| Religion » How to speak with atheists » 12/17/2017 5:08 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 120
-
Thank you very much for taking the time and making the effort to write such comprehensive explanation.
I hope I am not guity of being dismissive, but to me it seems that you are basically saying why should something remain in existence.
If this is the case, then I think the first way is wholly irrelvant to the discussion.
I think a materialist can just resort to brute fact and says that the universe as a whole essentially exists (its pure act in the sense of existence)
| Religion » How to speak with atheists » 12/16/2017 3:46 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 120
-
@Miguel
Miguel wrote:You are trying to present some thomistic arguments, namely the first and the second ways. They can get mixed up a little sometimes, so that's normal; the second way deals with the essence/existence distinction, the first way with potency/act; in practice however existence is to essence what act is to potency. You are correct in saying that there must be a stopping point. Basically, the two of you were looking for an explanation of the existence of things, going all the way down into the chemical compounds and such. What is going on here? Well, you were pointing out that all things we know from our experience seem to have their existence conditioned by something else; their existence is not inconditional, it is conditioned by certain things. Your existence is only possible right now because of the oxygen around you, for instance; the oxygen only exists because it is conditioned by certain molecules, etc. etc. Everything we see and discover through science seems to have its existence conditioned by something else. This is because all these things do not have existence by themselves; their essence is distinct from their act of existence, and likewise they are not purely actual, they are a mixture of potentiality and actuality and can only be actual because they are actualized by something else. So you arrived at the fundamental forces, and of course they cannot be the first cause.
.Forgive me for vague and dusty understanding of Aquinas.I have read TLS a few years ago.
…
I'm puzzled that you consider this as Aquinas' first way. It seemed to that Aquinas was trying to account for a change. However, if I for example say that Mass causes gravity and that is how the movement of the planets are governed, what remains to be explained? I have explained the change we see. However, it seems to me that you are rather arguing based on contingency. Why mass exists? Why should mass cause gravity ? Why mass/energy is conserved an
| Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/16/2017 3:34 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 475
-
StardustyPsyche wrote:
@nojoum
I'm not sure if I should intervene but that would be accidential causal series. I'm not sure though why it would be relevant to Aquinas's first and 2nd way which is about essential causal series. Besides the ball 1 itself does not actualize any potential in the 4th ball. I think it is important to make such distinction.
Making distinctions is indeed important
…
If the 1 ball does not contribute a causal influence to the 4 ball in what sense do you say this is an example of a causal series? Kinetic energy was transferred from the 1 ball to the 2 ball, then the 3 ball, then to the 4 ball. If the 1 ball had not rolled as it did then the whole series would not have occurred.
If you wish to call this series of events a causal series of any sort then it must be the case that the 1 ball had a causal influence on the 4 ball..
The relevance to the First Way is that upon closer examination we find that every real material causal series is an "accidental" series and there is no such thing as an "essential" causal series. The notion of an "essential' causal series arises from several misconceptions I will discount below
1.There is no such thing as a rigid multibody system.
2.Causal influences propagate no faster than c, classically, and more typically at the speed of sound in a medium or at speeds that result from the mechanical characteristics of the system.
3.There is no such thing as simultaneity of cause and effect throughout the members of a multibody system.
4.The designations in a so-called "essential" real material causal series as "first", "instrument", "last" are arbitrary and invalidly narrow in scope. To find the first member of any real material causal series we must employ a temporal regress extending back at least as far as the big bang, or perhaps to a past eternal universe. In such a regress analysis the designations of "first" and "instrument" and "last" continually change as the regression is made.
5.T
| Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/16/2017 1:29 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 475
-
StardustyPsyche wrote:
SteveK wrote:> He thinks deceased grandfathers contribute (causally) a certain amount to the motion of their grandchildren.
kekSuppose the 1 ball rolls and then hits the 2 ball. The 2 ball rolls and then hits the 3 ball. The 3 ball rolls and then hits the 4 ball. The 4 ball rolls and then falls into the pocket.
Question, did the 1 ball contribute (causally) a certain amount to the motion of the 4 ball as it fell in the pocket?I'm not sure if I should intervene but that would be accidential causal series. why would it be relevant to Aquinas's first and 2nd way which is about essential causal series. Besides the ball 1 itself does not actualize any potential in the 4th ball. I think it is important to make such distinction.
| Practical Philosophy » Euthanasia for organ donation » 12/16/2017 6:11 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 20
-
RomanJoe wrote:nojoum wrote:
The reason that we are saying that life is not worth living is not because they cannot pursue human good, it is rather because they can be going under agonizing pain. The pain itself is why we opt for euthanasia. Aside from that minor issue, the biggest issue for me is that you seem to assume that human life regardless of any circumstances has the highest value (or is the highest good) which does not seem justified to me. A similar quesion that comes to mind is the morality of Coup de Grace. Is it moral or immoral?
This is I think is the strongest case for euthanasia, and the one that I am most sympathetic towards. Though, I would argue this: Why can't we work to alleviate the pain without trying to kill the patient? Even if the alleviation won't bring the person back to their former healthy condition, we would be providing them with a comfortable last few moments on earth without intentionally depriving them of the basic human good. Of course one could argue that there are those rare cases where pain treatment isn't entirely effective. I'll agree, this makes the situation harder, but I think it would be unwise to construct an entire system of ethics off of the exceptional cases.
Terriblly sorry for the extremely late response. 4 months is a charm! :D
…
For sure I agree with you. At least my understanding on Euthanasia is that it should be used when it is the only alternative.However, that does not mean that efforts in treating diseases/pain allevation must be halted just because Euthanasia is legalized. I'm not sure if I'm constructing an entire system of ethics here, rather I am saying that we should have exceptions such as Euthanasia.
However, the only point besides this is the probable matter of God. Some people think that this is the will of God and so they must go through the hardship. I honestly dont have much to say in this regards.
| Religion » How to speak with atheists » 12/16/2017 5:12 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 120
-
joewaked wrote:
Anyway, we went down the road of chemical compounds, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and so on. We reached the point in our “hierarchy” of causes where we faced a “dead end”: my friend stopped at the Four Fundamental Forces of nature (i.e., gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong forces). I asked “so tell me, what is causing the forces to act?” Here is where I also refer to movement and the 4 forces are moving, but something is obviously “moving” them. That’s why I say I’m conflating the 2 arguments.
He said he didn’t know but that science may one day discover that answer. So I responded that assume they do discover forces even “more fundamental.” I would still ask the same question because I want to know what is causing them? And then, we talked about infinite regress and how that fails.
For me, whatever the near-ultimate fundamental forces end up being, behind them we find the Finger of God. Am I arguing incorrectly?I agree with you that there should be a stopping point and I think the Thomist argue that it could not be anything other than God. However, to be honest with you, it's not so obvious to me. (I have only read Feser's TLS).
…
Anyway, the important thing about converting a person is stay patient and kind. It takes some effort to change people's belief. Maybe a few years.It's not just the matter of rational argument. The person should become emotionally mature to accept what he/she finds as truth.That's the part which takes more time. Don't give up and try your best!
PS. I myself dont really find Aquinas convincing because I have problems with his metaphysics. I actually rather prefer W.L.Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument. But above all of these, I prefer a variant on Pascal's wager and that is why I am not really interested anymore in studying proofs on existence of God. Though the problem with Pascal's wager is that you cannot convince anyone with it unless they already find the implicat
| Practical Philosophy » Euthanasia for organ donation » 8/22/2017 9:21 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 20
-
I see your point about the consent. When I said consent I just did not mean any kind of consents. In the given examples, I would not accept the given consents as sane consents. I would say these people are in a situation where they are not able to give consent. (another example is a drunk girl who gives consent to sex while being drunk). I think generally people would freely choose good and therefore that is why I took consent as a shortcut. However, this would mean as you say that consent should be followed by understanding of good. Having said that It seems to me that consent given in the case of euthanasia satisfies the mentioned criterion.
The reason that we are saying that life is not worth living is not because they cannot pursue human good, it is rather because they can be going under agonizing pain. The pain itself is why we opt for euthanasia. Aside from that minor issue, the biggest issue for me is that you seem to assume that human life regardless of any circumstances has the highest value (or is the highest good) which does not seem justified to me. A similar quesion that comes to mind is the morality of Coup de Grace. Is it moral or immoral?
On your personal note, I have a small advice. I had been in the same position as you and so I was taking a stance and then was trying to justify it. Regardless of what I, you, David Oderberg and anyone else say about the truth, the truth is not going to change. Truth remains the same. Also, many people would claim to know God but actually have no idea of God. People want to please God but don’t know what would please God.
Note: No worries for late response. I hope everything gets well soon.
I'm at the moment very busy so this is just the essence of my reply. I have some objections regarding your argument about Instrumental and intrinsic value. I hope I can give a complete reply on weekend.
| Practical Philosophy » Euthanasia for organ donation » 8/17/2017 7:12 am |
- nojoum
- Replies: 20
-
RomanJoe wrote:
I see your point. One could argue, I think, that this is assuming that the principle that "the deliberate taking of innocent human life is intrinsically evil" is not, after all, intrinsically evil. That is, the deliberate taking of innocent human life can be justified (consequentialism) if it involves, to use your example, a terminally ill patient who isn't suited to serve society or family. But I think, however, this just brings us back to the consent principle which I, and ethicists in general, aren't comfortable with. Because the difference between euthanizing a terminally ill person who didn't ask to be euthanized, and euthanizing a terminally ill person who asked to be euthanized, is consent. The former gives no consent, the latter does.
I’m not sure why you are not satisfied with giving consent. Could you elaborate why you find consent unconvincing? To me it seems enough. When you are taking someone’s life while ignoring their consent, you are violating their right to life (you are taking everything from them) which is a great harm. On the other hand, when someone is giving consent, they are giving up their life and thus It is permitted for them to end their life (or having someone who wants to assist them in suicide). Therefore, for me, the difference between forced to have euthanasia and willingly have euthanasia is great one and it does not seem to me that the consent principle is absurd.
RomanJoe wrote:My only issue with the idea that consequentialism should be applied only out of necessity, that is, only when there are no better alternatives, just seems false. For, even if there were no better alternatives to purify the gene pool, surely it would still be wrong and unjustified to kill those people. I'm also unsure how one would gauge the value of someone's life. If someone has a terminal illness but decides to power through it, not opting for immediate death, does their willingness to power through make their life genuinely
…
| Practical Philosophy » Euthanasia for organ donation » 8/12/2017 1:10 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 20
-
In the case of euthanasia, I would say no offense is committed. The only offenses that might be committed are minor offenses to your family and the society. However, if you are terminally ill, you are probably far from the suitable shape to serve your family and society.
…
With regards to eugenics, I share your view. It does not seem justified because unlike euthanasia you might be ignoring people’s autonomy and this issue seems more sever to me than having disabled people. It is not for granted that disabled people have extremely unsatisfying life. Even if we want to somehow refine the genes, there are more moral and humane ways to do this. You have far better alternatives to achieve same results. These are some of the possibilities; preventing them from marrying, preventing them having children, allowing them to procreate but aborting the defected fetus and maybe some other options which I could not think of or technology advancement would allow in future (for example being able to modify the sperms and eggs so that the child does not inherit the disabilities). As you see we have a range of less problematic choices and we don’t need to resort killing them. But this is not the end of story, to me it seems that unlike euthanasia, it’s not clear that the lives of disabled people are less valuable. At least we need some statistics to see which kind of disabilities result in overwhelmingly unsatisfying life. I also think that in this case if these people are willing to live through their difficult life, they would be extremely doubtful to have children who go through the same misery as them. So maybe we do not even need to interfere or maybe only interfere in the very extreme cases which I think should statistically small. I think through the example we somehow recovered two standards to regulate consequentialism, necessity (or in another words the choices available) and value. We need to be extremely careful and correctly evaluate the gravity of situation, the
| Practical Philosophy » Euthanasia for organ donation » 8/11/2017 4:11 pm |
- nojoum
- Replies: 20
-
RomanJoe wrote:
[
Wouldn't this just be a non-consequentialist approach though? I mean the consequentialist's standard of good and bad is governed, ultimately, by the consequences that follow an action. But, if the consequentialist admits that certain acts are just so wrong that no positive consequences could justify them (e.g. euthanizing the disabled and diseased to increase the overall healthiness of the human race for generations to come) then he is operating with the non-consequentialist's conception of good and bad--namely, one that says consequences don't necessarily determine the moral status of an action, that some things are wrong (and I suppose we could say right) regardless of their consequences.Well regardless of what you want to call them, I'm not simply buying a pure natural law or a pure consequentialism conception of morality. To me both of them have limitations. Besides, having a few exceptions does not seem to entail pure non-consequentialism. (considering you can apply consequentialist approach in certain other cases)
RomanJoe wrote:
And I guess this is the heart of the issue: can there be valid reasons to kill oneself? This is why I bring up consequentialism--it applies to the organ donor case as well as the typical euthanasia patient. Do the positive consequences justify the killing oneself? What would these consequences be? Perhaps alleviation of pain, both psychological and/or physical. Right now, with the current debate over euthanasia, is whether or not physical suffering can justify euthanasia/assisted suicide. Of course you can alleviate suffering with the use of painkillers and prolonged treatment. So we need to ask ourselves, is suicide an acceptable alternative to basic pain relievers?
I think you are right in stating this to be the heart of issue. I think the issue of suicide is a bit complicated because it is hard to know beforehand if the reasons are justified. But in the case of Euthanasia for terminall
…