Secular Ethics -(2 features)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2013, 06:35 PM
Secular Ethics -(2 features)
The human species along with animals suffer pain in its varied forms.

Largely a system of ethics needs to deal with physical and mental pain as they present themselves as well as attempting to alleviate the causal factors. I would like to consider the end product first.

Where acute unremitting pain exists, alleviation or cure is remote and relief is sought it seems morally wrong to commit the suffer to such in the long term. While masochists may enjoy pain, I would suggest this is far removed from severe and permanent pain.
Religious arguments that claim God's will must be followed are fallacious. Any God could always ensure that those he wished to suffer could be located well away from the relief that any person would not deny giving a sick animal.

AS secular beings pain is our first indicator of what is bad for us, in its intrinsic essence, and as a precursor to worse things to come. Pain transcends language as we feel it in all its intensities and manifestations.

Instances Potential pain that the unborn may endure such as severe physical impairment, birth without a physical brain may be quite acceptable,if not desirable to some right to lifers.

(2)Utilization of euthanasia where the aged have no hope, are suffering, their dignity denied,have become a drain to all around them, and wish to die may be extended
via drips, shocks, tunes and other devices for months or years beyond their humane use by date.

Pain would inclide existential angst, chronic nausea, slow choking, unremitting depression and perhaps too grooss idiocy where no parent chose to look after such offspring.

Feature 2.Capital Punishment

Where large groups of children are slaughtered, where prolonged torture followed by murder is carried out I see jail terms (rehabilitation) as inappropriate and withstanding justification pleas, based on genetic problems and poor nurturing factors.
In lesser murders mitigating factors may warrant varying degrees of leniency.
Does the fact that our genesis has made some of us prone, even obliged, to the most gross of behaviour warrant society forgiving evil perpetrators any more than we should not rid ourselves completely of lethal viruses or disease carrying rodents? I admit this is not the best of analogies, but evil whether innate or partially a symptom of terrible parenting/childhood does not justify crimes of the most horrific nature, and even if it did should society accept these events as curable, in order to save face, as harbingers of a better world post hoc the tragic events.

Our social norms may help encourage unkind and unthinking behaviour in many ways, and perhaps the grossest of deviates simply reflect the end product in its vilest manifestation. Would this make the death sentence a travesty of justice? Perhaps, but till we see fit, and if it is possible to make societal improvements en masse, then it seems that the expedience of life sentencing in some cases, as a show of compassion, may belie and obscure the greater totality of the essential problems.
Wednesday 3-4-2012.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: