tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post115370926613250400..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Peter Singer, Means, Ends, Intention, and Side EffectsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153757427850987862006-07-24T10:10:00.000-06:002006-07-24T10:10:00.000-06:00I didn't mean to put double "indeeds" in there. Th...I didn't mean to put double "indeeds" in there. That really comes across as obnoxious.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153754686952100602006-07-24T09:24:00.000-06:002006-07-24T09:24:00.000-06:00I read both posts already, I was just posting a fo...I read both posts already, I was just posting a followup since the judge ruled against him and is forcing chemo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153752285225256482006-07-24T08:44:00.000-06:002006-07-24T08:44:00.000-06:00EricI discussed the case you mention in "Rational ...<B>Eric</B><BR/><BR/>I discussed the case you mention in <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/07/rational-choice-in-medical-treatment.html" REL="nofollow">"Rational Choice in Medical Treatment"</A> and in a <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/07/rational-choice-in-medical-treatment_19.html" REL="nofollow">follow-up post.</A>Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153746553852141702006-07-24T07:09:00.000-06:002006-07-24T07:09:00.000-06:00I know it's unrelated, but the 16 year old is bein...I know it's unrelated, but the 16 year old is being forced to take chemo.<BR/><BR/>http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=5187442&nav=0Rcx3aIN<BR/><BR/>And the wingnuts are jumping on board this ship.<BR/><BR/>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51203 - "Medical Terrorism"<BR/>http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2222394&page=1 "While traditional medicine says that chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplants are the only options available to treat cancer, there are a number of alternative treatments that say they are successful."<BR/>http://www.newstarget.com/019731.html "The Judge's decision to sentence Abraham Cherrix to chemotherapy against his wishes is nothing less than a death sentence by lethal injection, except that in this case, the patient must also foot the bill for the chemicals used. If Cherrix dies from the treatment, both the Judge and the oncologist must be charged with premeditated murder."<BR/><BR/>And if you wonder why people are so confused about medicine these days, check out abs news "health" section ( "Teenage forced into dangerous chemo", "Sunscreen in a pill", "1.5 million medical mistakes a year", "Look - shiny new pills!" ).<BR/><BR/>http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153744784380087122006-07-24T06:39:00.000-06:002006-07-24T06:39:00.000-06:00Hume's GhostRandom Points:(1) On the issue of whet...<B>Hume's Ghost</B><BR/><BR/>Random Points:<BR/><BR/>(1) On the issue of whether Bush went through enough effort to morally justify the attack on Iraq, and properly weighed other options, I agree that he did not. Indeed, I have criticized the lack of "due process" -- processes that aim to prevent preventable violence.<BR/><BR/>(2) I also agree that Bush "knowingly kills" far too easily. One would almost say that he views "knowingly killing" as morally unproblematic. That is a fault.<BR/><BR/>(3) Singer is a hard-core act utilitarian. (Specifically, he comes across as a preference-satisfying act utilitarian.) Utilitarians only look at consequences, and does not care how those consequences are brought about. The distinction between knowingly and intentionally killing does not tend to register as having moral significance for act-utilitarians. Dead is dead.<BR/><BR/>Singer identifies himself as a preference utilitarian. However, I think he equivocates between two different conceptions of preference utilitarianism; (1) Preference-satisfying act utilitarianism, and (2) A form of preference utilitarianism that would be like the desire utilitarianism that I defend -- those preferences are good that tend to maximize the satisfaction of other preferences.<BR/><BR/>I have never been able to find a detailed mata-theoretical development of preference utilitarianism in Singer's work. For example, he never makes any attempt to define what a preference is as far as I can tell. So, it is hard to say exactly what he would say.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153724784040740982006-07-24T01:06:00.000-06:002006-07-24T01:06:00.000-06:00Ok, now I understand what you were saying.It might...Ok, now I understand what you were saying.<BR/><BR/>It might be unfair to charge Singer thusly on account that I only plucked one paragraph of one section of an entire 30 page segment dedicated to examining the "Culture of Life" ethics of the President. That quote was in regards to the US decision to bomb a restaurant in a civilian neighborhood that Saddamm was thought to be in, with the deaths of civilians being assured in advance of the bombing. The error might be mine in providing that quote without the context.<BR/><BR/>I believe Singer was saying that in both instances, the moral agent, doesn't intend to kill innocent life, but knows that its actions will kill innocent life. From a morally absolute position, one could not do one and not the other.<BR/><BR/>I don't necessarily think you are wrong about with your criticism of Singer's claim that the stem cell research could claim killing an embryo was a side effect of extacting cells is tortured reasoning, but Singer was attempting to say that the example of deciding to bomb the building Saddam was in was knowingly and intentionally killing civilians. The preceding paragraph, sought to address that point:<BR/><BR/><B>Some moralists might argue that one can oppose killing embryos for research, but accept the deaths of civilians in war, because the former are intended, but the latter are not. That view, however, places more weight on the difference between "foreseeable" and "intended" deaths than that distinction can bear. Moralists who support the distinction usually say that whether you intended an outcome of your action can be determined b asking if you would have acted as you did if you believed that the outcome would not have occurred. So, for example, Bush could truthfully say that he would have bombed the restaurant jin which Saddam was believed tobe even if that would not have killed any civilians. But similarly, the scientist who seeks to derive stem cells from embryos could say that they would have extracted the stem cells even if that procedure did not result in the deth of the embryo. In neither case would deths be intended, according to this test.</B><BR/><BR/>That's why I have difficulty seeing the straw-man involved. He could be wrong, but it wouldn't be because he gave a weak version of Bush's ethics, it would be because he made an error in his evaluation.<BR/><BR/>I believe Singer would say that there is a moral distinction between killing innocent children for research purposes and knowingly killing innocent civilians in Iraq, but one has to undergo certian steps for that distinction to arise.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, earlier he had written Bush had failed to give the issue the consideration in the first place that would allow him to say that he was doing everything possible to value the lives of innocents. Indeed, Singer noted that in Just War THeory, once you get past the difference of knowingly (sometimes justified) and intentionally (never justified) killing, one has to consider the proportionality of the act. Plus, it should be noted that this is Singer's weakest objection to the ethics of the President in this regard, his primary point in the chapter is that embryos without thoughts, desire, and, in most instances, a future, are being disproportiantely valued over lives of people who have such things (if Singer had made this jump without addressing the other points, I would agree it was straw-man,)<BR/><BR/>And I hope you didn't take my original comment to be a defense of Stewart's ridicule ... I suggested Singer for the very reason you mention at the end. He treats the issue as a serious moral examination; when one does that, a person reading that can benefit even if the individual is wrong.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.com