Is This Where Godless Philosophy Natural Leads?

[ZackMartin]

Uh Zack did you accidentally quote me instead of Seer?

I quoted you because I was answering your question to Seer for you.

[Leonhard]

I quoted you because I was answering your question to Seer for you.

Wouldn't a simple 'No, I haven't argued for killing children' have sufficed? I'm just confused, it seems you're explaining things to me I already knew and I had never protested. Seer has a habit of accusing people of believing various things, or putting words into people's mouths that they've never said and I had gotten tired of it and so I asked him where you had advocated for killing disabled children.

[ZackMartin]

I'm just confused, it seems you're explaining things to me I already knew and I had never protested. Seer has a habit of accusing people of believing various things, or putting words into people's mouths that they've never said and I had gotten tired of it

I was answering the question for your benefit... and explaining myself in the hope that it might eventually sink into someone's head (not yours)

[seer]

Expressing sympathy is not the same thing as supporting something. Dizzle has expressed sympathy for theonomy and laws based on the OT, but that doesn't mean that she supports stoning incorrigible children and homosexuals. I'm sympathetic to euthanasia for people who want to end their life, who are rational and of sound mind and are suffering from ailments which are insufferable. However I have never supported any laws in that direction, and I denounce doctors who break the law to give patients that.

Well he is open to the idea.

[ZackMartin]

Well he is open to the idea.

Willingness to read and seriously consider the arguments for an idea is not the same thing as endorsing it. It's called having an open-mind, and not jumping to conclusions.

[seer]

No one is talking about compulsory killing of anybody, which is what the Nazis practiced. The discussion is about, if there is parental consent, and the agreement of senior doctors, whether it could be moral for there to be infant euthanasia as an option, not as something compulsory (i.e. if either the parents or the doctors disagreed, it would not happen).

Well it is still the killing of disabled babies. The baby would still be dead. BTW - if you read up on the Nazi programs parents and doctors were involved in giving consent - at least early on. But again, in my opinion, it is a distinction without a difference - the baby still dies.

[seer]

Willingness to read and seriously consider the arguments for an idea is not the same thing as endorsing it. It's called having an open-mind, and not jumping to conclusions.

Of course - and we all must be "open minded."

[ZackMartin]

Of course - and we all must be "open minded."

Yes we should be. Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to accept anyone else's argument, but it does mean you have to listen to them seriously, and pay careful attention to what they are actually saying. You can be open-minded and reject their views; it's the way you reject them that makes the difference.

[seer]

Yes we should be. Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to accept anyone else's argument, but it does mean you have to listen to them seriously, and pay careful attention to what they are actually saying. You can be open-minded and reject their views; it's the way you reject them that makes the difference.

Sorry, there is nothing to be open minded about when it comes to killing disabled babies. And the fact that some educated men are even entertaining these arguments is deeply disturbing to me.

[seer]

Poisoning the well fallacy

Yes Leonhard, I know I can be pedantic, thick and reactionary. And I'm sure I have violated all kinds of logical rules but the fact is these arguments are primarily coming from non-theists. And yes, I also know that I'm closed minded - especially concerning certain issues - but it works for me, I'm a person who needs to see things in black and white, it is my make up. Perhaps my moral intuition is all wrong on this but I rather err on the side of saving these lives.

http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/En...autologin=true

[Seasanctuary]

I disagree. We are created in the image of God. That is inherent - but it would not be inherent or of any consequence if God did not value us, or create us with that inherent value. So we always come back to God.

Suppose God values tall people, so he created all humanity to be tall. Religious folks would say, "We are inherently valuable because we are made to be tall!" They might even say, "We are intrinsically valuable because tallness is woven into our very nature." But tall-natured-ness isn't identical to value. It's what is valued. The best you can say is that we're valued for something intrinsic to our nature. The value itself would still be extrinsic.

The problem is that English philosophers have muddled the terms, using "intrinsic" as the antonym for both "extrinsic" and "instrumental." This causes lots of unintentional equivocations. See Korsgaard's paper "Two Distinctions in Goodness."

(Then there's the question of whether valuing someone for one of their attributes is really a case of final valuing, or just instrumental valuing on the way to that attribute.)

[ZackMartin]

And the fact that some educated men are even entertaining these arguments is deeply disturbing to me.

Anyone can play the "that idea is so offensive we should not even discuss it" game. Maybe one day someone will play it against you, what then will you say?

Imagine this conversation:

Christian: "I believe the Bible is true"

Atheist: "No it's not, it teaches all sorts of evil ideas like homophobia and capital punishment"

Christian: "You think the ideas it teaches are evil, but you are mistaken. God condemns homosexuality, and God approves capital punishment in some circumstances".

Atheist: "Utter rubbish. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, and capital punishment is just plain murder, always has been, always will be."

Christian: "That's what you think, but I think I have some arguments that might make you reconsider."

Atheist: "I don't even want to listen to your arguments. I don't have to hear them to know they are rubbish."

Christian: "Shouldn't you at least have an open mind, and consider my arguments?

Atheist: "Sorry, there is nothing to be open-minded about when it comes to hate. And capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder! There is nothing to be open-minded about when it comes to murdering people. You are an educated person; the fact that you are even entertaining these arguments is deeply disturbing to me."

The same strategies you use against others can be used against you.

[Carrikature]

I'm a person who needs to see things in black and white, it is my make up.

I would suggest finding a different sub-forum to play in, then. Philosophy is quite the opposite of what you are seeking.

[seer]

Suppose God values tall people, so he created all humanity to be tall. Religious folks would say, "We are inherently valuable because we are made to be tall!" They might even say, "We are intrinsically valuable because tallness is woven into our very nature." But tall-natured-ness isn't identical to value. It's what is valued. The best you can say is that we're valued for something intrinsic to our nature. The value itself would still be extrinsic.

The problem is that English philosophers have muddled the terms, using "intrinsic" as the antonym for both "extrinsic" and "instrumental." This causes lots of unintentional equivocations. See Korsgaard's paper "Two Distinctions in Goodness."

(Then there's the question of whether valuing someone for one of their attributes is really a case of final valuing, or just instrumental valuing on the way to that attribute.)

Well if it is really that muddled Sea, then I doubt that I could offer anything new. But I will say this - if we are God's image bearers by nature, and God values that condition (or us), which Biblically He does, then we are not ultimately purposeless beings floating in an indifferent universe. We have value and meaning that transcends this vale of tears. And that Down's child that we are speaking of killing has value that also transcends our subjective musing... And those who take that child's life so lightly, and who take God lightly will have their judgement day. There will, literally, be hell to pay - justice will be done...

[seer]

I would suggest finding a different sub-forum to play in, then. Philosophy is quite the opposite of what you are seeking.

Nope...