Simple Philosophy

[Knightspark9]

In my opinion those who believe in God should well know that God is the only one having the right to take someone's life (and only God, not humans who claim to speak on his behalf) and those who do not believe in any God should well know that this right isn't owned by anyone.
So I do not think the point is that 3 people have eaten the boy, the point is that they killed him.
So, for me, the question is quite simple: no one should think to be allowed to kill anyone.
[clarification for Sarras: what's writed up here is my answer to the question 'Was this right?'... I think that was wrong and this has nothing to do with religion or religion in courts... by the way I think right places for religion are churches or temples... not courts]
So, of course, in this case I don't think the degree of necessity exonerate the 3 sailors from guilt (that could have been different if the boy was tryin' to kill them and they had killed him trying to save their life... but that's not what happened).
[clarification for Sarras: THIS is my answer about the trial]
Furthermore, from what I remember, it is quite dangerous to start thinking that the weak, or sick, or the 'different' is less important than the healthy or the 'normal'.
So the additional details do not change what I have said so far.

Ok ok ok ok ok... We don't want a religious debate here.

[Geceni]

Furthermore, from what I remember, it is quite dangerous to start thinking that the weak, or sick, or the 'different' is less important than the healthy or the 'normal'.

+1. That kind of thinking is in line with Nazism.

Excellent comments, Toltha... +1000!

@Gilrond: Exactly... it's an unfortunate reality that society at large justifies killing "the unfit" and does not recognize Nazism for what it is. We justify euthanasia by saying that it isn't worth it to keep the person alive, and we justify abortion by saying that it doesn't matter because we're just "removing a blob of tissue". Regardless of the human being in question, somebody somewhere could justify killing them. Somebody somewhere could find you, me, or anyone else to be "unfit for survival", but we don't think of that, do we? We like to pat ourselves on the back because we are so "open minded", "tolerant", "civilized", "enlightened", yet at the same time we justify the basest and most horrifying of all human atrocities: murder. We can call it by all of the "politically correct" and "nice" names we want to, but it's still murder, plain and simple.

P.S. My comments aren't pointed at you or anyone in particular, just elaborating on my agreement with you and Toltha on this subject...

[Sarras Volcae]

i'm just trollin' ya, toltha 

the reason people support euthanasia is because they've had to witness others go through immense pain before death. there's a point when people sort of give up and are literally asking to be killed. i've seen it. it's not pretty. still, i'm not really a kevorkian.

geceni, sometimes that "blob of tissue" can kill the woman carrying it. even my mother nearly died from blood loss. imagine a twelve-year-old girl, not physically able to give birth, having to die in order to avoid the murder of an unwanted child. doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?

[Mekora]

From my knowledge, thinking that the 'weak' are less important falls more under the philosophy of nietzscheism. It is described as the "power as the chief motivating force of both the individual and society."

I believe that 'Nazism' is kind of like racism and global domination combined

It's nice to see all your answers though.

[Gilrond]

geceni, sometimes that "blob of tissue" can kill the woman carrying it.

That's a different situation from when the fetus does not threaten mother's life. I don't think Geceni claimed that even in that case the abortion is not acceptable.

[verden]

species

Yes, I said species when I should have said taxa ... so sue me. Cannibalism in insects and arachnids has vastly different motivations and outcomes than cannibalism in mammals. My point remains that cannibalism in mammals does not produce positive outcomes in a population or individuals, and it isn't based on a myth.

[Sarras Volcae]

verden, people don't get kuru from eating other people. they only get it from eating people infected with that disease. just like mad cow. and it's not very common, either. it's rather safe to consume the flesh of most people you see walking the streets of your own city.

gilrond, wait until geceni has a say.

[Geceni]

geceni, sometimes that "blob of tissue" can kill the woman carrying it. even my mother nearly died from blood loss. imagine a twelve-year-old girl, not physically able to give birth, having to die in order to avoid the murder of an unwanted child. doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?

If a person can't give birth, then the baby can be surgically delivered safely for both the mother and child. In the hypothetical case that if a pregnancy continued that had an extremely high chance of killing both mother and child, then it's a bit of a gray area, but "let's just kill the kid for convenience and forget about it" isn't an acceptable answer. I honestly can't say what I'd think in such a situation.

And if you are going to be cruel enough to say that you don't want your own child, you can give it to an adoption center.

[Gilrond]

I honestly can't say what I'd think in such a situation.

See for example: http://www.aish.com/print/?contentID=48954946&section=/ci/sam

[Toltha]

uhm, I think we went far further than the initial question...
anyway, I think we must be very careful to talk about euthanasia and/or abortion.
these are two extreme cases, completely uncomfortable and that no one would probably choose, having the chance to avoid them.
so, I'm pretty sure that since people who feel compelled to make such choices simply exist, well, they must have valid reasons, reasons that can not be neglected or trampled by someone else who is living a different (and presumibly easier) life.
in my opinion such situations are very complicated, and to me it is impossible to imagine what I would choose in a situation whose complexity and suffering I can not even imagine.
so I think at the moment I have little to say about it ... and noticing how often (about these situations, at least in the country where I live) it is easier to hear the views of those who are not involved much more than the views of those involved depresses me a lot.
that's why I think the choice should be entirely up to who is living these situations and knows how it really is.
I mean, as I think that no one has the right to sacrifice someone else, I also believe that no one has the right to impose the 'right' life to someone else.

please Sarras, don't troll poor Toltha !

[Geceni]

I honestly can't say what I'd think in such a situation.

See for example: http://www.aish.com/print/?contentID=48954946&section=/ci/sam

Looks interesting... I'll read it as soon as I get a chance...

@Toltha: I don't believe that anyone has the right to impose the 'right' way to live, think, etc. on someone else either, but abortion, euthanasia, etc. isn't about "imposing" lifestyles on somebody. It's about acknowledging that things like murder (abortion and euthanasia included) are outright wrong. It's not "imposing" on somebody, it's drawing a line in the sand about just how far you let people violate each others basic human rights. All people have certain rights, and it isn't "imposing" to keep other people from violating those rights. By your own argument, if I believed that I had a right to walk down main street and kill anyone I wanted to, it would be "imposing" for the police to throw me in jail for it. Defending the basic human rights of an unborn child or a demented senior citizen is no more "imposing" than stopping me from going on a killing spree on main street. It would, however, be "imposing" for me to tell you how you must dress, talk, or think, but defending a basic human right is not imposing on anyone. On the contrary, it is stopping an aggressor from "imposing" on the victim's right to life.

I understand that most cases involving abortion or euthanasia are very difficult and painful, but if you start justifying murder because of how painful not killing the unborn child, etc. would be, you're right back to square one, justifying murder. I've seen the pain of slow death firsthand, multiple times. It's easy to say that it would be easier just to end it, but you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Either you never justify murder, or sooner or later we're right back to "purging" populations of people that we don't want.

[Mekora]

please Sarras, don't troll poor Toltha !

You should Sig this Sarras.

[Knightspark9]

verden, people don't get kuru from eating other people. they only get it from eating people infected with that disease. just like mad cow. and it's not very common, either. it's rather safe to consume the flesh of most people you see walking the streets of your own city.

gilrond, wait until geceni has a say.

Actually, mad cow disease also comes from cows who eat sheep brains.