Pledge Of Allegiance: "One Nation, Under God"

[TheAscendancy]

<p>

Hardly. Euthanasia is not a qualification on the right to life; it is questioning whether there is such a right at all. Euthanasia is taking the choice to live away from the individual; it is not PAS. In some countries it is practiced as a financial decision and/or as eugenics. It now extends far beyond terminal illness. It is literally a debate over whether someone has the right to decide to live. You cannot get more fundamental than that.

</p>

<p>You never addressed my point. If we were questioning right to life as a fundamental premise, why would we question it via euthanasia? Why wouldn’t we just question whether meaningless murder itself is wrong? Euthanasia remains a qualification. Even used in the eugenic context, it rests on the qualification that life begins at birth, not conception. Proponents of euthanasia, even in a eugenic context, wouldn’t advocate simply exterminating anyone without the ideal characteristics because there IS an implicit right to life. Yes, we could add endless qualifications that would, for all intents and purposes, distort, maybe even destroy our fundamental premise, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that the premise exists and the qualifications are (initially) within its framework.</p>

<p>

Furthermore, you are simply projecting your own belief system on everyone. You assume the right to life and qualify it. That does not mean everyone views it the same way. One could argue against the right to life except in the case of nonsensical murder, which would be a qualification. So your assumption of our right is an arbitrary one, as it could be viewed that one such qualification on the non-ideal of right to life is against senseless murder.

</p>

<p>Don’t spout mindless accusations. I’M not projecting MY beliefs. In fact, I’m a moral skeptic. I’m arguing from the viewpoint of our social contract, which explicitly assumes a vague ideal of right to life. Of course not everyone agrees with this ideal (I don’t either), but it’s in the social contract to which the constituents of society agreed – hence my viewpoint for this discussion.</p>

<p>

But the people who oppose gay marriage do not view it as a discrimination issue at all. Therefore the social contract and whatever ideal against discrimination there is within the population at large is only as relevant as people are willing to make it to this issue. So again, you are arrogantly asserting your own framework over everyone. This is not a discrimination issue simply because you say it is such. It is a particular case that in many people’s minds has no relevance to a larger ideal of non-discrimination.

</p>

<p>Exactly, it’s a matter of where non-discrimination starts and stops. If you were to ask those opposed to same-sex marriage about non-discrimination as a vague ideal, few would argue against it. It’s a qualification of non-discrimination in that proponents argue that bans on same-sex unions amount to discrimination and opponents argue that it does not; it’s a matter of drawing the boundaries.</p>

<p>

Quote:
After all, we MUST have SOME fundamental premise from which we can argue, otherwise debates wouldn’t center around (relatively speaking) pesky issues like same-sex union or euthanasia – they’d center around whether we believe the right to life or non-discrimination are valid ideals. However, we’ve naturally accepted the premise of non-discrimination, and we’re arguing within the framework in this specific discussion regarding homosexuality and whether non-discrimination applies to this situation.</p>

<p>See above.

</p>

<p>You never addressed this point.</p>

<p>

For someone who wants to talk about social contracts and the will of the populace in terms of ideals, you are not doing a very good job.

</p>

<p>Funny coming from a person arguing from an ethically relativistic standpoint, yet claiming to be a moral absolutist. Then upon what are YOUR beliefs founded? Arbitrary faith?</p>

<p>I’ve addressed the ideals in our social contract in terms of acknowledgment from society at large, and all you’ve done is claim that they’re arbitrary. Of course individuals can disagree with them, and of course they’re all ultimately arbitrary, but the fact of the matter remains: the constituents AGREE to them. As mentioned, without generally accepted moral premises, our debate wouldn’t center around euthanasia or same-sex unions, but it would rather be an attempt to rise above existential nihilism and determine the moral tenets upon which to found society in the first place.</p>

<p>Or maybe you just don’t understand social contracts and normative ethics?</p>