Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Aristotle

Expand Messages
  • Seth Dickson
    How come I never see Aristotle mentioned in Deistic literature? The Physics and Metaphysics taken together seems like a coherent, though not comprehensive,
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 18, 2002
      How come I never see Aristotle mentioned in Deistic literature? The
      Physics and Metaphysics taken together seems like a coherent, though
      not comprehensive, Deistic account of what God is and how it could
      be both trancendent and immanent.
    • tennvolunteer1
      Actually, Aristotle is out-dated. Aristotle was a believer in a geocentric universe, and taught his pupils this. He did say that we should be moderate in all
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 15, 2005
        Actually, Aristotle is out-dated. Aristotle was a believer in a
        geocentric universe, and taught his pupils this. He did say that we
        should be moderate in all things, but I've always wondered if that
        included moderation itself? Should we be moderate in moderation? When
        is it okay to indulgent?

        A blastocyst, which is what is used in stem cell research, does not
        have a nervous system or an individual personality, it is a five day
        old cell. It becomes a question of what is more valuable, a blastocyst
        or a functioning human being with emotions, loved ones, etc. A
        blastocyst will not automatically become a living, functioning human
        being if left alone either, 10-15% of all pregnancies end in
        miscarriage. I don't believe that cells have the same rights as
        functional human beings. You could make a case that late-term abortions
        are wrong, because you are talking about a fully formed person, but
        cells are not fully formed, what they might become in the future is
        irrelevant, what is relevant is that millions of lives could be saved
        due to these cells.

        As for the death penalty, I've always felt that it was a bit illogical.
        If someone is sentenced to life without parole, their punishment could
        conceivably last for 35 or 40 years. If someone is executed, then the
        punishment is over in like 10 seconds. Life without parole is actually
        a harsher penalty in that sense, because the punishment lasts much
        longer.
      • jgdisciple
        Regardless of the development of a blastocyst, the important point is that if allowed to run its natural course, it will inevitably grow into a human being.
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 15, 2005
          Regardless of the development of a blastocyst, the important point
          is that if allowed to run its natural course, it will inevitably
          grow into a human being. The pre-cognitive form of life (zygote,
          embryo, fetus, blastocyst, infant) has every right to life that a
          cognitive being has for this reason. Furthermore, if you're going
          to make arguments based on one life being "more important" than
          another, then you must state TO WHOM which life is more important.
          I doubt other lives would be more important to the human being that
          would result from the murdered blastocyst. You may remember the
          classic problem of killing one man to save more. Would you kill one
          man to save one hundred men? If you say yes, then this decision is
          predicated on your belief that the one hundred lives are more
          important than the life of the man you are going to kill. But this
          is not your decision to make. All human beings have the right to
          live, and only they can give this up by willingly sacrificing their
          life. Before a human being can sacrifice his life, though, he must
          fully be able to understand the consequences, the ideas of life, the
          sanctity of life, and the nature of sacrifice. These knowledges are
          not inborn, they are devoloped through education (in a broad sense,
          not just schooling), through experience, and through a development
          of higher mental functioning. Thus we reach the justification of an
          age of consent. A human being becomes fully developes into an adult
          and gains control of all the qualities of life he will ever have at
          a certain age. It is unclear where this age should be set. I
          believe 18 is too high, but I don't go off on the tangent of why I
          think that right now. Anyways, I oppose stem cell research for the
          above reasons. After a sperm meets an egg, a full human being with
          all rights to life will develop, and it is the rights of this future
          human being we must respect when we forego stem cell research. All
          human beings have the right to their own life regardless of how it
          impacts the lives of others.

          --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "tennvolunteer1" <tennvolunteer1@y...>
          wrote:
          > Actually, Aristotle is out-dated. Aristotle was a believer in a
          > geocentric universe, and taught his pupils this. He did say that
          we
          > should be moderate in all things, but I've always wondered if that
          > included moderation itself? Should we be moderate in moderation?
          When
          > is it okay to indulgent?
          >
          > A blastocyst, which is what is used in stem cell research, does
          not
          > have a nervous system or an individual personality, it is a five
          day
          > old cell. It becomes a question of what is more valuable, a
          blastocyst
          > or a functioning human being with emotions, loved ones, etc. A
          > blastocyst will not automatically become a living, functioning
          human
          > being if left alone either, 10-15% of all pregnancies end in
          > miscarriage. I don't believe that cells have the same rights as
          > functional human beings. You could make a case that late-term
          abortions
          > are wrong, because you are talking about a fully formed person,
          but
          > cells are not fully formed, what they might become in the future
          is
          > irrelevant, what is relevant is that millions of lives could be
          saved
          > due to these cells.
          >
          > As for the death penalty, I've always felt that it was a bit
          illogical.
          > If someone is sentenced to life without parole, their punishment
          could
          > conceivably last for 35 or 40 years. If someone is executed, then
          the
          > punishment is over in like 10 seconds. Life without parole is
          actually
          > a harsher penalty in that sense, because the punishment lasts much
          > longer.
        • tevistumulty
          An Aristotelian Final Cause argument, correct? So, you are suggesting that a raped woman should not be able to make the decision to terminate, because: 1)
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 15, 2005
            An Aristotelian "Final Cause" argument, correct? So, you are
            suggesting that a raped woman should not be able to make the decision
            to terminate, because:

            1) her life is not more important than the life of her baby (they are
            equal)

            2) only the aborted child would have the right to sacrifice his own
            life, and that would require the cognitive ability to make such a
            decision for himself.

            Consider this scenario: what if there was a medical condition that
            prevented the raped woman from being able to have an abortion during
            the entire period of gestation. If one were to argue that a woman
            should be allowed to abort a fetus produced by rape, you could carry
            that argument further and say that since she could not due this
            before birth, she should have the right to terminate the child after
            birth, so that she would not be further burdened.

            (this is just a scenario and a thought; all you pro-choicers calm
            down; I'm just throwing an idea out there...)

            Tevis

            --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "jgdisciple" <jgdisciple@y...> wrote:
            > Regardless of the development of a blastocyst, the important point
            > is that if allowed to run its natural course, it will inevitably
            > grow into a human being. The pre-cognitive form of life (zygote,
            > embryo, fetus, blastocyst, infant) has every right to life that a
            > cognitive being has for this reason. Furthermore, if you're going
            > to make arguments based on one life being "more important" than
            > another, then you must state TO WHOM which life is more important.
            > I doubt other lives would be more important to the human being that
            > would result from the murdered blastocyst. You may remember the
            > classic problem of killing one man to save more. Would you kill
            one
            > man to save one hundred men? If you say yes, then this decision is
            > predicated on your belief that the one hundred lives are more
            > important than the life of the man you are going to kill. But this
            > is not your decision to make. All human beings have the right to
            > live, and only they can give this up by willingly sacrificing their
            > life. Before a human being can sacrifice his life, though, he must
            > fully be able to understand the consequences, the ideas of life,
            the
            > sanctity of life, and the nature of sacrifice. These knowledges
            are
            > not inborn, they are devoloped through education (in a broad sense,
            > not just schooling), through experience, and through a development
            > of higher mental functioning. Thus we reach the justification of
            an
            > age of consent. A human being becomes fully developes into an
            adult
            > and gains control of all the qualities of life he will ever have at
            > a certain age. It is unclear where this age should be set. I
            > believe 18 is too high, but I don't go off on the tangent of why I
            > think that right now. Anyways, I oppose stem cell research for the
            > above reasons. After a sperm meets an egg, a full human being with
            > all rights to life will develop, and it is the rights of this
            future
            > human being we must respect when we forego stem cell research. All
            > human beings have the right to their own life regardless of how it
            > impacts the lives of others.
            >
            > --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "tennvolunteer1"
            <tennvolunteer1@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > Actually, Aristotle is out-dated. Aristotle was a believer in a
            > > geocentric universe, and taught his pupils this. He did say that
            > we
            > > should be moderate in all things, but I've always wondered if
            that
            > > included moderation itself? Should we be moderate in moderation?
            > When
            > > is it okay to indulgent?
            > >
            > > A blastocyst, which is what is used in stem cell research, does
            > not
            > > have a nervous system or an individual personality, it is a five
            > day
            > > old cell. It becomes a question of what is more valuable, a
            > blastocyst
            > > or a functioning human being with emotions, loved ones, etc. A
            > > blastocyst will not automatically become a living, functioning
            > human
            > > being if left alone either, 10-15% of all pregnancies end in
            > > miscarriage. I don't believe that cells have the same rights as
            > > functional human beings. You could make a case that late-term
            > abortions
            > > are wrong, because you are talking about a fully formed person,
            > but
            > > cells are not fully formed, what they might become in the future
            > is
            > > irrelevant, what is relevant is that millions of lives could be
            > saved
            > > due to these cells.
            > >
            > > As for the death penalty, I've always felt that it was a bit
            > illogical.
            > > If someone is sentenced to life without parole, their punishment
            > could
            > > conceivably last for 35 or 40 years. If someone is executed, then
            > the
            > > punishment is over in like 10 seconds. Life without parole is
            > actually
            > > a harsher penalty in that sense, because the punishment lasts
            much
            > > longer.
          • jgdisciple
            Tevis, while I most enthusiastically agree with your second point, I must disagree just as strongly with your first. As I said in my other post, any judgment
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 15, 2005
              Tevis, while I most enthusiastically agree with your second point, I
              must disagree just as strongly with your first. As I said in my
              other post, any judgment about the value of one's life by someone
              other than that person is irrelevant. The life belongs to that
              person, it is their place to assign value. Let's say that you own a
              parcel of land and to you it is worth 100,000 dollars. To me it is
              worth 50,000 dollars, so I think you should sell it to me for this
              much. Does my opinion matter? No, it is your land, and your right
              to set the price of it. Furthermore, the values of two lives in the
              eyes of any particular individual need not be equal. If I love my
              wife very much, I may sacrifice my life for hers, but I may not
              sacrifice my life for a stranger. My wife's life is worth more to
              me than the stranger's. Since lives are clearly not equal in the
              eyes of any particular individual, and because a concept of value
              only makes sense in relation to an individual (if X has value, then
              X has value TO SOMEBODY), then how can we consider tow lives to have
              equal value? Does this statement have any meaning?

              --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "tevistumulty" <tevistumulty@y...>
              wrote:
              > An Aristotelian "Final Cause" argument, correct? So, you are
              > suggesting that a raped woman should not be able to make the
              decision
              > to terminate, because:
              >
              > 1) her life is not more important than the life of her baby (they
              are
              > equal)
              >
              > 2) only the aborted child would have the right to sacrifice his
              own
              > life, and that would require the cognitive ability to make such a
              > decision for himself.
              >
              > Consider this scenario: what if there was a medical condition that
              > prevented the raped woman from being able to have an abortion
              during
              > the entire period of gestation. If one were to argue that a woman
              > should be allowed to abort a fetus produced by rape, you could
              carry
              > that argument further and say that since she could not due this
              > before birth, she should have the right to terminate the child
              after
              > birth, so that she would not be further burdened.
              >
              > (this is just a scenario and a thought; all you pro-choicers calm
              > down; I'm just throwing an idea out there...)
              >
              > Tevis
              >
              > --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "jgdisciple" <jgdisciple@y...> wrote:
              > > Regardless of the development of a blastocyst, the important
              point
              > > is that if allowed to run its natural course, it will inevitably
              > > grow into a human being. The pre-cognitive form of life
              (zygote,
              > > embryo, fetus, blastocyst, infant) has every right to life that
              a
              > > cognitive being has for this reason. Furthermore, if you're
              going
              > > to make arguments based on one life being "more important" than
              > > another, then you must state TO WHOM which life is more
              important.
              > > I doubt other lives would be more important to the human being
              that
              > > would result from the murdered blastocyst. You may remember the
              > > classic problem of killing one man to save more. Would you kill
              > one
              > > man to save one hundred men? If you say yes, then this decision
              is
              > > predicated on your belief that the one hundred lives are more
              > > important than the life of the man you are going to kill. But
              this
              > > is not your decision to make. All human beings have the right
              to
              > > live, and only they can give this up by willingly sacrificing
              their
              > > life. Before a human being can sacrifice his life, though, he
              must
              > > fully be able to understand the consequences, the ideas of life,
              > the
              > > sanctity of life, and the nature of sacrifice. These knowledges
              > are
              > > not inborn, they are devoloped through education (in a broad
              sense,
              > > not just schooling), through experience, and through a
              development
              > > of higher mental functioning. Thus we reach the justification
              of
              > an
              > > age of consent. A human being becomes fully developes into an
              > adult
              > > and gains control of all the qualities of life he will ever have
              at
              > > a certain age. It is unclear where this age should be set. I
              > > believe 18 is too high, but I don't go off on the tangent of why
              I
              > > think that right now. Anyways, I oppose stem cell research for
              the
              > > above reasons. After a sperm meets an egg, a full human being
              with
              > > all rights to life will develop, and it is the rights of this
              > future
              > > human being we must respect when we forego stem cell research.
              All
              > > human beings have the right to their own life regardless of how
              it
              > > impacts the lives of others.
              > >
              > > --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "tennvolunteer1"
              > <tennvolunteer1@y...>
              > > wrote:
              > > > Actually, Aristotle is out-dated. Aristotle was a believer in
              a
              > > > geocentric universe, and taught his pupils this. He did say
              that
              > > we
              > > > should be moderate in all things, but I've always wondered if
              > that
              > > > included moderation itself? Should we be moderate in
              moderation?
              > > When
              > > > is it okay to indulgent?
              > > >
              > > > A blastocyst, which is what is used in stem cell research,
              does
              > > not
              > > > have a nervous system or an individual personality, it is a
              five
              > > day
              > > > old cell. It becomes a question of what is more valuable, a
              > > blastocyst
              > > > or a functioning human being with emotions, loved ones, etc. A
              > > > blastocyst will not automatically become a living, functioning
              > > human
              > > > being if left alone either, 10-15% of all pregnancies end in
              > > > miscarriage. I don't believe that cells have the same rights
              as
              > > > functional human beings. You could make a case that late-term
              > > abortions
              > > > are wrong, because you are talking about a fully formed
              person,
              > > but
              > > > cells are not fully formed, what they might become in the
              future
              > > is
              > > > irrelevant, what is relevant is that millions of lives could
              be
              > > saved
              > > > due to these cells.
              > > >
              > > > As for the death penalty, I've always felt that it was a bit
              > > illogical.
              > > > If someone is sentenced to life without parole, their
              punishment
              > > could
              > > > conceivably last for 35 or 40 years. If someone is executed,
              then
              > > the
              > > > punishment is over in like 10 seconds. Life without parole is
              > > actually
              > > > a harsher penalty in that sense, because the punishment lasts
              > much
              > > > longer.
            • tevistumulty
              Interesting...I will have to ponder that. Tevis ... I ... a ... the ... have ... that ... woman ... inevitably ... the ... kill ... decision ... life, ...
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 15, 2005
                Interesting...I will have to ponder that.

                Tevis


                --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "jgdisciple" <jgdisciple@y...> wrote:
                > Tevis, while I most enthusiastically agree with your second point,
                I
                > must disagree just as strongly with your first. As I said in my
                > other post, any judgment about the value of one's life by someone
                > other than that person is irrelevant. The life belongs to that
                > person, it is their place to assign value. Let's say that you own
                a
                > parcel of land and to you it is worth 100,000 dollars. To me it is
                > worth 50,000 dollars, so I think you should sell it to me for this
                > much. Does my opinion matter? No, it is your land, and your right
                > to set the price of it. Furthermore, the values of two lives in
                the
                > eyes of any particular individual need not be equal. If I love my
                > wife very much, I may sacrifice my life for hers, but I may not
                > sacrifice my life for a stranger. My wife's life is worth more to
                > me than the stranger's. Since lives are clearly not equal in the
                > eyes of any particular individual, and because a concept of value
                > only makes sense in relation to an individual (if X has value, then
                > X has value TO SOMEBODY), then how can we consider tow lives to
                have
                > equal value? Does this statement have any meaning?
                >
                > --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "tevistumulty" <tevistumulty@y...>
                > wrote:
                > > An Aristotelian "Final Cause" argument, correct? So, you are
                > > suggesting that a raped woman should not be able to make the
                > decision
                > > to terminate, because:
                > >
                > > 1) her life is not more important than the life of her baby (they
                > are
                > > equal)
                > >
                > > 2) only the aborted child would have the right to sacrifice his
                > own
                > > life, and that would require the cognitive ability to make such a
                > > decision for himself.
                > >
                > > Consider this scenario: what if there was a medical condition
                that
                > > prevented the raped woman from being able to have an abortion
                > during
                > > the entire period of gestation. If one were to argue that a
                woman
                > > should be allowed to abort a fetus produced by rape, you could
                > carry
                > > that argument further and say that since she could not due this
                > > before birth, she should have the right to terminate the child
                > after
                > > birth, so that she would not be further burdened.
                > >
                > > (this is just a scenario and a thought; all you pro-choicers calm
                > > down; I'm just throwing an idea out there...)
                > >
                > > Tevis
                > >
                > > --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "jgdisciple" <jgdisciple@y...>
                wrote:
                > > > Regardless of the development of a blastocyst, the important
                > point
                > > > is that if allowed to run its natural course, it will
                inevitably
                > > > grow into a human being. The pre-cognitive form of life
                > (zygote,
                > > > embryo, fetus, blastocyst, infant) has every right to life that
                > a
                > > > cognitive being has for this reason. Furthermore, if you're
                > going
                > > > to make arguments based on one life being "more important" than
                > > > another, then you must state TO WHOM which life is more
                > important.
                > > > I doubt other lives would be more important to the human being
                > that
                > > > would result from the murdered blastocyst. You may remember
                the
                > > > classic problem of killing one man to save more. Would you
                kill
                > > one
                > > > man to save one hundred men? If you say yes, then this
                decision
                > is
                > > > predicated on your belief that the one hundred lives are more
                > > > important than the life of the man you are going to kill. But
                > this
                > > > is not your decision to make. All human beings have the right
                > to
                > > > live, and only they can give this up by willingly sacrificing
                > their
                > > > life. Before a human being can sacrifice his life, though, he
                > must
                > > > fully be able to understand the consequences, the ideas of
                life,
                > > the
                > > > sanctity of life, and the nature of sacrifice. These
                knowledges
                > > are
                > > > not inborn, they are devoloped through education (in a broad
                > sense,
                > > > not just schooling), through experience, and through a
                > development
                > > > of higher mental functioning. Thus we reach the justification
                > of
                > > an
                > > > age of consent. A human being becomes fully developes into an
                > > adult
                > > > and gains control of all the qualities of life he will ever
                have
                > at
                > > > a certain age. It is unclear where this age should be set. I
                > > > believe 18 is too high, but I don't go off on the tangent of
                why
                > I
                > > > think that right now. Anyways, I oppose stem cell research for
                > the
                > > > above reasons. After a sperm meets an egg, a full human being
                > with
                > > > all rights to life will develop, and it is the rights of this
                > > future
                > > > human being we must respect when we forego stem cell research.
                > All
                > > > human beings have the right to their own life regardless of how
                > it
                > > > impacts the lives of others.
                > > >
                > > > --- In Deism@yahoogroups.com, "tennvolunteer1"
                > > <tennvolunteer1@y...>
                > > > wrote:
                > > > > Actually, Aristotle is out-dated. Aristotle was a believer in
                > a
                > > > > geocentric universe, and taught his pupils this. He did say
                > that
                > > > we
                > > > > should be moderate in all things, but I've always wondered if
                > > that
                > > > > included moderation itself? Should we be moderate in
                > moderation?
                > > > When
                > > > > is it okay to indulgent?
                > > > >
                > > > > A blastocyst, which is what is used in stem cell research,
                > does
                > > > not
                > > > > have a nervous system or an individual personality, it is a
                > five
                > > > day
                > > > > old cell. It becomes a question of what is more valuable, a
                > > > blastocyst
                > > > > or a functioning human being with emotions, loved ones, etc.
                A
                > > > > blastocyst will not automatically become a living,
                functioning
                > > > human
                > > > > being if left alone either, 10-15% of all pregnancies end in
                > > > > miscarriage. I don't believe that cells have the same rights
                > as
                > > > > functional human beings. You could make a case that late-term
                > > > abortions
                > > > > are wrong, because you are talking about a fully formed
                > person,
                > > > but
                > > > > cells are not fully formed, what they might become in the
                > future
                > > > is
                > > > > irrelevant, what is relevant is that millions of lives could
                > be
                > > > saved
                > > > > due to these cells.
                > > > >
                > > > > As for the death penalty, I've always felt that it was a bit
                > > > illogical.
                > > > > If someone is sentenced to life without parole, their
                > punishment
                > > > could
                > > > > conceivably last for 35 or 40 years. If someone is executed,
                > then
                > > > the
                > > > > punishment is over in like 10 seconds. Life without parole is
                > > > actually
                > > > > a harsher penalty in that sense, because the punishment lasts
                > > much
                > > > > longer.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.