alienEthOS: The Ethics of Sci-fi

alienEthOS forums / Show Discussions / alienEthOS Show #005 - Religion and a Child's right to life in Babylon 5 (Believers)

<< . 1 . 2 .

Author	Message
Kevin Show Host	# Posted: 21 Nov 2005 11:56:03 \| Edited by: Kevin I have responded to the comments about abortion in a separate thread here: Abortion and Non-Sentient Human Flesh
jason Show Contributor	# Posted: 8 Mar 2006 17:01:50 If I has known I was going to be quoted like that I might have asked for a right of reply to clarify. You presented my position as suggesting that parents rights are absolutely soverign, which wasn't quite what I meant. I notice you made comment of where I said that I disagree with the state teaching on homosexuality, but you neglected to comment where I noted, that you seem happy to agree with the state when it teaches what you like, but would you be happy if the state taught the reverse ? You made regular appeals to "Secular ethics" but the reality is that these ethical systems you referenced are no different from the "religious ethics" you had a problem with in practice. There is nothing special about an ethical system just because you invoke the magic word "secular". Would this be worth recording as an audio comment for the next show ? BTW, good show, glad you are back. Jason
Kevin Show Host	# Posted: 8 Mar 2006 17:39:15 If you'd like to record this as an audio comment that would be great, but i'll go ahead and tell you how I'd reply to it now. To begin: Quoting: jason You made regular appeals to "Secular ethics" but the reality is that these ethical systems you referenced are no different from the "religious ethics" you had a problem with in practice. There is nothing special about an ethical system just because you invoke the magic word "secular". Secular, to clarify my meaning, is based on rational thought. Secular ethics are based on the same tools of reasoning that were first given to us by the Greek Philosophers. Whether based on philosophy or science, secular ethics have a rational basis for existing. Religious ethics on the other hand, are based solely on the doctrine of religious texts. For example, according to popular christian doctrine, homosexuality is unethical. This is not based on any rational thought but are instead based on a handful of difficult to interpret lines of text from a book thought to be the divine word of the creator. There is no logic or reasoning involved. This brings us back to your comment on homosexuality: Quoting: jason I notice you made comment of where I said that I disagree with the state teaching on homosexuality, but you neglected to comment where I noted, that you seem happy to agree with the state when it teaches what you like, but would you be happy if the state taught the reverse? If, in this country the state must base it's teaching and actions on secular ethics as I argued in the show, then it must accept homosexuality as a natural part of human life. Current scientific and philosophical knowledge makes an extremely strong case for the integration of homosexual people into mainstream society. Would I be happy if the state taught the reverse? Not unless they justified it using sound reasoning that is not based on religious ideals. Since such an argument is missing from public debate, homophobia cannot be taught in our public schools. Quoting: jason You presented my position as suggesting that parents rights are absolutely soverign, which wasn't quite what I meant. What did you mean? Kevin
jason Show Contributor	# Posted: 19 Mar 2006 15:42:56 \| Edited by: jason I wrote something longer, but i'll leave the reply out. I don't think it is helpful. However you have inspired me to do a minicast on the nature of ethics. Suffice to say Kevin, I would contend, that you are seriously confused about the nature of ethics and I hope i'm not the only one that sees that "Secular Ethics" that you are promoting just seems to mean "Agrees With Kevin Ethics". Jason
Kevin Show Host	# Posted: 21 Mar 2006 15:35:55 \| Edited by: Kevin Okay, I can see how you might get that idea, I'll do some research and explain this with other people's words than my own.
jason Show Contributor	# Posted: 22 Mar 2006 15:03:28 I'm not sure that will change anything. Your entire argument in favour of a "secular teaching of homosexuality" stems from little more than the fact that you agree with it. The sheer vacuousness of "Secular ethics" as a whole allows it to be infinitely malleable. The comic relief that is "evolutionary ethics" even more so. Jason
Kevin Show Host	# Posted: 23 Mar 2006 07:45:58 I can't disagree with you there actually, anything based on reason is subject to change in light of new information. Everything in science and philosophy is true.... until it isn't.
Halken Member	# Posted: 27 Oct 2006 07:19:59 Just listened to the episode, and i have a comment. The parents believe that their son's soul will be destroyed if he has surgery and that the soul is of higher worth than the life. But the doctor (could) believe that there is no soul. Often there is a misunderstanding in the difference between non-belief in existence and belief in non-existence, for example in the soul. If the parents want their belief in the existence of the soul respected, they should have to respect others belief in the non-existence of the soul. Dr. Franklin, if my memory is correct, is a non-believer in the existence of the soul, but not a believer in the non-existence of the soul. He does not have the same belief that there is no soul that the parents have in the opposite, althought i believe that he is supposed to be seen as having that belief in this episode. The result if he just is a non-believer is that he goes against the parents wishes to save a life, something he has sworn to do, whilst still risking the destruction of the soul. However, if he is a believer in the non-existence of the soul, then he can claim the very same principle of respect for belief that the parents can.
madpoet Show Contributor	# Posted: 27 Oct 2006 09:10:34 Halken, That would make sense if the doctor's judgments would have the same weight as the parents, and it may justify the doctor's actions in some eyes, but shouldn't the parents have the final say in what happens to their child? More to the point, when are we getting another episode? And when will the comment span in the forums be cleaned up?

<< . 1 . 2 .