alphaomega

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

all things in the universe have a beginning and an end. you can also think about everything and think about how it began and how it might end. to me thats really fascinating. it makes me try to understand the purpose and meaning and more clearly define what i am thinking about by using the approach of first thinking about how it began and how it might end. i don't know why this is true maybe its like the first sentence to an essay - it catches my attention and helps focus my thoughts on interesting qualities to the object or idea or feeling that i am thinking about.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,809 • Replies: 35

No top replies

Here's something that caught my eye when i read youre "all things in the universe have a beginning and an end" - i want to know who or what controls that beginning and end. Alphaomega, would you mind if I posted a case in Australia about conjoined twins and the issue of whether it was:

the law's job to decide who died and who lived OR religion's contribution to decide who died and who lived?

0 Replies

sure!

0 Replies

Thank you, it will be starting at the next post.

0 Replies

I recently read a very interesting paragraph from the case of In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147 from the Court of Appeal in Australia. Very controversial, I believe, especially from the sides of two extremes: Roman Catholics and on the other hand, scientists and possibly Libertarians.

I will give a summary of the case, and then offer my personal point of view. If you find the case rather difficult or the following summary not sufficient, please tell me and I will endeavour to improve on it.

In this case, two conjoined twins - J and M, were found to be able to be successfully separated by surgery. However, because of medical problems, M would most definitely die as a result of the surgery - she had been born alive because AND ONLY because she was sharing a artery with J, who, unless they were separated, would die as well due to over exertion of her heart which was in effect working for two people.

Their parents were deeply religious Roman Catholics and understandably, rejected the doctor's offer to separation via operation: they believed that it was God's will the twins were so born and would rather have left the children's fate in God's hands. The doctors insisted on surgery and thus keeping J alive: they eventually managed to obtain a declaration to carry out the operation.

The parents appealed to the Australian court of appeal to overturn the declaration - but were unsuccessful. The court of appeal allowed the operation to proceed.

For those who are interested in the actual judgment, or a summary of what their honours said, the citation to the case is In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147 and I will endeavour to provide a summary in due course.

0 Replies

My thoughts:

I find myself very much jumping back and forth on the border line. Although I am a Roman Catholic, I find myself disagreeing with many of the church's policies. As a realistic person in today's practical world, I support abortion, euthanasia, cloning, birth control and I see a possibility behind the theory of evolution.

I find myself disagreeing with the parents in this case for the following reasons:

- if science can save a person's life, I believe that such steps must be taken
- issues of morality, ethics and religion will indeed interfere with such a case, but in the eyes of the law, the significant issue is to apply the law at hand, not what God or the Pope would want.
- The operation appeared to be in the interests of both twins - one who could not survive would never be deprived of her life (M) and the other who could survive successfully was given her rightful opportunity (J)
- M also had no right to take what was not hers - J's blood and life - when it was her sister's belongings
- I also believe (and this may be very controversial) that the weaker should always be sacrificed so to be able to save the stronger or the better - this to me is related to my belief in utilitarianism.

0 Replies

alphaomega: What's the beginning of the beginning? And is the end really the end? Or is one's end simply another's beginning and vice versa? In life and the universe, I see no true beginnings and no true ends--everything is part of a continuous cycle.

pragmatic: The "leave it in God's hands" attitude is fine once everything humanly possible has been done; however, it's usually a cop-out--a way to avoid taking further, possibly difficult and/or dangerous, action or making a difficult decision. The latter is the case here. There's really no decision to be made: one will die but one will live with the operation, and both will die without the operation; the one to die has already been chosen by fate/God/chance; all the parents had to do was suck up their inevitable loss and save the child they could. The parents were simply too cowardly to do their duty and tried hiding behind religion to justify their cowardice. Then they got resentful when the state stepped in to perform the necessary duty they were unable to undertake themselves.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

pragmatic: The "leave it in God'[s hands" attitude is fine once everything humanly possible has been done; however, it's usually a cop-out--a way to avoid taking further, possibly difficult and/or dangerous, action or making a difficult decision. The latter is the case here. There's really no decision to be made: one will die but one will live with the operation, and both will die without the operation; the one to die has already been chosen by fate/God/chance; all the parents had to do was suck up their inevitable loss and save the child they could. The parents were simply too cowardly to do their duty and tried hiding behind religion to justify their cowardice. Then they got resentful when the state stepped in to perform the necessary duty they were unable to undertake themselves.

you're still making a decision based on time. its like saying, ok lets kill your sister now so you can live 50 more years of life but she would have only lived 20 thus we're getting the most years of life here. sounds like some communist state.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

alphaomega: What's the beginning of the beginning? And is the end really the end? Or is one's end simply another's beginning and vice versa? In life and the universe, I see no true beginnings and no true ends--everything is part of a continuous cycle.

true but to help you understand the world you need to understnad specifics not just as a baby would say " the world exists" then you ask the baby what is in the the world and it wouldn't answer. there are items in the cycle which have a beginning and an end

0 Replies

alphaomega wrote:

you're still making a decision based on time. its like saying, ok lets kill your sister now so you can live 50 more years of life but she would have only lived 20 thus we're getting the most years of life here. sounds like some communist state.

Parenting is often one tough decision after another. If a parent is faced with the choice of either saving one child while letting the other die or simply letting both die, then that parent would be remiss if he or she didn't act to save one. And there's nothing wrong with making a decision based on time--if you must choose to save one of two people where you know one has twenty years left to live and the other has only five, and all other relevant characteristics are equal, then you choose to save the one with the longest life ahead of him or her.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

alphaomega wrote:
you're still making a decision based on time. its like saying, ok lets kill your sister now so you can live 50 more years of life but she would have only lived 20 thus we're getting the most years of life here. sounds like some communist state.
Parenting is often one tough decision after another. If a parent is faced with the choice of either saving one child while letting the other die or simply letting both die, then that parent would be remiss if he or she didn't act to save one. And there's nothing wrong with making a decision based on time--if you must choose to save one of two people where you know one has twenty years left to live and the other has only five, and all other relevant characteristics are equal, then you choose to save the one with the longest life ahead of him or her.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you're still KILLING SOMEONE

0 Replies

alphaomega wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
alphaomega wrote:
you're still making a decision based on time. its like saying, ok lets kill your sister now so you can live 50 more years of life but she would have only lived 20 thus we're getting the most years of life here. sounds like some communist state.
Parenting is often one tough decision after another. If a parent is faced with the choice of either saving one child while letting the other die or simply letting both die, then that parent would be remiss if he or she didn't act to save one. And there's nothing wrong with making a decision based on time--if you must choose to save one of two people where you know one has twenty years left to live and the other has only five, and all other relevant characteristics are equal, then you choose to save the one with the longest life ahead of him or her.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you're still KILLING SOMEONE

So? To refuse the choice is to sentence both to death, to choose is to save one.

0 Replies

alphaomega wrote:

true but to help you understand the world you need to understnad specifics not just as a baby would say " the world exists" then you ask the baby what is in the the world and it wouldn't answer. there are items in the cycle which have a beginning and an end

Such as?

0 Replies

I still think that what the court did was correct - save one rather than save none. Whats the go with killing both of them? Mills, I stand with you on this point.

0 Replies

pragmatic

Quote:

I also believe (and this may be very controversial) that the weaker should always be sacrificed so to be able to save the stronger or the better - this to me is related to my belief in utilitarianism.

Sorry to answer with questions, but in order to understand your perspective, I would like to know:
What is your criteria do establish the difference between "weaker" and "stronger or better"? In other words, how do you define "weak" and "strong or better"?

Next question: why do you think the weaker should always be sacrificed in order to save the stronger or better? Being an utilitarian doesn't seem enough to me, since there are many utilitarians in this site that, I suspect, would not accept your perspective.

0 Replies

val wrote:

Sorry to answer with questions,

that's ok. Smile

val wrote:

but in order to understand your perspective, I would like to know:
What is your criteria do establish the difference between "weaker" and "stronger or better"? In other words, how do you define "weak" and "strong or better"?

That of course will depend on the situtation as each individual case will differ. In the current case, I am referring to the weaker twin M - that she should die so to save her stronger twin J (stronger as in J had a stronger case to survive, as well as the physical capability) instead of them both dying needlessly.

There is another case which I think is best illustrated via the criminal law term emergency or where it may be acceptable to kill the weakest of the pack so to save the others, more stronger members. In the case of
Dudley v Stevens[/i] which has been cited as the classic case and example: a few sailors in lifeboat killed and ate cabin boy on 20th day at sea
Jury gave special verdict on the facts:
- men would probably have died before rescue if they hadn't eaten the boy
- boy would've died first (weakest)

Horrible case I know - the sailors were convicted but eventually acquitted on appeal (I think) - and I think the sailors were fully justified in doing what they did. I think thats about the clearest example I can give.

val wrote:

Next question: why do you think the weaker should always be sacrificed in order to save the stronger or better? Being an utilitarian doesn't seem enough to me, since there are many utilitarians in this site that, I suspect, would not accept your perspective.

I think I have answered this question via my above answer - but in connection to the utilitarian side of things - in my eyes, the "weaker" is the minority, whom always have to give way (and often suffer disadvantages) at the hands of the majority (the stronger), which I belive is what utilitarians advocate. But I concede that my phrase was badly written - what I meant was weak as in the minority and strong as in the majority. It may be different in the context of two individuals, contrasted to a whole group or population.

0 Replies

Mills wrote:

Such as?

Such as yourself.

0 Replies

InfraBlue: When did I begin? When do I end? The matter constituting my physical body has always existed in some form or another and in one dimension or another. When my 'self' leaves this body, the matter will not 'end' and I doubt my 'self' (or soul if you prefer), whatever its true nature, will 'end.' Even if we accept an empirical premise (i.e., no eternal 'self' or soul), the energy that coursed through our bodies does not 'end.'

0 Replies

You began as you when you were conceived.

You will end as you when you die.

Yeah, the matter constituting your body has existed in some form or another (although I don't know if it can be said that it has always existed), but the specific way in which it is organized as you will not always exist.

0 Replies

I think your thinking is a little muddled though, alphaomega.

First, you begin by saying that everything in the universe has a beginning and an ending. Imediately thereafter you say, "you can also think about everything and think about how it began and how it might end."

In the first sentence you refer to everything as that which is in the universe.

In the second, you refer to everything in general, without the qualification of whether everything is that which is within the universe, or everything as that which includes the universe.

Would you be more precise in your line of questioning.

0 Replies

alphaomega

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know