believe me but you won't let those robots defeat me Those evil-natured robots they're programmed to destroy us she's gotta be strong to fight them so she's taking lots of vitamins 'Cause she knows that it'd be tragic if those evil robots win I know she can beat them Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me but you won't let those robots defeat me Yoshimi, they don't believe me but you won't let those robots eat me Yoshimi 'Cause she knows that it'd be tragic if those evil robots win I know she can beat them Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me but you won't let those robots defeat me Yoshimi, they don't believe me but you won't let those robots defeat me Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me but you won't let those robots eat me Yoshimi, they don't believe me but you won't let those robots eat me Yoshimi
Moral- right or wrong Absolutes- always right or always wrong When I lived on the island of Yap in Micronesia they held that rape was legal. The chiefs said if a man is horny and a woman is found available, then it wasn't the man's fault (he was in the right) My wife never agreed with that, I wasn't very pleased that I had to walk with her everywhere, I don't think the Yapese women were in real agreement, but the men sure saw it right in their own thinking. I must protest that in all circumstances it is wrong for any of you to rape my wife. I know, I know it is not an absolute just because I decide it is, but religion making it an absolute does not interfere with my choice or the rapist choice or the rape victum's choices. Forget the lobotomies, we need every ounce of brain we have to make choices. Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute at 30,000 ft. may be a bad choices. There you are flapping your arms like a bird as you go splat against the absolute of gravity. Now- as sure as gravity is in effect, you just find me 2 rape victums in the world who think there are no absolute consequences to such violation of one human upon another. Sorry but moral laws are absolutes and so are there consequences. The only reason we really need to think is to make the right choices in life. Without moral absolutes we all need lobotomies because there certainly wouldn't be any motive to make a decision.
Just for argument's sake, would you allow the rape to happen if you knew it would somehow save the world or even her life? I know it a stretch, and I wouldn't blame you for saying "hell no", but some people might think they were doing the right thing for saying "yes". Also, would it be wrong 100 years from now when she is dead? The question becomes moot, so the answer is non-existent. Therefore it is not an absolute. Absolutes are generalizations.
Mr. MEOWGI-- Good points so let's answer them intelligently. 1. No raping my wife will not save the world. Anyone disagree? 2. No raping my wife so that she is not killed does not make rape the right choice for her. Anyone disagree. (adding murder to the list doesn't some how balance out rape or torture or anyother crime you wish to list) How about rape is the wrong choice for someone to make. Anything wrong with that? (if you need a hint ask women) 3. Raping a corpse is a different evil. It is not a crime against the corpse but against the person commiting the act. Imagine the teacher that gets up in front of the high school class and tells all the boys to rape a corpse if they get horny. The answers are all too clear. If a woman doesn't want you to rape her, don't do it. It is a matter of absolute right and wrong. Why don't we decide to murder, lie, and steal under certain self-approved circumstances and teach our children to do the same. Oh- yeah, we do that, sorry my mistake.
I know it wouldn't save the world or her life. It's called a hypothetical question... I wasn't talking about a corpse. My point was that for the answer to exist as an absolute, the question must always exist too. It's not even an absolute that the world will exist tommorrow. Each unique sitiuation has it's own unique actions to be taken. Something can be correct 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, but not 100% Exactly. It's not always morally wrong. (self-defense, accidental, etc.)
Sorry I have to disagree. A hypothetical question would be, 'Suppose someone raped your wife and the world didn't end would you day your wife saved the world?" That is hypothetical and the answer would still be no. Your question was a dishonest question (not hypothetical) a dishonest question is one that is asked knowing that the answer cannot be honest because the premise is dishonest. The premise you gave was that the rape of my wife could save the world. That cannot be true so the question is deceptive by nature, given as a more of a snare for the sake of debate. I thought you said she was dead. Help me out I'm slow. I have to disagree. You gave two separate questions- one about my wife and one about her corpse after she was dead. I gave you two answers. Neither changed the absolute moral issue of rape. Thanks for proving the point. You have no moral choice as to whether the world will exist tomorrow. But you can make a moral choice about whether your next door neighbor's world ends tomorrow. Or he could make a moral choice about whether your world ends tomorrow. Those are matters of right and wrong. As far as the whole world goes, sorry you get no choice in the matter. Again proves my point- I mean in my eyes something is correct 39% of the time, in someone elses belief killing a Arab is right 85% of the time. Hey in certain circumstances we should lie to our parents, cheat on our tests and sleep like a harlot with all of our husbands best friends. Without moral absolutes the only thing absolute is that men will decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Oops, there I go again describing the way we currently view moral absolutes. Mr. MEOWGI- Instead of saying there are no moral absolutes why not be honest and say that even if there are moral absolutes I will not adhere to them unless I want to and I don't see why anyone else should either. Now tell me one more time why right and wrong is a bad thing.
rhester, thanks for your thoughtful response. Do you or does anybody else beleive we should keep Schiavo's feeding tube in that cites regious justifications? Are we playing god by removing her feeding tube? To me, we are playing god by keeping her alive. The problem with my logic is that I don't know where the line is between sound medical life support and playing god. Is it okay to keep somebody on life support for 3 days or 3 months or 3 years or 3 decades? I guess the answer to that is Mr. MEOWGI's opinion about no absolute answers. The answer on how long to keep somebody on life support is context based. The problem with Mr. MEOWGI's answer is that leads us to where we are today...A huge legal mess.
I wont reply to everything you said because it is nuts. You are talking in circles. I am being very honest and I am trying to be very clear. You might build your foundations of morality on certain "truths", but each situation is unique and it has its own unique "right" actions to be taken. There is not a single moral absolute you can apply to every situation. There will always be exceptions, even if they are remote, and even if we can not imagine them.
Krosfyah, I can see you have thought about Ms. Schavio's situation carefully. Technology has brought us new issues. 100 yrs ago she would have no opportunity for the modern life support assistance. Maybe we should all consider the medical technology available today and get living wills in order to make these decisions legally for ourselves. Maybe the biggest message in Ms. Schavio's circumstances is in the motives and intentions in the hearts of those who are considering her fate. Both sides say they are defending their love for her. I must admit I do not know alot about her situation except that her feeding tube has been removed. Was it right to put her on a feeding tube years ago? Was that her wishes? Why do we even have feeding tubes? I must confess I do not know enough about modern medical technology and the motives of peoples hearts to make these type decisions. Maybe the moral issue here is the love her parents have for her. If they have the financial resources maybe it is only right to allow them the dignity and the love to care for their daughter in her vegitative state. If that is the issue, then I would say the right thing to do is allow them the privilege to sacrifice, care for and love their daughter in such extremely tragic conditions. Let them express such a noble example of love of a parent for a child and a good message is sent throughout the world. Let us see pictures of them caring for her and loving her even when she cannot give them back anything in exchange. This would certainly be an honorable expression of goodness and love in a family. I think we all could learn from that.
In regards to the Schiavo case I'm trying to keep religion out of it and instead trust in our Constitutional legal system. I guess you could call it faith since I will concede that our system is far from perfect but in the end this is a human matter and as humans we aren't perfect. Our legal system is the same way but its the best we have going. Someone else in another forum I was reading made the point that if this was in God's hands god would've miraculously cured her already. I'm not so flippant but I'm not about to presume I know the will of God. Its just as likely that God has intended this is her time and the courts are the agent to carry that out.
I understand MEOWGI's position on absolutes and tend to agree with it but it has its own problems. rhester, Suppose you were captured by an organization, such as the Nazi's, that were rounding up thousdands of people and were basically evil people. Suppose the leader said he fancied your wife and wanted to rape her. If you did not agree, he threatened to kill thousands of other people. If you did agree, he would spare everybody's life. IMO, this is a perfectly reasonable question. I don't see how this is a dishonest question. If you saw the movie Hotel Rwanda, there was a similar quandry in that movie where the man was forced to make a decision that put his family at risk to save dozens of his countrymen. It is a true story. So what is right? Do you save your wife or do you save the lives of thousands of people? Me...I would save the lives of thousands of people. While extremely painful and sad, my wife's life would be spared.
Here's my thoughts on why we need at least faith if not religion. Two things that sets us apart from practically every other animal is that we can percieve the passage of time over a long period and also have an awareness of self. As such we are aware of our own mortality and can perceive that through the mortality of others. For instance to a bunch of cows grazing in a field if one cow were to suddenly die the rest of the cows probably wouldn't notice but would go on grazing. To the cows there is no perception of time or loss since they live in a continuous present. Also not being self-aware they have no sense of the implications of the passage of time or that one cow dropping dead means that they will drop dead eventually too. For humans we remember that at one time there was a living person so when they drop dead we notice. We also realize that the death of a person like me realizes that I will also likely die at some too. That awareness means that we understand that life is finite and the realization of that means that we seek meaning to our life and existence.
Sishir Chang, I would have a hard time coming up with one. I don't believe there was war in the Garden of Eden (prior to man's sin) or that there will be wars in heaven after evil is done away. Just- is a very powerful word. We have lost it's meaning in our culture. Justice means praising what is right and punishing what is wrong. A just war would be fought for right against evil. I think the most just war I can think of is the one fought in our hearts. On one side fighting the temptations to do evil that war against our souls and on the other side the battle to surrender our lives to God. I would say a war that God initiated would be a just war. Now as far as an example, I am stumped at the moment.
Wow, well that introduces a whole other potential conflict. Religion vs. Constitutional rights Think gay marriage. I've often heard the expression that the rule of God supercedes the rule of man. The interesting contradition about this expression is that the rule of man, namely the Constitution that protects freedom of religion, grants us the right to worship god as we please. In other countries, you may not even be allowed to even say anything about the rule of God. But there have many many issues were our legal system demonstrated many flaws or gaps. But that is another thread.
Krosfyah, I think you or I misunderstood the question. I thought the question was is it right to rape my wife? Not what would I do if I faced saving my wife or a thousand people. Somehow the rape is right because people's lives were saved? No the right question is would I give my own life to save my wife from a rape? They would kill me first before they raped her. In fact they would kill me first before they killed a thousand people. And I am not saying I would choose to see a thousand people die rather than my wife raped. Again the premise is dishonest- how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice if I can rape your wife. How about in sacrifice and love for others doing everything in my power to stop the evil even giving my own life. Rape isn't right. Neither is the murder of 1000 people. Laying my own life down for both my wife and the 1000 people would be the right thing.
I'm not at all surprised, Max, after having an Easter feast at my sister's place in Houston, with about 15 relatives and a couple of friends. Except for my Mom, my wife and I, and our two kids (growing up to be good Liberal Democrats!), everyone there was a Republican, and several are involved in local Republican politics. Not one of them thought Bush and Congress, along with the others trying to profit politically from this, were right to interfere, and they all thought removing the feeding tube was the right thing to do. It was most enlightening. Even my brother-in-law, Mr. GOP Right-Winger personified, thought the political opportunism appalling. I was quite amazed. We discussed it without a fistfight or the outbreak of WWIII! Keep D&D Civil!!
Krosfyah; The problem I have with trying to institute the rule of God is the presumption that we know what the will of God is? Its one thing as a Christian to support a government based on Christianity (FYI which ours isn't but that's for another debate) but then to be a Christian in a government based on Sikhism. While there are a few beliefs that are almost universal there are TON of beliefs that are speficic to ones religion and generally anathema to other religions. For instance if the Ten Commandments were codified at law are we to jail Hindus for violating the first and second Commandments? Civil government is the creation and the purview of humans not gods.
Rhester; Don't take this as insult but I think you're punting on the just war question and the ones that Krosfyah and Meowgi have given you, which all really are the same thing. I can understand where you're getting at that you would rather not do evil but what we're trying to ask you is will you weigh the magnitude of evils and thus allow or commit one evil if it prevents another greater evil. In the context of just war lets put it on a personal level using the examples that Krosfyah and Meowgi laid out. If you and your wife were attacked by people intending to rape your wife and you had the power to kill the attackers would you do so? Given that the assumption that these people are unitelligible to reason and that they don't care whether you live or die but would rape your wife either way.
Sishir Chang, Thanks for the explanation but you are giving me more credit than needed. I don't take it as an insult either I need the clarification and understanding. I'm only giving my opinion, that simple, and I enjoy the discussion. I am still stuck on what is right and what is wrong and how absolute these choices are, so here goes: 1. Committing evil to do good is a unique and ugly concept. Men often see good as evil and evil as good. I believe that defending my wife's life even to the point of killing in self defense is good. So there is no lesser evil vs. greater evil on that one. Anyway if you think for a moment whether it is a Hitler or Osama Bin Laden isn't their evil seen as good in their own eyes? My points aren't that there can't be any unusual circumstances that make doing the right thing extremely difficult or even make doing it impossible. My point is that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. I am going to have a hard time believing that murdering 1000 people or raping my wife or your wife is somehow virtuous. Absolute rights can certainly be pushed to the extreme of reason but not to the point of destruction. Let me ask you a question: If you lie to your mother or your boss and no one gets hurt are you an honest person. Or if you lie to Congress under oath does that make you a liar? How many little white lies do you have to tell before you can say I am a liar. If you are lying to me, I would say one would do.
