May 30, 2008: Uncontacted Indigenous People

[Flint]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

The moral weight of a preventable death is in no way contingent on the social group's ability to "deal with it as a fact of life."

This is true...if assuming a philosophical view of death as a "bad" thing. The temptation is to assume that everyone shares your worldview. And worse, if they don't, that you can say their view is "wrong" and yours is "right". I suppose you could say that this you are invoking something immutable; but I could also say "No, you aren't." Then we'd have a disagreement. The resolution to the disagreement isn't to just say you're "right" and I'm "wrong".

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Flint

This is true...if assuming a philosophical view of death as a "bad" thing.

If we can't agree that a preventable death is a bad thing, then I'm reasonably certain that we have no meaningful common ground from which to discuss anything of importance.

In which case, OMG, can you BELIEVE that David C won American Idol! LOL

[Flint]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

If we can't agree that a preventable death is a bad thing, then I'm reasonably certain that we have no meaningful common ground from which to discuss anything of importance.

You're so certain that your position is the correct one that you're not stopping to think about what I'm saying.

Is every preventable death the absolute right thing under every circumstance? Take a minute to ponder that.

What about a life unnaturally prolonged by life support machines or massive doses of toxic medications? What if the person is braindead? Then you have a QUALITY OF LIFE issue.

There is a trade-off to save that life. It isn't 100% right all the time; it isn't beyond discussion.

A "preventable death" means one thing to you, but it opens a big can of philosophical worms. Firstly, you can't prevent death. It's a part of life; there's a death for every birth. This is the natural order. You can DELAY death, but by what means? You will always bring about a set of related consequences.

The question is whether the trade-off is worth it, and you can only answer that question for yourself. You aren't a spokesperson for UNIVERSAL moral constructs.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Flint

You're so certain that your position is the correct one that you're not stopping to think about what I'm saying.

Likewise, I'm sure.

Is every preventable death the absolute right thing under every circumstance? Take a minute to ponder that.

It is perfectly reasonable to say "Pain is bad" and to also say "Pain, in some circumstances, is preferable to the alternative." My father is recovering from a painful surgery. The pain is bad. The pain is also preferable to the option of not having the surgery, and dying of cancer in 6 months. That doesn't make pain good, or neutral, it places it in a context where its value is outweighed by other competing factors.

Preventable death is bad. There may be some circumstances where it is preferable to the alternative, where competing factors make it morally allowable, or even the morally preferable option.

What about a life unnaturally prolonged by life support machines or massive doses of toxic medications? What if the person is braindead? Then you have a QUALITY OF LIFE issue.

There is a trade-off to save that life. It isn't 100% right all the time; it isn't beyond discussion.

While I appreciate the bold, I think you'll find that the discussion in these circumstances centers around whether the competing factors outweigh the inherent "badness" of the preventable death.

The exception is the braindead case, where the discussion is over whether simple organ-sustainment counts as life.

A "preventable death" means one thing to you, but it opens a big can of philosophical worms. Firstly, you can't prevent death. It's a part of life; there's a death for every birth. This is the natural order. You can DELAY death, but by what means? You will always bring about a set of related consequences.

Good god, has language lost all purpose? "Preventable Death" means a loss of life that could have been kept from happening. If you'd like to suggest an alternate meaning, please do so. Until then, let's assume that language works by lining up letters in a certain order to indicate a specific idea, like "prevent" or "death".

The question is whether the trade-off is worth it, and you can only answer that question for yourself. You aren't a spokesperson for UNIVERSAL moral constructs.

Well, I was, until UNIVERSAL moral constructs started bouncing their checks, and I had to go look for another gig. Damn hippies.

But, like I said, if we can't agree on the bare minimum that preventable death is "A Bad Thing," keeping in mind the clarifications given above, then I think we have no possibility of meaningful conversation about anything else.

Did you hear that Lindsey Lohan slept with Bobby Brown's son? OMG! That Brown family is out to ruin every good thing in hollywood LOL!!!!1!