Situational Ethics or Tickbox ethics?

[Kristoffer]

If there was a tragic circumstance and the only of two choices was still a pretty awful thing to happen would you stand and do nothing or try and make the lesser of two bad things to happen?

I'll give an example, If someone was burning to death and you could end their suffering prematurely would you? Is it murder to finish someone aginozing in pain?

Theese are the options, 1) Stand and do nothing 2) End their life a little bit earlier. Conditions: A) You have no way to put out fire B) No hessitation.

[CeT-To]

2 definitely... you watching them die and burn while doing nothing is pretty much letting it happen ..meaning YOU are the one making him/her suffer - ending their life swiftly would be a much better choice. I guess it also depends if that person was a non-christian.. would you - 1) be telling them to accept Christ before they die while they are burning and suffering agonisingly 2)ending their life quickly to relieve him/her all pain but in doing so they suffer eternal damnation. Now THAT is a tuff choice in my oppinion ??

LOL sorry Kristoffer for hijacking your topic post >.<

God Bless!

CeT-To

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

If someone was burning to death and you could end their suffering prematurely would you? Is it murder to finish someone aginozing in pain?

Theese are the options, 1) Stand and do nothing 2) End their life a little bit earlier. Conditions: A) You have no way to put out fire B) No hessitation.

For a Christian doing the will of God, options 1 or 2 are possible and acceptable. Option 2 would expose the person to a charge of murder in most jurisdictions, I assume. So, from a moral standpoind both options are acceptable for the Christian doing the will of God; from a legal standpoint, option 2 is murder for everyone, Christian or heathen.

I also like CeT-To's answer.

FL

[Kristoffer]

Thanks for responding.

In my country we do have laws that might be a little different to the ones in yours, it might only be called manslaughter and not murder if such a tragic situation did occur.

I have also thinked of a similar thing, where I live people with painful incurable illnesses can have their lives ended immaturely and if I was old and world weary and in that situation...Maybe? Its not possible to know without it happening but I think that it would take non relieve-able pain for me to accept such an end to my life. In general it probably is not right to end someones lives early, but if the pain can not be fixed then it is okay. is it not then?

I think its a doctors job to save lives, also to but prevent unnecessary suffrage too.

[Byblos]

... In general it probably is not right to end someones lives early ...

That's a strange thing to say from someone who does not believe in God. Why would it not be right to end someone's life? In fact, the better question is, what IS right, in the absence of God?

[Kristoffer]

Why is it strange? Unless you go by archaic definitions of the word "godlessness", please do not tease because I am an agonstic athiest. I can accept a god of sorts , the universe very well could of been intended rather than just incidental.

Anyway, what is wrong with generalization that i make? Is the "probably" the bit thats missing or is the whole thing wrong, should it actually be "anything goes" ? Anarchy is unfashionable!

[sinnerbybirth]

Hey all,

What about a medical situation where someone is placed on life support with no possibility of recovering? This now becomes an ethical situation. Should the plug be pulled and nature take its course? or should that person be subject to a prolonged death. This happens everyday. I myself would never want to be placed on life support. But God forbid that I am. I have already made this clear in a living will. With a feeding tube and/or breathing tube removed death comes slowly sometimes. My wife has been a nurse for more than 15 years. She sees this quite a bit. Once a person is placed on life support with no possible chance of recovery, family members have a hard time saying good-bye. Most don't want to unplug there loved ones. IOM It's about quality of life, its not about quantity. There is more to life than breathing. Remember Terri Schiavo? Do you believe the right choice was made there?

GOD BLESS!!!!

[cslewislover]

I remember the Schiavo case. From what I read about it, I was really annoyed at the decision. But then, I don't know all there is to know about it. What I was annoyed about was this. Her parents wanted to take care of her, so why not let them? That's what I didn't get at all. It made it seem that her husband only wanted life insurance money or whatever it was. He got a lot of money from her death, in any case. (Why did she even have that much life insurance or whatever?) So, in some other time, I think if a parent wanted to take care of their very ill child, they could have, but this case involved the husband getting some things that legally were his.

My view, though, is that when someone is on life support with no possibility of recovery, then they should not be on it. I would not want to be. Isn't is true, based on what your wife knows, that if there are no funds to pay for it, the plug is pulled? That sounds bad, but isn't that a practical fact? I'm wondering a bit myself.

As far as assisted suicide, I'm up in the air about it. If someone has a painful terminal illness, and it's obvious they will die soon and they just want to get it over with, I'm not sure that it should be illegal for someone to give them the means to do it. When someone commits suicide, it's not like someone is prosecuted for that (unless it can be shown that they coerced that person somehow). I'm not saying suicide is right or good, but in these situations, I don't know. As a faithful person, I'd want to hold out until God took me in His timing, however.

[sinnerbybirth]

I remember the Schiavo case. From what I read about it, I was really annoyed at the decision. But then, I don't know all there is to know about it. What I was annoyed about was this. Her parents wanted to take care of her, so why not let them? That's what I didn't get at all. It made it seem that her husband only wanted life insurance money or whatever it was. He got a lot of money from her death, in any case. (Why did she even have that much life insurance or whatever?) So, in some other time, I think if a parent wanted to take care of their very ill child, they could have, but this case involved the husband getting some things that legally were his.

My view, though, is that when someone is on life support with no possibility of recovery, then they should not be on it. I would not want to be. Isn't is true, based on what your wife knows, that if there are no funds to pay for it, the plug is pulled? That sounds bad, but isn't that a practical fact? I'm wondering a bit myself.

As far as assisted suicide, I'm up in the air about it. If someone has a painful terminal illness, and it's obvious they will die soon and they just want to get it over with, I'm not sure that it should be illegal for someone to give them the means to do it. When someone commits suicide, it's not like someone is prosecuted for that (unless it can be shown that they coerced that person somehow). I'm not saying suicide is right or good, but in these situations, I don't know. As a faithful person, I'd want to hold out until God took me in His timing, however.

Hey CS,

I know I wasn't very clear regarding the Terri Schiavo case. Beside her husband being a huge looser (my opinion). The ethical part of the decision was right in my eyes.

My wife sees people with loved ones on life support with no hope of recovery. They kling to the hope the loved one will come out of it. Perfect example, my next door neighbor went to the hospital about 6-weeks ago. He was brain dead for about 10 min. He was resuscitated, put on the vent with a feeding tube. He has a living will (nice to see that ment something). He is described as "the lights are on, but nobody home". Medically, He won't get any better. The family ( who I know and love ) keeps hoping and praying for a miracle ( so do I ). They won't pull the plug. I can't place the brunt of that decision on just them. Part of the reason is, the church they attend is a five fold ministry (still not sure about five-fold). To my understanding, the apostle and prophet of this church have told the family he hasn't made peace with GOD yet. I just wonder, how can you know when he has made his peace with GOD considering he is being kept alive. Bad situation.

To answer your question about funding, she's not sure how that side of the hospital or insurance companies work. I would like to believe they would pull the plug. She just said that once you put someone on life support, it is hard to take them off of it. Because it becomes an ethical issue at that point. We all know not everyone ethics are the same.

CS nice to talk to ya again. GOD BLESS

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I am an agonstic athiest.

Agnostic atheist? These two terms are mutually exclusive. You are either one or the other...choose. If you admit the possibility of a god but consider such an entity unknowable and/or unprovable, you are an agnostic.

Here is the definition of

Atheism:...disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity...the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity...godlessness... (Merriam Webster dictionary)

An atheist is someone who subscibes to or practices atheism. An atheist cannot be an agnostic. If you are an agnostic who leans toward atheism, you are still an agnostic.*

Choose which you are! Choosing one or the other will help you to resolve your confusion.

FL

*And vice-versa, any «atheism» which admits the possibility of a deity is just nonsense.

[Kristoffer]

I reject those definitives of "athiest"/"agnostic" although I would accept if you are a "strong" athiest then you can't be an agnostic. I do not know about this" unknowable" surely if there were Gods we could know them, however such knowledge has to be reason and evidence.

What reason do we have to be moral? I think that as a species it kind of helps that we dont killing of each other, well at least in a entirely unsustainable way

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I reject those definitives of "athiest"/"agnostic" although I would accept if you are a "strong" athiest then you can't be an agnostic.

OK...so for you, words do not have any precise meaning I guess. You are a fool, a major fool. (My previous sentence does not have a precise meaning, so do not be insulted.)

FL

[Kristoffer]

But they do have a precise meaning, of course! Just a different one to what you give them. Agnostics are not believe in god, but they dont strongly assert that there isn't one...So they Are Athiests in the sense that they dont believe in gods, but they dont rule out the possibility, I dont! So The terms can be used both to describe a single person right? Unless we call them groups and say "not mutually exclusive! please!" they arent groups, they are just words to describe something and both words can be to describe a single something.

If i say too Someone Do you believe in Gods? and they say yes, then is there only one way of describing them or many possible?

[DannyM]

I am an agonstic athiest.

Agnostic atheist? These two terms are mutually exclusive. You are either one or the other...choose. If you admit the possibility of a god but consider such an entity unknowable and/or unprovable, you are an agnostic.

Here is the definition of

Atheism:...disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity...the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity...godlessness... (Merriam Webster dictionary)

An atheist is someone who subscibes to or practices atheism. An atheist cannot be an agnostic. If you are an agnostic who leans toward atheism, you are still an agnostic.*

Choose which you are! Choosing one or the other will help you to resolve your confusion.

FL

*And vice-versa, any «atheism» which admits the possibility of a deity is just nonsense.

Thank the stars for common sense!

[DannyM]

I reject those definitives of "athiest"/"agnostic" although I would accept if you are a "strong" athiest then you can't be an agnostic. I do not know about this "unknowable" surely if there were Gods we could know them, however such knowledge has to be reason and evidence.

You can reject what you like. Your rejection doesn't weaken the meanings of agnostic and atheist. I fear you have succumbed to the 'postmodern' attempt to calve up these meanings, all in the aid of recruiting more numbers to the slow-dying atheism. And also, perhaps, used by atheists as a get-out clause.

By definition, an atheist would say that based on evidence (or lack of evidence) they believe that there is no god. "Believe" can mean to have faith, to accept as true, to hold a firm conviction, or to hold an opinion. It is a positive position. It is a belief.

An agnostic on the other hand contends that whether god exists or not is unknowable (this is what agnosticism contends, which begs the question of Do you really know your own position?) and therefore does not believe one way or the other. An agnostic cannot apply any definition of the word "believe" to the existence or nonexistence of a god. The only thing relating to God that an agnostic believes is that his existence/nonexistence is unknowable; therefore they do not believe in the existence of God and nor do they believe that there is no god.

However, when it comes down to the existence of God, people either 'believe' or not. This is why the definition of an agnostic is practically meaningless, since it states we can not know the truth value of metaphysical claims. Agnosticism is not a position; the term "agnostic" pertains to what you know - 'a' - without; 'Gnostic' - knowledge. Theism and atheism are the only positions; there is no middle ground - you either believe in the existence of a god, or you believe in the nonexistence of a god. The agnostic has rendered himself obsolete and irrelevant to the debate. Why you choose to call yourself an agnostic atheist heaven only knows. Is it a buffer for your flimsy atheism? Is it a get-out clause?

Danny