My Kidney Challenge II

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
2. we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.

How do we know everyone has this as a component of their morality? For instance, the US government officials who intentionally infected people with sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala, to study the results, didn't seem to hold the view that each person has a right to bodily autonomy.

US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s - CNN.com

Those who sterilized populations they thought were inferior, for the sake of "improving" humanity didn't seem to hold to that view.

Bodily autonomy had to be fought for by appealing to various arguments, rather than just being something that everyone subjectively holds.

If your source really claimed that, then why did the US apologize for it?

Later US officials, who did not agree with what earlier US officials did, apologized because they recognized that what the earlier US officials did was morally wrong.

And they did so because they recognized moral principles beyond just each person being their own system of morality. They thought it was wrong to experiment on people without their consent.

However, those conducting the experiments didn't seem to have a problem with it. And the article notes other similar experiments funded by the NIH. But it also notes one reluctant supervisor.

Collins said the published literature contains more than 40 other U.S.-based studies "where intentional infection was carried out with what we could now consider to be completely inadequate consent in the United States."

Many of those studies were funded by the Public Health Service, he said.

But at least some people believed at the time that the experiment was flawed, according to Wellesley's Reverby, who cited this reaction to Cutler's work from his supervisor, PHS physician R.C. Arnold: "I am a bit, in fact more than a bit, leery of the experiment with insane people," Arnold said. "They can not give consent, do not know what is going on, and if some good organization got wind of the work, they would raise a lot of smoke. I think the soldiers would be best or the prisoners for they can give consent. Maybe I'm too conservative ... In the report, I see no reason to say where the work was done and the type of volunteer."

So his supervisor objected, but didn't stop him. And his supervisor admitted that he (the supervisor) might be "too conservative" insisting on consent. He seemed particularly concerned about "smoke" from "good" organizations (apparently other than the NIH which funded such things, and were perhaps less "conservative" than the supervisor).

I also referenced the example of those who thought that sterilization to "better" the human race thought they were doing right.

You seem to agree with the later politicians, and the leery, possibly too conservative supervisor, that it is wrong to experiment on people without consent, as you noted "humans" having bodily autonomy. But then, that is an absolute principle for all people, not just a self-created moral framework for each person.

So either admit that you are recognizing an absolute moral principle of bodily autonomy, and explain where it comes from, as it can't just be from your own mind if it applies to all. Or admit that there is no problem with experimenting on people, because it is just up to each person.

 

[tall73]

You might as well ask how we know we don't have the right to not be killed.

Yes I might!

Job 13:15a Though he slay me, I will hope in him;

Job trusted God even if God slayed him. He had some questions on God's justice. But he got over that.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, I’d like you to answer the question so I know if I understand you correctly.

For someone who said they wanted the last word (although you seem to have edited that post to remove that line, since I can't find it), you seem to insist on getting me to continue to talk.

If you can't figure out what my position is (I've made it very clear), then I don't know what else to say.

 

[Kylie]

You seem to have misunderstood the question.

I have a moral code imposed on me, and I do not think it is wrong. But even if I did think it was wrong, I recognize it as there, regardless of what I "like".

However, I don't think a random vegan has the ability or right to impose a moral code upon me. And even if a vegan imposed a vegan diet through force, I would not recognize the right of that person to do so.

And what if you had a moral code enforced on you that you disagreed with?

But the point you didn't address is that you are saying you see morality as subjective. But then you are appealing to us to agree with the notion that you can't impose your morality--and wanting us to agree that the notion fits our experience. So you are appealing to common experience to uphold this absolute of your moral system--that no one can impose morality on another.

But in fact, we don't agree that morality cannot be imposed. And your seeking to gain agreement shows that you do hold to a principle that you think is beyond just your own moral judgment.

This is taking the thread off topic. If you want to talk about morality, there is a thread I have posted in many times, and I'd be happy to discuss this topic there.

 

[Kylie]

Irrational, at best.

Unsupported claim.

Bizarre, at best. Now your kidney donor has died on the operating table. Do you know that an organ donor must be alive for their organs to have any use? Apparently, not.

Yes, all those people who receive donor hearts must be shocked to learn that the donor had their heart removed while they were still alive. SHOCKED, I tell you!

Just admit that you want to have irresponsible sex. And if the act produces a child that you will want to kill the child. This thread is just your feeble attempt to justify a murder.

You seem to think that irresponsible sex is any sex that is not done with the intention of producing a child.

 

[Kylie]

We can take this up once you have clarified whether "humans' have bodily autonomy, or only those who think they do.

A person has the right to bodily autonomy.

A fertilized egg is not a person.

 

[Kylie]

Christians recognize that God imposes morality, and we don't just come up with it. We find it very acceptable.

So we do not accept that each person develops their own morality, as you have posited.

So, hypothetically speaking, if God came to you and said he made it so it was morally acceptable for you (and you alone) to murder, steal, whatever, does that mean you would do it? And don't try to get out of this by saying, "Oh, God wouldn't do that, it must be Satan in disguise" or something like that.

@Hammster already presented himself as an exhibit. He wants God to push His morality on him, and he said he also thinks it should be imposed on others. Theonomists are the
"never" you imply doesn't exist.

Theonomists want the morality of another imposed upon them, AND upon you.

And as @Hammster noted, you have no defense against that if you think each person is a moral system unto themselves. You have no right to impose your views upon @Hammster who thinks society must impose God's morality on you. His moral system says he must impose it.

Or there are moral absolutes that apply to people beyond just their own notions, which you could appeal to as a defense. But that would mean abandoning the idea that you are your own moral system. It would mean establishing the basis for an absolute moral principle to defend you against @Hammster's moral system (which was imposed on him).

That argument would be a lot more convincing if all of the people who took God's morality as their own had the same morality. But they don't. They have many very different moral codes, and they all claim that they got those codes from God. So, it seems to me that God's giving them all a different "one true moral code", or they are just convincing themselves that their own personal moral code actually came to them from God.

Now, as I've said, let's take this discussion of morality to a more appropriate thread.

 

[Kylie]

Yes I might!

Job 13:15a Though he slay me, I will hope in him;

Job trusted God even if God slayed him. He had some questions on God's justice. But he got over that.

How you take that passage to mean that you don't have the right to not be murdered in your sleep by your neighbour who wants your TV is beyond me.

 

[o_mlly]

Unsupported claim.

Correct, that's exactly the problem with your post.

You claim the child is not a person but offer no evidence or logic in support. The "acorn" analogy is not evidence and is illogical (confusion of categories).

Yes, all those people who receive donor hearts must be shocked to learn that the donor had their heart removed while they were still alive. SHOCKED, I tell you!

Do some research. Your histrionics just betray an underlying ignorance.

You seem to think that irresponsible sex is any sex that is not done with the intention of producing a child.

Yet another strawman. Being open to procreation is not the same as intending procreation.

 

[Kylie]

Correct, that's exactly the problem with your post.

You claim the child is not a person but offer no evidence or logic in support. The "acorn" analogy is not evidence and is illogical (confusion of categories).

How is it illogical? I'm pointing out that the embryonic form of something is not the same as a young form. How can you claim that the argument is valid when I say an acorn is not an oak tree, but it is invalid when I say a fertilized egg is not a person?

Do some research. Your histrionics just betray an underlying ignorance.

You accused me of offering an unsupported claim, and yet you have not only provided an unsupported claim yet again, but you are also demanding that I go and support your claim for you!

Yet another strawman. Being open to procreation is not the same as intending procreation.

You still don't realise that people like to have sex and want to do so without procreating.

 

[o_mlly]

Unsupported claim.

Correct, that's exactly the problem with your post.

You claim the child is not a person but offer no evidence or logic in support. The "acorn" analogy is not evidence and furthermore, is illogical (confusion of categories).

Yes, all those people who receive donor hearts must be shocked to learn that the donor had their heart removed while they were still alive. SHOCKED, I tell you!

Do some research. Your histrionics just betray an underlying ignorance.

You seem to think that irresponsible sex is any sex that is not done with the intention of producing a child.

Yet another strawman. Being open to procreation is not the same as intending procreation. It seems your position is that one may be closed to procreation, i.e., predetermined to kill the child if procreation occurs.

 

[Lost4words]

I would be more than willing to donate one of my kidneys to save the girls life.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
I have a moral code imposed on me, and I do not think it is wrong. But even if I did think it was wrong, I recognize it as there, regardless of what I "like".

However, I don't think a random vegan has the ability or right to impose a moral code upon me. And even if a vegan imposed a vegan diet through force, I would not recognize the right of that person to do so.

And what if you had a moral code enforced on you that you disagreed with?

Might depend on the particulars. And it sounds like you mean by people other than God. If you are speaking of someone imposing external compliance with some code of their own, then it would come down to whether it conflicted with what God requires. If it did, I could not comply, though that could result in a variety of negative consequences.

We already see this to a degree in relation to governments, which is where various views of morality tend to be imposed. The Scriptures outline a moral role for government, and so I should obey the government whenever possible. On the other hand, if it conflicts with what God requires I cannot comply, as governmental authority is delegated authority.

So for instance, if we revisit the vegan or vegetarian example, I currently eat animal products as my health does better with those included. However, if the government forced the population to eat a vegan diet, while I would not internalize the moral system, I may still comply as it does not violate God's moral requirements, and it would comply with the delegated authority of the government.

If an individual tried to force me to eat only a vegetarian diet, I would not internalize the moral system, and I wouldn't recognize that they have any legitimate authority to impose this. If they are imprisoning me, etc. I may comply since it doesn't violate God's law. On the other hand, I may also seek opportunities, to escape etc.

Now if it were a different example, such as worshiping other Gods, then you can't comply. God's law forbids it. So then there is little choice but to refuse and suffer any consequences.


tall73 said: ↑
But the point you didn't address is that you are saying you see morality as subjective. But then you are appealing to us to agree with the notion that you can't impose your morality--and wanting us to agree that the notion fits our experience. So you are appealing to common experience to uphold this absolute of your moral system--that no one can impose morality on another.

But in fact, we don't agree that morality cannot be imposed. And your seeking to gain agreement shows that you do hold to a principle that you think is beyond just your own moral judgment.

This is taking the thread off topic. If you want to talk about morality, there is a thread I have posted in many times, and I'd be happy to discuss this topic there.

I think your insistence that you are using subjective moral frameworks, when in fact you are not, and we have identified two absolute moral principles you uphold, is taking the thread off topic. You raised the subjective morality point when responding to @Hammster and it is a bit difficult to walk that back now.

We are discussing morality with you, and you claim to go by subjective morality. But in application you do not. For instance, you think humans have bodily autonomy. But you have decided that applies to all humans, not just yourself.

Moreover, if you really thought that everyone just determines their own moral code, then this topic would be little more than a survey of a bunch of people informing everyone else about their personal moral code, and there is no need to discuss at all, but just acknowledge.

You have not just accepted other people's responses, and acknowledged them, but you have argued with them, and have upheld certain moral principles that you apply to people other than yourself, such as not imposing your moral code upon other people (even though @Hammster told you his moral code says to do that) and the concept of bodily autonomy being for all humans.

So you are not arguing that everyone can just determine morality for themselves. You impose your own limits that you think apply to all. We can't avoid pointing out this problem if we are going to discuss morality with you.

You either think everyone has their own morality, or you think that are some universal moral principles that apply to all humans. But you have argued for both.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

We can take this up once you have clarified whether "humans' have bodily autonomy, or only those who think they do.

A person has the right to bodily autonomy.

Then you are not just going by subjective morality, as you apply that principle to all who are a "person". You indicate that is a moral absolute, not just your own morality.

So we can drop your argument that you are using subjective morality. And you need to explain why every person has bodily autonomy.

I also note that you now changed terms. Earlier you said all humans. Now you say a "person". And this allows you to say:

A fertilized egg is not a person.

A fertilized egg is a unique life, and is human, which was your earlier term. It is not canine, bovine, reptilian, etc.

Now you have introduced a different term so as to avoid extending bodily autonomy to a fertilized egg.

Just for clarify sake, at what point does one become a "person" to you?

And now that you answered, I will answer your other question:

Do you hold that an acorn is a oak tree?

It is not a tomato. It is not a fish. It is an oak in development.

A human fertilized egg is human, and in development, and has the DNA of a human.

 

[tall73]

So, hypothetically speaking, if God came to you and said he made it so it was morally acceptable for you (and you alone) to murder, steal, whatever, does that mean you would do it? And don't try to get out of this by saying, "Oh, God wouldn't do that, it must be Satan in disguise" or something like that.

Peter, when God told him in vision to eat unclean meat, objected and did not do so, because the law commanded him not to do so. And so if he told me I could do these things (a better hypothetical might be if He commanded me to do them), I would ask questions. He eventually clarified to Peter, though not quite as simply as Peter would have probably preferred. Ultimately if God says I could do something, then I could.

In the same way gentiles were not required to be circumcised by the Acts 15 council, and while this was a problem to some in the church, it was still said to be a decision of the Holy Spirit, and so was correct.

 

[o_mlly]

How is it illogical? I'm pointing out that the embryonic form of something is not the same as a young form.

Asserting ("pointing out") is not an argument. What evidence do you have that the being is not a human being? Do you think it moral to commit a lethal act upon another in ignorance? May the deer hunter fire into the moving bush w/o confirmation that the mover in the bush is not a human being?

How can you claim that the argument is valid when I say an acorn is not an oak tree, but it is invalid when I say a fertilized egg is not a person?

? I did not allow either your "acorn" or "fertilized egg" as valid arguments. See above.

You accused me of offering an unsupported claim, and yet you have not only provided an unsupported claim yet again, but you are also demanding that I go and support your claim for you!

No, you don't have to do anything. I wrote that your kidney donor was dead. Not declared "brain dead" but dead. End of deflection.

Now give us your evidence that the being just conceived is not a human being.

 

[Kylie]

It is not a tomato. It is not a fish. It is an oak in development.

A human fertilized egg is human, and in development, and has the DNA of a human.

It is not a tomato. It is not a fish. It is person in development.

An acorn is an oak, and in development, and has the DNA of an oak.

See how your argument can be turned right around? How can it be valid for one position, but invalid for another?

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
@Hammster already presented himself as an exhibit. He wants God to push His morality on him, and he said he also thinks it should be imposed on others. Theonomists are the
"never" you imply doesn't exist.

Theonomists want the morality of another imposed upon them, AND upon you.

And as @Hammster noted, you have no defense against that if you think each person is a moral system unto themselves. You have no right to impose your views upon @Hammster who thinks society must impose God's morality on you. His moral system says he must impose it.

Or there are moral absolutes that apply to people beyond just their own notions, which you could appeal to as a defense. But that would mean abandoning the idea that you are your own moral system. It would mean establishing the basis for an absolute moral principle to defend you against @Hammster's moral system (which was imposed on him).

That argument would be a lot more convincing if all of the people who took God's morality as their own had the same morality. But they don't. They have many very different moral codes, and they all claim that they got those codes from God. So, it seems to me that God's giving them all a different "one true moral code", or they are just convincing themselves that their own personal moral code actually came to them from God.

I would say there is a great deal of overlap among those who follow God as to moral codes. There are differences in a number of regards as to interpretation of what He commanded, I would grant.

But that has nothing to do with the problem presented to you. Complete subjective morality would mean it is all up to the person. So then you cannot impose your own universal requirements and say others must hold them. And clearly @Hammster does not hold your absolute that morality cannot be imposed on another.

But we need not belabor the point. I take your earlier posts as surrender on this point, and you are not a subjective moralist. You don't think everyone just invents their own moral code, and you hold to certain absolutes, two of which were discussed.

Now, as I've said, let's take this discussion of morality to a more appropriate thread.

You brought that conversation into this thread. But now I have determined you do hold some universal moral principles. So we can move on.

 

[Hammster]

For someone who said they wanted the last word (although you seem to have edited that post to remove that line, since I can't find it), you seem to insist on getting me to continue to talk.

If you can't figure out what my position is (I've made it very clear), then I don't know what else to say.

I never said anything about wanting the last word. You have me confused with another member.

Since you won’t confirm your view, I will assume that my understanding is clear. You made a moral distinction that it’s wrong to push morality on another person. Yet, you want to push this moral position on me. This is unsustainable.

 

[tall73]

It is not a tomato. It is not a fish. It is person in development.

An acorn is an oak, and in development, and has the DNA of an oak.

See how your argument can be turned right around? How can it be valid for one position, but invalid for another?

I see how you switched terms from "humans", which you first used, because you realized your mistake. And now you have inserted "person" as that doesn't then run afoul of your own statement.

I see an acorn as oak, and the fertilized egg as human. You are the one arguing for a personhood distinction now instead of humans having bodily autonomy. So what makes a person?

 

[Kylie]

Then you are not just going by subjective morality, as you apply that principle to all who are a "person". You indicate that is a moral absolute, not just your own morality.

If there's a person who wishes to give up such rights, then I'll accept it. But it's safe to say that most people want to decide what happens to their own body.

A fertilized egg is a unique life, and is human, which was your earlier term. It is not canine, bovine, reptilian, etc.

Ah, so since it's got Human DNA, the argument is valid. But if it's got canine DNA, then the argument is invalid because... reasons.

Just for clarify sake, at what point does one become a "person" to you?

There is no single point in time. It's a gradual transition. It's like asking what time does it stop being daytime and start being night time.