First of all, let me say this has been a very confusing conversation. I have been defending my overall framework without discussing real specific policy. You seem to want to attack my framework without offering an alternative.
First of all, am I REQUIRED to offer an alternative to your position in the course of challenging it? That's an arbitrary rule on your part.
Second of all, I've actually been advocating an alternative: Let adults decide make their own decisions based on their faith beliefs.
For example, I strongly support an Evangelical friend who chose to have a Trisome-17 baby (which doctors claimed would have low quality of life and die shortly after birth), because whether or not I would have chosen to do the same, she chose to make that commitment to her child. I think my friend is beautiful. And it was her choice, not something imposed on her. I support her choice.
In the same way, I believe that there are extenuating circumstances where someone might choose death over prolonged life for reasons that are not insane. Again, it's their choice on how they want to live and what they are willing to invest. Am I going to ascribe a moral judgment to that, or claim they are violating some "absolute consistent value of life"? Or am I advocating hopelessness? No.
I might even see "choice" as more important than "life" as a value. We've all seen what type of mess "living at all costs" can create. It's certainly not an absolute value. How we choose to give or end our lives has meaning, for good or bad.
That's my alternative, and I don't think it's rocket science.
I think I've set forth my framework in as coherent a fashion as I'm capable of. Any questions I have left unanswered were really just arguments cloaked as questions and I think I've answered those arguments.
Oh. Alas.
Is there a consistent and absolute value to life? How does your consistent and absolute value of life when it comes to slavery and murder match up with your subjective value of life when it comes to suicide?
See above. (Again.)
You're not advocating choice. You are advocating hopelessness.
Hmm. That conclusion seems to be the result of a lack of vision... and not on my part.
You can only support assisted suicide if you believe that people can get to the point where the only options are misery and death. You are limiting people and creating false dichotomies. I believe hope is always an option. If people choose to be miserable that's not my fault.
"If people choose to be miserable..."
It would be interesting to hear your views on the poor and disadvantaged, but I suppose that's a different discussion.
I suspect that perhaps if you had a longer and more diverse life experience to draw from, you would not be so quick to create these black and white boxes for other people that besmirch and dismiss their choices so readily.
No, seriously, I have no idea. I haven't seen that movie in a decade. But, you don't have to explain it if you don't think it's an important argument.
Considering I was only referring to the tagline of the movie, any explanation would be overkill and likely not get through anyway.
I can't and I don't have to. Consistent and absolute does not necessitate quantifiability. Which would be clear to you if you looked at your own values.
So you really think I'm not SEEING it?
Fine, let me chew the food for you:
1. Of COURSE some values are not quantifiable. Who would argue otherwise?
2. The whole blatant point of my argument was that your APPEAL to absolute and consistent goodness is entirely irrelevant if you can't even explain what it is -- make it quantifiable in SOME way. Otherwise it's all warm fuzzies.
I mean, you're making an appeal to absolute goodness in a world where
- in Africa the middle-age population has been wiped out by AIDS and an entire generation orphaned
- kids are raped and murdered and abused daily
- poor people starve to death while the rich worry about their new tech toys and land rovers
- many politicians are as crooked as hell
- people bitch about or rally around a chicken sandwich in the name odf dignity, while treating each other like crap
- kind decent people get cancer and die in great pain, for no apparent reason.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. So come on -- What is this "goodness"? And why is it relevant?
So I gave you an opportunity to put your reasoning out there, to actually win some people over and show everyone listening that your values have some relevance, and instead you just complain, avoid, and try to say I'm the one being dishonest. (I already stated my intention in my last post, btw, but apparently you missed it.)
"I can't and I don't have to." <-- That is the sound of making yourself entirely irrelevant to this discussion, and I had nothing to do with that.
I know it's disappointing for you. You are losing this argument and you desperately want me to bring up God so that you can just dismiss me and all my arguments because you can't put forward a coherent framework of beliefs.
Of course. Because everything is about dismissing you for your faith in GOD, rather than because you are insisting on some kind of absolute inherent moral framework that encompasses everyone in the world so that you can label them and then tell them what they can and can't do -- although you can't even specify what this value of "goodness" means or why it should apply to everyone when you are repeatedly asked to explain.
Yes. Certainly, I'm losing.
You know, I don't think that you've yet understood that faith and rationalism are at odds, in the sense faith starts with a belief/conclusion and then argues to support it, and logic comes at it from the opposite direction. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you're holding a subjective value (such as this "goodness" that you believe is in the world), then own up to it. The problem is that once it's subjective, you can't claim it's universal/absolute; but at least you're being honest, and inspiring people to share a vision rather than trying to coerce them with an "absolute" value.
If you really want to understand me and how I think, consider this excerpt from the movie "Contact":
Doctor Arroway, you come to us with no evidence, no record, no artifacts. Only a story that to put it mildly strains credibility. Over half a trillion dollars was spent, dozens of lives were lost. Are you really going to sit there and tell us we should just take this all... on faith?
[pause, Ellie looks at Palmer]
Michael Kitz: Please answer the question, doctor.
Ellie Arroway: Is it possible that it didn't happen? Yes. As a scientist, I must concede that, I must volunteer that.
Michael Kitz: Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You admit that you have absolutely no physical evidence to back up your story.
Ellie Arroway: Yes.
Michael Kitz: You admit that you very well may have hallucinated this whole thing.
Ellie Arroway: Yes.
Michael Kitz: You admit that if you were in our position, you would respond with exactly the same degree of incredulity and skepticism!
Ellie Arroway: Yes!
Michael Kitz: [standing, angrily] Then why don't you simply withdraw your testimony, and concede that this "journey to the center of the galaxy," in fact, never took place!
Ellie Arroway: Because I can't. I... had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision... of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater then ourselves, that we are *not*, that none of us are alone! I wish... I... could share that... I wish, that everyone, if only for one... moment, could feel... that awe, and humility, and hope. But... That continues to be my wish.
Ellie's answer is one that, to me, is full of integrity. She is honest about what is rational vs not, what is a choice on her part and what is not. She's also honest about the basis for her choice to believe certain things about the world. It's a pretty amazing answer, honestly.
It makes my heart sing.
I hope that clarifies my position a bit better.
