* The people people who scream the loudest about "the lewd, lascivious and otherwise disgusting display" by Rep. Weiner of his private parts, are the same ones who seem most interested in seeing pictures of them.
* Democrats who fervently favor freedom for gays to marry, women to have abortions, and illegal immigrants to enter this country, also fervently favor greater and greater government controls in every sector of the economy...meaning they favor liberty and justice but not "liberty and justice for all" as the Pledge of Allegiance calls for.
* Who better for Rep. Weiner to ask for advice than Bill Clinton, who refused to resign after having oral (it wasn't) sex in the Oval Room with an aide?
* Even atheists say "God bless you" when someone sneezes.
* In most states, youngsters may be old enough to marry and have children (or an abortion) but not yet old enough to have a beer.
* The loudest voices urging Obama to restrain domestic oil exploration and development, are the same voices who bellyache the loudest about the ever increasing fuel oil prices spurred by those restraints.
* Most colleges and universities admit only brighter students, which is as misguided as if physicians were to treat only healthier patients.
* American citizens can kill only in self-defense, but virtually all politicos believe our government, which derives its powers from the people, can bomb and kill those around the world who pose absolutely no threat to us.
* White bridal gowns don't mean what they used to.
* Telephone callers who prefer to hear the message in French, German, Italian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese or any one of hundreds of other world languages and dialects, including Zulu and Papuan, will be able to do so by pressing a special number...an innovation that will be considered technological progress though it will take up to an hour and a half before some can start speaking.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
"WHAT WORKS" DOESN'T
Where has morality gone? With all the scandals in the news these days, it is a natural question. The previously prevalent code of morality seems to have disappeared.
But from one perspective, it is clear to me that morality has not disappeared, has not gone anywhere...because it never WAS. The dominant philosophy in our society has been a subjective one...not something real to be found in reality, but anchored in people's feelings...feelings of what is the right way to live, a good way to live...anchored ultimately in "what works".
But "what works" is itself subjective, no reality-based standard being used to set its standards. If Sam gets a job and his hands on some money by lying, though he is less qualified than Tom, Sam thinks lying "works", but Tom does not, since he is more qualified. Who is right? What standard should be used?
* Should Sam get the money because he was more skillful at getting what he wanted?
* Should Tom get the job because he is more qualified?
* Does Sam deserve to get the money because he violated a Biblical admonition against lying?
* Should they share the money from the job because everyone needs money to live on?
And on and on.
These questions would not arise with regard to pebbles. If the question was: Is it moral for Mary to give pebbles to her starving infant child to eat for breakfast, the answer would be a resounding, and unanimous, NO. Why? Because pebbles are real...their effects, if eaten, are real and known...the child's inability to digest pebbles is real and known...the likely damage to the child is real and known. Why no questions regarding pebbles? Because they exist in reality, they are objective. Pebbles are provably harmful to a human's physiology...and since morality is a code of pro-life conduct, feeding them to your child is immoral.
Is there a moral code that is based solely in reality? Are there facts in reality that determine whether it is moral to lie to get a job, to prove whether integrity and independence and pride and productivity are moral virtues? There are.
Is there a philosophy that spells that all out? Yes, fortunately and thankfully, Objectivism.(What other name for it would be more appropriate?)
But from one perspective, it is clear to me that morality has not disappeared, has not gone anywhere...because it never WAS. The dominant philosophy in our society has been a subjective one...not something real to be found in reality, but anchored in people's feelings...feelings of what is the right way to live, a good way to live...anchored ultimately in "what works".
But "what works" is itself subjective, no reality-based standard being used to set its standards. If Sam gets a job and his hands on some money by lying, though he is less qualified than Tom, Sam thinks lying "works", but Tom does not, since he is more qualified. Who is right? What standard should be used?
* Should Sam get the money because he was more skillful at getting what he wanted?
* Should Tom get the job because he is more qualified?
* Does Sam deserve to get the money because he violated a Biblical admonition against lying?
* Should they share the money from the job because everyone needs money to live on?
And on and on.
These questions would not arise with regard to pebbles. If the question was: Is it moral for Mary to give pebbles to her starving infant child to eat for breakfast, the answer would be a resounding, and unanimous, NO. Why? Because pebbles are real...their effects, if eaten, are real and known...the child's inability to digest pebbles is real and known...the likely damage to the child is real and known. Why no questions regarding pebbles? Because they exist in reality, they are objective. Pebbles are provably harmful to a human's physiology...and since morality is a code of pro-life conduct, feeding them to your child is immoral.
Is there a moral code that is based solely in reality? Are there facts in reality that determine whether it is moral to lie to get a job, to prove whether integrity and independence and pride and productivity are moral virtues? There are.
Is there a philosophy that spells that all out? Yes, fortunately and thankfully, Objectivism.(What other name for it would be more appropriate?)
Friday, June 3, 2011
SO HELP YOU
When a physician refuses to perform an operation because of the elderly age of the patient, or because there is a risk of complications or even death, he/she is violating a specific vow of the Hippocratic Oath and the hoped for reward of being true to it:
"I must not play at God."
Deciding who will and who will not receive medical treatment to relieve pain, discomfort or distress because of potential risks, is indeed playing God. That decision belongs to, is the property of, the patient, and the patient only. It is the life, and the quality of life of the patient, that is at stake, and not that of the physician. The obligation of the physician is to give the patient all of the available information on which the patient can make an informed decision.
"May I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."
"Healing" is far more than merely extending life. It includes the amelioration of all sorts of physical. mental and emotional afflictions, ailments and conditions. It includes the enhancement of the comfort of life, for as long as it may last. For a physician to pick and choose those patients in need of and desirous of care that he will treat, is to violate the spirit of the Oath and demean the medical profession.
"I must not play at God."
Deciding who will and who will not receive medical treatment to relieve pain, discomfort or distress because of potential risks, is indeed playing God. That decision belongs to, is the property of, the patient, and the patient only. It is the life, and the quality of life of the patient, that is at stake, and not that of the physician. The obligation of the physician is to give the patient all of the available information on which the patient can make an informed decision.
"May I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."
"Healing" is far more than merely extending life. It includes the amelioration of all sorts of physical. mental and emotional afflictions, ailments and conditions. It includes the enhancement of the comfort of life, for as long as it may last. For a physician to pick and choose those patients in need of and desirous of care that he will treat, is to violate the spirit of the Oath and demean the medical profession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)