‘Ethics’ Category Archives
The other day, 3,500-plus people took part in an “anti-Trump” march in Melbourne.
According to one organiser, “We’re not marching as an anti-Trump movement per se, we’re marching to protest the hate speech, the hateful rhetoric….”
Meanwhile, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, Australia’s Grand Mufti, wants section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act expanded to prohibit what he calls “hate speech” concerning his religion. In other words, he wants Australia to have a Pakistan-style blasphemy law.
No. No. The fact is, there’s nothing wrong with expressing hatred.
Some things we have got to hate.
Not people, but certain actions.
Think about childhood sexual abuse. Yes, punish the offenders — but don’t hate even them as persons.
God himself loves morally evil people — insofar as they are not completely evil.
He hates sin. He loves sinners.
We must try to do the same.
Victorian state MPs may soon participate in a “conscience vote” about legalising euthanasia by doctor-assisted suicide.
What do these people think “conscience” means?
For most it seems to mean “what I feel comfortable with”.
Being comfortable is a feeling — not the same as using one’s intelligence or willing good to another person.
If you’re uncomfortable witnessing somebody in a weakened or undignified state or having to bear incompletely-controlled pain, there’s a simple, only-too-obvious solution — kill that person or help him/her suicide.
Less convenient is the alternative — the attention to detail of good nursing and medication-dosage plus one-to-one spiritual support in facing the lonely truth of the situation.
Traditionally “conscience” means putting into practice what is one’s best understanding of Moral Truth — seeking the best possible fulfilment of the person of the sufferer, given the present situation.
Why? Because we love that person.
By contrast, killing is a cop-out.
In early 2016, a Victorian man with advanced tongue cancer was offered Nembutal (illegal lethal tablets) by euthanasia-promoting doctor, Dr Rodney Syme.
The patient’s GP complained and the Medical Board of Victoria put a ban on Dr Syme from practising end-of-life patient care – describing him as a “serious risk”.
Dr Syme appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which has reversed the ban.
Assisting a patient to commit suicide is against the law in Victoria and carries a 5-year prison sentence.
That is an excellent law, designed to protect vulnerable people from falling into the hands of the euthanasia types — while, hopefully, accessing care from proper palliative care doctors.
The Victorian government plans to reverse that law — a bad move which would endanger the frail, the despairing, the weak and the elderly.
The Victorian government — determined to introduce legalised euthanasia — assure us there will be strict “safeguards”.
Do they really believe those safeguards will be adhered to long-term?
Anyway, safeguards aren’t the point.
The problem with mercy-killing is that it is killing.
It isn’t “letting the patient die”. Or “letting the patient refuse treatment”. Those things are legal already.
Any act or omission which intentionally causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder.
On the other hand, discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate.
Using painkillers to alleviate sufferings, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be acceptable if death is not the intention, but is only foreseen and tolerated.
by Arnold Jago in Celebrities, Common Sense, Ethics, Politics
US President-elect Donald Trump is now sometimes being called Mr Trump.
Some commentators are even using his name without prefacing it with “misogynist-groper”, “populist-megalomaniac” (or “barking-mad” as per Mr Shorten).
They now concede that he does in fact have some economic and international policies — regarding trade protection, border-security etc.
On the ethical and humanitarian side, Mr Trump is certainly a breath of fresh air.
He has promised to appoint pro-life judges, to seek ways to curb internet porn — and to protect freedom of religion and one-man-one-woman marriage.
Human being-wise, his plusses trump any downsides he may have.
Recently ABC’s Four Corners featured an Amnesty International report on conditions for refugees on Nauru — describing them as “torture”.
It highlighted video of run-down hospital wards and unsanitary school toilets.
It’s now known that these pictures were unrepresentative of present conditions.
Doubtless, some aspects of life on Nauru are a bit rough, but by world standards they aren’t too bad.
ABC and AI seem to enjoy muckraking. Where there’s no muck they invent it.
AI’s original role in the 1960s was mobilising supporters to write letters requesting release of prisoners of conscience.
Now it’s less a grass-roots fighter for the underdog – more like an international corporation in the grievance business.
To AI, the right to life of the ultimate underdogs – unborn children – isn’t a human right that concerns them.
AI actively leans on governments around the world to promote unrestricted abortion.
At this moment, they’re interfering in the affairs of Chile, Poland, Zambia and Northern Ireland, for example.
While getting this basic black-and-white issue wrong, they’re unlikely to get much else right.