Defining Morality

[MSizer]

While giving equal consideration to the interests of each individual who is affected by one's decisions.

See I don't think that's necessarily correct. I think it happens to be correct in most circumstances, but I don't think it's absolutely correct. For example, the wife, who is now unconcious and expected to remain that way, is not IMO a person anymore, so I don't think it's rational to equate her to other sentient beings. If there is another sentient bieng who is both concious and has the potential for lasting self interest, I think they deserve higher moral consideration than the wife does. So, if a young chimpanzee mother at the local zoo needs a liver, I think she deserves it over the unconcious woman.

 

[MSizer]

Once again you jump the gun. I said if the husband did the harvesting, knowing it was against the wife's wishes, it would be immoral and akin to me killing the president of a bank and taking his money to feed the children of Africa.
You then agreed that this would be OK to do this to his wife, because she would be dead, and wouldn't know any better.

Care to explain yourself?

Actually it is you who misunderstands Itwillend.

I'll repeat myself. I know exactly what you said, and I think it's horse dung. She is no longer concious, therefore her wishes no longer exist. Regardless of what they were prior to her vegetative state. Even though the husband knows exactly what her wishes had been when they existed, they're gone now, therefore they are of no matter anymore.

Is that a sufficient explanation, or shall I go back and reword it until you're satisfied?

 

[tumbleweed41]

See I don't think that's necessarily correct. I think it happens to be correct in most circumstances, but I don't think it's absolutely correct. For example, the wife, who is now unconcious and expected to remain that way, is not IMO a person anymore, so I don't think it's rational to equate her to other sentient beings. If there is another sentient bieng who is both concious and has the potential for lasting self interest, I think they deserve higher moral consideration than the wife does. So, if a young chimpanzee mother at the local zoo needs a liver, I think she deserves it over the unconcious woman.

Yes, I can accept that. But some consideration should be given even to the comatose wife. Does she still feel pain? If so, we should do our best to remove the pain. What are the chances of her ever becoming sentient again? If extremely low, or nil, then all concerned would be better off with her gone.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Once again you jump the gun. I said if the husband did the harvesting, knowing it was against the wife's wishes, it would be immoral and akin to me killing the president of a bank and taking his money to feed the children of Africa.
You then agreed that this would be OK to do this to his wife, because she would be dead, and wouldn't know any better.

Sorry, very poor analogy.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Actually it is you who misunderstands Itwillend.

I'll repeat myself. I know exactly what you said, and I think it's horse dung. She is no longer concious, therefore her wishes no longer exist. Regardless of what they were prior to her vegetative state. Even though the husband knows exactly what her wishes had been when they existed, they're gone now, therefore they are of no matter anymore.

Is that a sufficient explanation, or shall I go back and reword it until you're satisfied?

No I have heard enough rubbish.
You are content to live the sherade that the feelings of a human only matter while they are alive, and when they die, they don't matter anymore. That is an island exclusive to a select few. Enjoy...

 

[MSizer]

Yes, I can accept that. But some consideration should be given even to the comatose wife. Does she still feel pain? If so, we should do our best to remove the pain. What are the chances of her ever becoming sentient again? If extremely low, or nil, then all concerned would be better off with her gone.

Yes I agree, she still arguably has some "capacity of life" for lack of a specific term, so I do agree she still deserves some moral consideration. I think it becomes a question of degree.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Sorry, very poor analogy.

You know what they say about opinions...:yes:

 

[MSizer]

No I have heard enough rubbish.
You are content to live the sherade that the feelings of a human only matter while they are alive, and when they die, they don't matter anymore. That is an island exclusive to a select few. Enjoy...

My grandfather grew tomatoes on his property for years while he was alive. I'm certain he'd be sad if he knew the tomato garden has been dug up by the currrent owners. Should they be ashamed of themselves? If not, then where is the line drawn?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

then where is the line drawn?

Why are you asking me that, if you already know the answer to that in your own mind?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You yourself said the wife did not voice her opinion on the matter, so the husband did the best he could do. I am not saying that is bad. I am saying it is only moral if we know for sure it would be in line with what the wife would have wanted.

One can never know "for sure". We know that the odds of the wife surviving or next to nil, but there is that slight probability that she may make a halfway decent recovery.
Her and her husband may have discussed it ten years ago, but she changed her mind and did not get the chance to have her wishes known.

We must make our moral decisions based on what we know.

By your reasoning, since we can never know for sure, there is no moral or immoral about it. Are you suggesting a gray area of amoral decisions?

 

[tumbleweed41]

No I have heard enough rubbish.
You are content to live the sherade that the feelings of a human only matter while they are alive, and when they die, they don't matter anymore. That is an island exclusive to a select few. Enjoy...

I have made my wishes known to my wife. I wish to have a "green" burial. If in her grief, she buries me in an oak casket instead, with full embalming, is she then immoral?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

One can never know "for sure". We know that the odds of the wife surviving or next to nil, but there is that slight probability that she may make a halfway decent recovery.
Her and her husband may have discussed it ten years ago, but she changed her mind and did not get the chance to have her wishes known.

We must make our moral decisions based on what we know.

By your reasoning, since we can never know for sure, there is no moral or immoral about it. Are you suggesting a gray area of amoral decisions?

TW, thank you for not judging me, you are a real stand up guy it seems. Instead, you are probing me to make sure you are understanding what it is I am saying.

So... Let me think...

I am saying, if my wife was in the situation and I did not know her wishes and had this option available to me, my decision would not be made from a moral outlook. I would take a best guess, knowing I might be making an immoral decision, and move forward. So, while my intentions may be moral, that alone does not make the act moral.
Maybe?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I have made my wishes known to my wife. I wish to have a "green" burial. If in her grief, she buries me in an oak casket instead, with full embalming, is she then immoral?

that one action would not cast her into an immortal immoral box. You know that.
That action is questionable to be sure, but nothing more.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You know what they say about opinions...:yes:

All right then,
In my opinion, comparing a comatose woman with an extremely low chance of survival to that of a rich banker, in what we are assuming to be good health, is a very poor analogy.

 

[MSizer]

Why are you asking me that, if you already know the answer to that in your own mind?

I'm pointing out that your opinion on the matter doesn't appear to me to be founded on anything concrete and I'm just suggesting that you consider it, as you may be (I think you are) taking it for granted that people's wishes matter after they're dead, just because it seems rational and almost everybody seems to think it. My point is that most people think it so without actually having considered it. I think it doesn't stand up to reason that people's wishes matter after they're dead. The desire to uphold a dead person's wishes is purely the wish of someone still alive, and IMO holds no moral value to the original wisher who is now dead.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

All right then,
In my opinion, comparing a comatose woman with an extremely low chance of survival to that of a rich banker, in what we are assuming to be good health, is a very poor analogy.

Understood...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I'm pointing out that your opinion on the matter doesn't appear to me to be founded on anything concrete and I'm just suggesting that you consider it, as you may be (I think you are) taking it for granted that people's wishes matter after they're dead, just because it seems rational and almost everybody seems to think it. My point is that most people think it so without actually having considered it. I think it doesn't stand up to reason that people's wishes matter after they're dead. The desire to uphold a dead person's wishes is purely the wish of someone still alive, and IMO holds no moral value to the original wisher who is now dead.

You are speaking in absolutes, about a subjective matter. Not really interested in that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

TW, thank you for not judging me, you are a real stand up guy it seems. Instead, you are probing me to make sure you are understanding what it is I am saying.

So... Let me think...

I am saying, if my wife was in the situation and I did not know her wishes and had this option available to me, my decision would not be made from a moral outlook. I would take a best guess, knowing I might be making an immoral decision, and move forward. So, while my intentions may be moral, that alone does not make the act moral.
Maybe?

So it seems that you are able to take moral reckoning completely out of the decision making process.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So it seems that you are able to take moral reckoning completely out of the decision making process.

Somehow I think so. My wife is dead or dying before me, I just wouldn't really give a **** about those around me at the time.
You and Mizer sound so dry and callous on this subject I find it distasteful, but maybe I am just weak when it comes to matter like this.

I know if it was the other way around, and my wife needed a heart, and a donor was in the next room I would probably by telling her family to let her go!!!

So it is a complicated situation, and I just don't see where morality fits into it for me. Maybe I am just missing something.

 

[MSizer]

I know if it was the other way around, and my wife needed a heart, and a donor was in the next room I would probably by telling her family to let her go!!!

I doubt you would do that. I wouldn't blame you for secretly hoping it, but I doubt you'd try to entice them. If so, it would be very immoral indeed.

On your comment about morality, I don't see how you can possibly argue the things you're arguing yet consider yourself a moral person. I don't think you'd do the things you say you would. If you would, you are indeed a person who cares little about morality.