tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post4951716405906602917..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Killing Weeds, Killing People – Same Thing?!RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-16420026779719947242012-02-19T18:50:21.964-05:002012-02-19T18:50:21.964-05:00Steven J,
Oh, I am absolutely sure that these bio...Steven J,<br /><br />Oh, I am absolutely sure that these bioethicists consider the sentience of the being in their argument. Plants, of course, aren't sentient and they assume neither are people in a persistent, vegetative state. So, killing a plant and killing a person isn't “wrong” since both are unaware. Of course, we can never be sure of how aware people are if they can't communicate, can we?<br /><br />But even if they aren't aware, the idea of sentience fails. You said dogs and cats are sentient. If sentience is the criterion, then killing a sentient person is no worse (or better) than killing a dog.<br /><br />You said, “They are not arguing that there is no absolute right and wrong, though they may indeed believe that.”<br /><br />That ignores the bigger question of where morals come from. If there is no ultimate Judge, what makes anything wrong? No one has the authority to call something wrong. Is it wrong for an apple to fall from a tree? It is wrong for a wolf to eat a rabbit? Is it wrong to murder another person? If we are nothing more than the product of purposeless mutations then any idea of morality is nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains. <br /><br />The hypocrisy of atheists lies in the fact that they sometimes act as though some absolute morality exists. For example, why does Richard Dawkins call Christians “evil”? For evil to exist, there must be some absolute standard of right and wrong. Such a standard only exists in the Bible. So Dawkins can only call Christians evil if he first assumes the Bible is true.<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-83213213539662600392012-02-19T00:46:14.462-05:002012-02-19T00:46:14.462-05:00I would not be so certain that the bioethicists qu...I would not be so certain that the bioethicists quoted treat animal life and plant life with equal regard. What they are arguing for is that sentience is morally relevant, not metabolic activity or particular genes or organs. A healthy dog or cat is considerably more aware of its surroundings, able to respond to them in more complex ways, and vastly more able to feel and suffer, than is a dandelion. It's not clear where the authors stand on animal rights, but their position would be immediately obvious to, say, Peter Singer.<br /><br />They are not arguing that there is no absolute right and wrong, though they may indeed believe that. Their arguments are consistent with the view that there is an absolute right and wrong, but that we are mistaken in basing it on biological humanity rather than on the capacity to feel, perceive, and reason (the claim that killing totally disabled patients does them no harm assumes that if they are unable to think, feel, or respond to their environment, they have already been harmed as much as they can be).Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com