I have some major issues with the questions John Evans asked to determine "humanitarian attitudes". While all Bible-believing Christians should agree that the defining feature of humanity is that we bear the image of God, most of Mr. Evan's "ethical questions" strike me as personal liberty vs. government encroachment questions, not ethics.
First, "Should soldiers lives be risked to stop genocide in a foriegn country?" is assuming that the U.S is morally obligated to intervene in foriegn crises (I take it that Mr. Evans thinks 'yes' is the ethical answer to this question). The question fails to mention the cost of trillions of tax dollars (how much of a family's income can the government take before it is being immoral?), or the soldiers who die, etc etc.
The second question, "Should people be allowed to buy kidneys from the poor?" (emphasis mine) is even worse Once again, government involvement is implied. And the idea that poor people aren't smart enough to know what they should do with their own body parts strikes me as highly condescending. Add to that the fact that rich people who need kidneys die every year because they aren't allowed to buy them, and this seems like more than an "ethical question".
With "Should terminally ill patients commit suicide to save money?" we finally reach a non-loaded question. It doesn't ask if they should be allowed to, but only if they should. And we as Christians can say, no, human life is always valuable.
"Is it OK to take blood from prisoners without their consent?" seems pretty straighforward as well, the answer being no.
The last question, "Should terror suspects be tortured to potentially save lives?" (both emphases mine) is a haze of moral greyness. Mr. Evans doesn't define "torture" (sleep deprivation? stretched on the rack? waterboarding?), nor does he add clarity with his use of the word 'suspects' or 'potential'. If I may be permitted to ascend my soapbox, I would say that if a terrorist is guilty without a doubt and is known to possess crucial information that would certainly save lives, it would be morally justifiable to use 'enhanced' interrogation. I digress.
If you've actually read to the end of this comment, you may be a kindred spirit. And in case you didn't pick up on the fact, I'm a Classical Liberal.
-Seth, age 17
(Although I don't necessarily agree with all my son's points, I, too, was a bit confused by the questions for this research. They seem to include other issues rather than isolating humanitarianism. However, the study still led to the expected results! So maybe Seth and I are the only ones confused . . .
-Seth's mom)
GTPman
A a couple thoughts: (Dr?) Evans needs to eat like all of us, let him work for it; he might make more mischief if he were on the streets. I have known many grandmas who opine on many things, which one should we consult?
Brendan Bossard
Topdrive, that was a very diplomatic way of saying, "Well, DUH!" :)
BenArtM80
The last section titled "Water worry?" is a little confusing. From looking at the abstract from the Journal of Water and Health, it appears that water treated with synthetic flouride is linked to an increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes whereas naturally occuring flouride or water treated with natural flouride does not have the same effect.
Could you clarify the original post a little?
TxAgEngr
Thank you for sharing Mr. Evans' research with us. I suppose in a university community which is composed almost entirely of "scientific materialists", one has to show scientific research to make a point. It is not enough to just count the 110,000,000 dead bodies of the innocents left in the wake of the "scientific materialists" of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin, Hilter, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc.) to answer the question. As Aleksander Solzhenitsyn said about the disaster of communism, "Men have forgotten God: that's why all this has happened." America is foolishly heading down that same road.
I have some major issues with the questions John Evans asked to determine "humanitarian attitudes". While all Bible-believing Christians should agree that the defining feature of humanity is that we bear the image of God, most of Mr. Evan's "ethical questions" strike me as personal liberty vs. government encroachment questions, not ethics.
First, "Should soldiers lives be risked to stop genocide in a foriegn country?" is assuming that the U.S is morally obligated to intervene in foriegn crises (I take it that Mr. Evans thinks 'yes' is the ethical answer to this question). The question fails to mention the cost of trillions of tax dollars (how much of a family's income can the government take before it is being immoral?), or the soldiers who die, etc etc.
The second question, "Should people be allowed to buy kidneys from the poor?" (emphasis mine) is even worse Once again, government involvement is implied. And the idea that poor people aren't smart enough to know what they should do with their own body parts strikes me as highly condescending. Add to that the fact that rich people who need kidneys die every year because they aren't allowed to buy them, and this seems like more than an "ethical question".
With "Should terminally ill patients commit suicide to save money?" we finally reach a non-loaded question. It doesn't ask if they should be allowed to, but only if they should. And we as Christians can say, no, human life is always valuable.
"Is it OK to take blood from prisoners without their consent?" seems pretty straighforward as well, the answer being no.
The last question, "Should terror suspects be tortured to potentially save lives?" (both emphases mine) is a haze of moral greyness. Mr. Evans doesn't define "torture" (sleep deprivation? stretched on the rack? waterboarding?), nor does he add clarity with his use of the word 'suspects' or 'potential'. If I may be permitted to ascend my soapbox, I would say that if a terrorist is guilty without a doubt and is known to possess crucial information that would certainly save lives, it would be morally justifiable to use 'enhanced' interrogation. I digress.
If you've actually read to the end of this comment, you may be a kindred spirit. And in case you didn't pick up on the fact, I'm a Classical Liberal.
-Seth, age 17
(Although I don't necessarily agree with all my son's points, I, too, was a bit confused by the questions for this research. They seem to include other issues rather than isolating humanitarianism. However, the study still led to the expected results! So maybe Seth and I are the only ones confused . . .
-Seth's mom)
A a couple thoughts: (Dr?) Evans needs to eat like all of us, let him work for it; he might make more mischief if he were on the streets. I have known many grandmas who opine on many things, which one should we consult?
Topdrive, that was a very diplomatic way of saying, "Well, DUH!" :)
The last section titled "Water worry?" is a little confusing. From looking at the abstract from the Journal of Water and Health, it appears that water treated with synthetic flouride is linked to an increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes whereas naturally occuring flouride or water treated with natural flouride does not have the same effect.
Could you clarify the original post a little?
Thank you for sharing Mr. Evans' research with us. I suppose in a university community which is composed almost entirely of "scientific materialists", one has to show scientific research to make a point. It is not enough to just count the 110,000,000 dead bodies of the innocents left in the wake of the "scientific materialists" of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin, Hilter, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc.) to answer the question. As Aleksander Solzhenitsyn said about the disaster of communism, "Men have forgotten God: that's why all this has happened." America is foolishly heading down that same road.