Michelle wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:46 am
"$1 million for a life. I wonder how many thousands of lives that could save in many third-world countries...
Is it not plain arrogant and proud, and completely un-Christlike, to believe that using money for a 1% chance at improvement for a near-dead person is more important than saving the lives of thousands of children?"
You did it! You just distilled the entire argument into the difference between ethics and morals, force and agency, socialism and capitalism, relativism and absolute truth.
You just created a real life ethical situation to match the ethical "train on the track" question discussed in another thread.
It may be argued that allowing Charlie to die is ethical, because of all the lives the money could save, if not moral. Moral meaning submissive to God's law. You have decided that ethics trumps morals, that the importance of Life as an absolute truth is fallible and submissive to the reasoning of man.
You have asked Charlie's parents to pull the lever to put the train on the track where there son stands to save the passenger car from falling off the cliff and you have judged them as wrong for choosing their son!
You have said "agency only exists if you choose as I want you too, otherwise your agency will be delegated to those smarter, wiser, less emotionally attached than you."
You fail to understand that the million dollars they were given , were given voluntarily for a specific purpose and person: Charlie. Those same people, could have chosen to donate that money to third world countries. For all we know, they may do that too. But we do know in this case their purpose. Who are you to say that the "greater good" is better met by another worthy goal and that Charlie's parents should ignore the wishes of the donors (members of society) and use it for another purpose you, or any other person or group of people, deems more important?
You have sided with socialism. The good of society outweighs the needs of an individual in society. That you are a mathematical equation of a person whose worth is based in economics not eternal truths.
There was another group of socialists, socialist was actually a part of the name of the group, who made the same argument. They placed, based on their fallible reasoning, some individuals above another and allowed to die, or flat out killed those who ruined their "perfect" equation.
I know I am being very direct. This is not meant to be a slap down, but a wake up call. Considering my past experience with you, I'd be surprised if you read this far, but if you have, thank you. This post is just as much for JohnnyL as any other person who innocently wondered the same thing.
If relativism and socialism are ok in this instance, it is only a matter of time before you become their victim as well.