NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/callahan/13919

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 3.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!mustang.mst6.lanl.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!LYDICK
From: [e-mail] (Speaker-to-Minerals)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: God and Science: The Ramblings of The Nightstalker
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:01:36 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 42
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Palmer) writes:
=[e-mail] (Stephen R. Savitzky) writes:
=
=>"Now some people believe that, for example, proselytizing and calling
=>for the death of nonbelievers are *evil* (and in fact are the *same*
=>evil, differing mainly in the amount of threat applied to effect a
=>conversion).  In other words, we're not merely talking about
=>*distance* from some absolute morality, but *diametrically opposed*
=>positions.  This strongly indicates that, at least on some matters,
=>there is no observable absolute morality.  (You'll note that I say
=>*observable* -- there may be one, or several, but there's no objective
=>way to identify one.)"
=
=    Hmmm.  I disagree.  Mind, calling for the death of nonbelievers can be
=argued against on different grounds, but preaching/proselytizing, etc is a
=different matter. . .
=
=    If a person is dying and you have a life giving drug, you can easily argue
=that you have a moral obligation to administer that drug.  (I did NOT say you
=can 'easily AND CORRECTLY' argue. . . just that the argument is easy to see)
=
=    I think that the only argument that stands against that is, if the
=administration of the drug can cause a fatality, you have to have the
=cooperation of the person to whom it's being administered.  (ie, if you're
=pissing off the person you're preaching at, it's time to back off with a
=vengeance.)

Hmmm.  Then it's your position that those in favor of "right to die"
legislation are absolutely immoral?  After all, they think that if the person
who's dying WANTS to die instead of leading the life they'll have if you
administer the drug, then THAT's a damned gooe argument against giving the
drug.

=    Thus the question of the morality of preaching 'the word of god' depends
=entirely on your view of what the word of god will do. . . if you believe it
=will do nothing, you get pissed off when people try to shove it down your
=throat.  If you believe, as some Christians do, that it is the only path to
=salvation, you HAVE to try to administer it to the 'dying'.

And in my opinion, in either case, if the dying person is conscious and in
possession of their faculties, to save their life against their wishes is
immoral.