Click the link below to view the Hume's Fork video, for part of his criticism of the Cosmological Argument from Aquinas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmNfC_bQkR4
Thursday 29 November 2012
Thursday 23 August 2012
Do No Harm? Should Patients Still Trust Their Doctors?
h/t Zenit
Medical Journals Show Increasing Support for Euthanasia
By Denise J. Hunnell, MD
WASHINGTON, D.C., AUG. 22, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Primum non nocere. First do no harm. This edict has been part of medical ethics since the time of the ancient Greek physician, Hippocrates, in the fifth century B.C. It is found in the Hippocratic Corpus, a collection of medical writing attributed to Hippocrates. The original Hippocratic oath includes:
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
For millennia the physician has been charged with being an advocate for the patient. Part of the impetus for the original Hippocratic oath was to ensure that doctors would not be paid by an enemy to give poison instead of medicine. Patients should be able to come to their doctor when they are sick and weakened, and have no fear that their vulnerability will be exploited.
Unfortunately, the sacred trust of the doctor-patient relationship is being strained by a new ethical model. Physicians are being urged to place the "greater good" above the needs of their individual patients. A disregard for the sanctity of human life as well as a utilitarian philosophy that judges the value of a patient to society is becoming more mainstream in the medical profession. This is evidenced by the increasing number of articles in respected medical journals that call for approval of assisted suicide and euthanasia, euphemistically called "assisted dying."
The British Medical Journal (BMJ), a publication distributed to the members of the British Medical Association, devoted much of its June 14, 2012, issue to endorsing voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Raymond Tallis, emeritus professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Manchester, argues in this issue that respect for patient desires and autonomy renders irrelevant any opinion on the matter by the Royal College of Physicians or the British Medical Association. Therefore, all opposition to euthanasia is merely inappropriate paternalism and should be dropped.
In this same issue, Tess McPherson relates the difficult last days of her mother, Ann McPherson, and uses this painful experience as a call for legalized physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Rather than seeking better pain control, she argues that death is the best option for those suffering at the end of their lives.
Finally, Fiona Goodlee, editor in chief of the BMJ, rounds out the arguments by declaring that legalization of assisted dying is not a medical decision, but rather a societal question. She argues that the role of the physician is compatible with providing euthanasia or assisted suicide and if society wants it, they should get it.
Amid these scholarly endorsements of euthanasia come the claims of British physician Patrick Pullicino that the National Health Service (NHS) is effectively killing 130,000 patients every year when doctors place these patients on the Liverpool Care Protocol (LCP) and deny them nutrition and hydration. According to the Daily Mail:
Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an 'assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway'.
He cited 'pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients' as factors.
Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.
The medical literature from the United States also shows an increasing acceptance of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. The July 12, 2012, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) included an article by Dr. Lisa Soleymani Lehmann and Julian Prokopetz that suggested physician opposition to assisted dying was an unreasonable barrier to patients seeking lethal medications. They recommended that all patients who met the legal criteria for assisted suicide as outlined in the state laws of Oregon, Washington, and Montana should be able to obtain the drugs necessary for suicide without a physician's prescription or approval.
Perhaps the most chilling example is the enthusiastic endorsement in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) for the book Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation: Reconstructing Medical Ethics at the End of Life, by Drs. Franklin Miller and Robert Truog. This book seeks to do away with two core principles of medical care. The first is that a physician cannot intentionally cause the death of his patient. The second is that donors of vital organs for transplantation must be dead before the organs are harvested.
Catholic health care ethics, in accordance with natural law, holds that when the burden of life-sustaining extraordinary care such as a ventilator is greater than the benefit it provides, such care can be withdrawn. This is not seen as causing the death of the patient, but rather allowing the patient to die from his underlying illness. Miller and Truog disagree and assert that such an act directly causes the death of the patient. They then begin their descent down the slippery slope by claiming that if causing death by withdrawing life-sustaining care is acceptable, then active voluntary euthanasia by lethal injection should also be acceptable. Further, if voluntary euthanasia by injection is acceptable, then voluntary euthanasia by removal of vital organs to be used for transplantation should be equally acceptable. This radical argument could be disregarded as fringe thinking had it not been so prominently and positively recommended in JAMA.
It is reasonable to say that the notion that physicians should not kill their patients is still widespread among medical professionals. Indeed, several of the aforementioned authors take their colleagues to task for opposing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The growing numbers of prestigious medical journals that are routinely publishing support for all forms of "assisted dying" are, however, a clear indication that this approach to end of life "care" is making significant inroads in mainstream medical ethics. The foundational principles of health care that date back to Hippocrates are in jeopardy.
This has serious implications for patients. No longer can a patient assume that his physician has his best medical interests at heart. Now physicians are being urged to consider the cost to society of a patient's care and judge whether a patient is worthy of such expense. Instead of seeking to provide comfort and authentic compassion at the end of life, there is increased support for hastening death as an expedient solution to suffering.
It is now incumbent upon every patient to explore the ethical principles of his doctor. Does he uphold the sanctity of life from conception to natural death? Does he understand that treatments can be deemed burdensome, but human life is never burdensome? Does he view nutrition and hydration as ordinary care as long as a patient can derive a benefit from it? Does he reject all justifications for intentionally causing the death of his patients?
If your physician does not answer unequivocally "yes" to each of these questions, can you really trust him with your life?
* * *
Denise Hunnell, MD, is a Fellow of HLI America, an educational initiative of Human Life International. She writes for HLI America’s Truth and Charity Forum.
WASHINGTON, D.C., AUG. 22, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Primum non nocere. First do no harm. This edict has been part of medical ethics since the time of the ancient Greek physician, Hippocrates, in the fifth century B.C. It is found in the Hippocratic Corpus, a collection of medical writing attributed to Hippocrates. The original Hippocratic oath includes:
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
For millennia the physician has been charged with being an advocate for the patient. Part of the impetus for the original Hippocratic oath was to ensure that doctors would not be paid by an enemy to give poison instead of medicine. Patients should be able to come to their doctor when they are sick and weakened, and have no fear that their vulnerability will be exploited.
Unfortunately, the sacred trust of the doctor-patient relationship is being strained by a new ethical model. Physicians are being urged to place the "greater good" above the needs of their individual patients. A disregard for the sanctity of human life as well as a utilitarian philosophy that judges the value of a patient to society is becoming more mainstream in the medical profession. This is evidenced by the increasing number of articles in respected medical journals that call for approval of assisted suicide and euthanasia, euphemistically called "assisted dying."
The British Medical Journal (BMJ), a publication distributed to the members of the British Medical Association, devoted much of its June 14, 2012, issue to endorsing voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Raymond Tallis, emeritus professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Manchester, argues in this issue that respect for patient desires and autonomy renders irrelevant any opinion on the matter by the Royal College of Physicians or the British Medical Association. Therefore, all opposition to euthanasia is merely inappropriate paternalism and should be dropped.
In this same issue, Tess McPherson relates the difficult last days of her mother, Ann McPherson, and uses this painful experience as a call for legalized physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Rather than seeking better pain control, she argues that death is the best option for those suffering at the end of their lives.
Finally, Fiona Goodlee, editor in chief of the BMJ, rounds out the arguments by declaring that legalization of assisted dying is not a medical decision, but rather a societal question. She argues that the role of the physician is compatible with providing euthanasia or assisted suicide and if society wants it, they should get it.
Amid these scholarly endorsements of euthanasia come the claims of British physician Patrick Pullicino that the National Health Service (NHS) is effectively killing 130,000 patients every year when doctors place these patients on the Liverpool Care Protocol (LCP) and deny them nutrition and hydration. According to the Daily Mail:
Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an 'assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway'.
He cited 'pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients' as factors.
Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.
The medical literature from the United States also shows an increasing acceptance of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. The July 12, 2012, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) included an article by Dr. Lisa Soleymani Lehmann and Julian Prokopetz that suggested physician opposition to assisted dying was an unreasonable barrier to patients seeking lethal medications. They recommended that all patients who met the legal criteria for assisted suicide as outlined in the state laws of Oregon, Washington, and Montana should be able to obtain the drugs necessary for suicide without a physician's prescription or approval.
Perhaps the most chilling example is the enthusiastic endorsement in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) for the book Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation: Reconstructing Medical Ethics at the End of Life, by Drs. Franklin Miller and Robert Truog. This book seeks to do away with two core principles of medical care. The first is that a physician cannot intentionally cause the death of his patient. The second is that donors of vital organs for transplantation must be dead before the organs are harvested.
Catholic health care ethics, in accordance with natural law, holds that when the burden of life-sustaining extraordinary care such as a ventilator is greater than the benefit it provides, such care can be withdrawn. This is not seen as causing the death of the patient, but rather allowing the patient to die from his underlying illness. Miller and Truog disagree and assert that such an act directly causes the death of the patient. They then begin their descent down the slippery slope by claiming that if causing death by withdrawing life-sustaining care is acceptable, then active voluntary euthanasia by lethal injection should also be acceptable. Further, if voluntary euthanasia by injection is acceptable, then voluntary euthanasia by removal of vital organs to be used for transplantation should be equally acceptable. This radical argument could be disregarded as fringe thinking had it not been so prominently and positively recommended in JAMA.
It is reasonable to say that the notion that physicians should not kill their patients is still widespread among medical professionals. Indeed, several of the aforementioned authors take their colleagues to task for opposing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The growing numbers of prestigious medical journals that are routinely publishing support for all forms of "assisted dying" are, however, a clear indication that this approach to end of life "care" is making significant inroads in mainstream medical ethics. The foundational principles of health care that date back to Hippocrates are in jeopardy.
This has serious implications for patients. No longer can a patient assume that his physician has his best medical interests at heart. Now physicians are being urged to consider the cost to society of a patient's care and judge whether a patient is worthy of such expense. Instead of seeking to provide comfort and authentic compassion at the end of life, there is increased support for hastening death as an expedient solution to suffering.
It is now incumbent upon every patient to explore the ethical principles of his doctor. Does he uphold the sanctity of life from conception to natural death? Does he understand that treatments can be deemed burdensome, but human life is never burdensome? Does he view nutrition and hydration as ordinary care as long as a patient can derive a benefit from it? Does he reject all justifications for intentionally causing the death of his patients?
If your physician does not answer unequivocally "yes" to each of these questions, can you really trust him with your life?
* * *
Denise Hunnell, MD, is a Fellow of HLI America, an educational initiative of Human Life International. She writes for HLI America’s Truth and Charity Forum.
Friday 3 August 2012
A Soldier's View of Torture, Just War Principles
H/T to Zenit
Britain's Most Senior Ranking General Considers the Evils of War
By Edward Pentin
ROME, AUG. 2, 2012 (Zenit.org).- "My view is absolutely clear: torture is wrong and shouldn't be allowed, and people who torture should be apprehended, with the full force of law applied."
Speaking from his residence in London on July 20, Britain's most senior ranking general, Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, believes any use of torture is "very damaging" and does "more harm than good."
He also believes people "tend to tell you what you want to hear when being tortured" and it can seriously damage the reputation of countries such as the United States who pride themselves on upholding human rights.
The subject of torture was just one of several topics addressed by the 73-year-old veteran soldier who is a convert to Catholicism and a member of the Knights of Malta.
Before retiring in 2001, Lord Guthrie had served as a soldier in places such as Malaysia, Borneo, Yemen, Oman, Kenya and Northern Ireland. He was head of the British army during the Balkans War and then made head of Britain's armed forces between 1997 until 2001. He also served as a troop commander in Britain's special forces, the SAS, and headed the elite regiment from 2000 to 2009, before being raised to the rank of Field Marshal by Queen Elizabeth II in June of this year.
But throughout his distinguished military career, faith was always important and "hugely helpful" to him. "It gave you a spiritual, moral, and ethical background, and maybe a confidence which you may not have had otherwise," he explains. "But being in the military is not easy because you do have to make some terrible decisions sometimes."
Raised an Anglican, he married a Catholic but he wasn't received into the Church until he was in his 40s, relatively late because he wanted to be "absolutely sure" he was doing it for the right reasons.
"My father had become a Catholic when he was 68, and we were always that way inclined," he tells me. "We went to Church and all that, and it seemed to me that I would probably end up there." He was also influenced by friends who were priests and army chaplains, as well as a monk from the English Benedictine Abbey at Ampleforth.
Justice
Turning to just war tradition, a subject on which he wrote a book ("Just War - The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare by Charles Guthrie and Michael Quinlan" – published by Bloomsbury 2007), Lord Guthrie says Christians came "slightly late" to it, because, he suspects, most were probably pacifists, and outside the structures of the Roman Empire until Emperor Constantine became a Christian. From then on, they were forced to take responsibilities. "Suddenly we found we had to make decisions, and that wasn't easy, " he says, "but the philosophers and thinkers of the day had to wrestle with these problems."
But he is grateful for the Christian just war tradition as he is a firm believer in the need for principles in war. "People do behave very badly in armed conflict sometimes, but it does seem to me to be absolutely right that you have a moral compass which sets standards," he says. "There are certain parts of the tradition you really do have to think very, very carefully about before you move away from them."
He is particularly keen that military commanders have very good reasons to go to war, and that they be fully prepared for the consequences. "It's not good enough just because you want to punish somebody or revenge," he says. "You've got to actually think: what are the consequences going to be? Are you going to make things better?"
"Of course, war is evil," he continues. "War is a horrible thing, a disastrous thing, but sometimes there are things which are even worse, like genocide, the completely uncontrolled killing of innocent women and children." Moreover, he dismisses talk of martyrdom as a credible form of defense and resistance.
"I think it's crazy," he says. "If you had Attila the Hun coming and you had a country of 100,000 people, do you think it's a good idea to stand by and watch 100,000 people killed? That doesn't make any sense at all in the real world. I'm very suspicious of that, it just doesn't work, never has worked and I don't see why it should. But you don't want to go to war; you want to think very, very carefully about what it actually means."
Some military theorists, most notably the 19th century Prussian tactician Carl von Clausewitz, have argued that to win a war, maximum force, or "absolute war," must be used. That being the case, can a war ever be just if such a tactic is used? "You want to get the war over as quickly as possible," Lord Guthrie answers. "You don't want to kill any more people than you have to, and you want to protect people who are not actively engaged in the war, like women and children and non-combatants. But what is a non-combatant? Is, for instance, somebody working in a munitions factory? … You get into very difficult areas; these things aren't black and white at all."
Asked if the allied bombing of Dresden in the Second World War, in which thousands of civilians were killed, was just, he answers: "Dresden will always be very controversial. I think nowadays more and more of us think it wasn't right because we were winning the war anyhow. But if you had been involved, you might take a rather different view and I think it would be very wrong of us to condemn everybody who was involved." He also points out that London was indiscriminately bombed as well, resulting in the loss of over 40,000 lives.
Questions today
Turning to topical issues, the Field Marshal believes a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons "would be completely wrong" at the moment because it would make the situation worse. Similarly, he is firmly opposed to military intervention in Syria at the current time, believing it would further destabilise a country in a "very dangerous region."
Regarding the war in Afghanistan, the veteran soldier says he has "a problem" with the military operation as "people didn't really think of the consequences." But he believes the initial reasons for the intervention – to allow UK and US special forces to destroy the Al Qaeda camps -- were "perfectly lawful" and "morally right."
"I think that was achieved brilliantly," he said. "I would then question – and we come to unforeseen consequences again – should we not have just come home then?"
He frequently mentions the problem of unpredictability in war, and especially the difficulty of preparing for the aftermath of a conflict. "You've got to think: what are the consequences of what I'm going to do, and have a plan," he says. "It is difficult because soldiers are quite good at winning battles, but who is actually going to pick up the pieces? Soldiers aren't ideally trained to be policemen, civil lawyers, prison officers. Why should they be able to do it, really? And yet they're the only people around."
He says this was particularly true of the 1991 Iraq War when many argued the coalition forces should have marched onto Baghdad and ousted Saddam Hussein's regime. "It would have caused logistic problems … which I dare say could have been got round. But I think there were people in the United States who really didn't want to go on, and I can see why," he says.
"But of course by not going on, the second Iraq War became more likely."
* * *
Edward Pentin is a freelance journalist and can be reached at pentinzenit@gmail.com
Britain's Most Senior Ranking General Considers the Evils of War
By Edward Pentin
ROME, AUG. 2, 2012 (Zenit.org).- "My view is absolutely clear: torture is wrong and shouldn't be allowed, and people who torture should be apprehended, with the full force of law applied."
Speaking from his residence in London on July 20, Britain's most senior ranking general, Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, believes any use of torture is "very damaging" and does "more harm than good."
He also believes people "tend to tell you what you want to hear when being tortured" and it can seriously damage the reputation of countries such as the United States who pride themselves on upholding human rights.
The subject of torture was just one of several topics addressed by the 73-year-old veteran soldier who is a convert to Catholicism and a member of the Knights of Malta.
Before retiring in 2001, Lord Guthrie had served as a soldier in places such as Malaysia, Borneo, Yemen, Oman, Kenya and Northern Ireland. He was head of the British army during the Balkans War and then made head of Britain's armed forces between 1997 until 2001. He also served as a troop commander in Britain's special forces, the SAS, and headed the elite regiment from 2000 to 2009, before being raised to the rank of Field Marshal by Queen Elizabeth II in June of this year.
But throughout his distinguished military career, faith was always important and "hugely helpful" to him. "It gave you a spiritual, moral, and ethical background, and maybe a confidence which you may not have had otherwise," he explains. "But being in the military is not easy because you do have to make some terrible decisions sometimes."
Raised an Anglican, he married a Catholic but he wasn't received into the Church until he was in his 40s, relatively late because he wanted to be "absolutely sure" he was doing it for the right reasons.
"My father had become a Catholic when he was 68, and we were always that way inclined," he tells me. "We went to Church and all that, and it seemed to me that I would probably end up there." He was also influenced by friends who were priests and army chaplains, as well as a monk from the English Benedictine Abbey at Ampleforth.
Justice
Turning to just war tradition, a subject on which he wrote a book ("Just War - The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare by Charles Guthrie and Michael Quinlan" – published by Bloomsbury 2007), Lord Guthrie says Christians came "slightly late" to it, because, he suspects, most were probably pacifists, and outside the structures of the Roman Empire until Emperor Constantine became a Christian. From then on, they were forced to take responsibilities. "Suddenly we found we had to make decisions, and that wasn't easy, " he says, "but the philosophers and thinkers of the day had to wrestle with these problems."
But he is grateful for the Christian just war tradition as he is a firm believer in the need for principles in war. "People do behave very badly in armed conflict sometimes, but it does seem to me to be absolutely right that you have a moral compass which sets standards," he says. "There are certain parts of the tradition you really do have to think very, very carefully about before you move away from them."
He is particularly keen that military commanders have very good reasons to go to war, and that they be fully prepared for the consequences. "It's not good enough just because you want to punish somebody or revenge," he says. "You've got to actually think: what are the consequences going to be? Are you going to make things better?"
"Of course, war is evil," he continues. "War is a horrible thing, a disastrous thing, but sometimes there are things which are even worse, like genocide, the completely uncontrolled killing of innocent women and children." Moreover, he dismisses talk of martyrdom as a credible form of defense and resistance.
"I think it's crazy," he says. "If you had Attila the Hun coming and you had a country of 100,000 people, do you think it's a good idea to stand by and watch 100,000 people killed? That doesn't make any sense at all in the real world. I'm very suspicious of that, it just doesn't work, never has worked and I don't see why it should. But you don't want to go to war; you want to think very, very carefully about what it actually means."
Some military theorists, most notably the 19th century Prussian tactician Carl von Clausewitz, have argued that to win a war, maximum force, or "absolute war," must be used. That being the case, can a war ever be just if such a tactic is used? "You want to get the war over as quickly as possible," Lord Guthrie answers. "You don't want to kill any more people than you have to, and you want to protect people who are not actively engaged in the war, like women and children and non-combatants. But what is a non-combatant? Is, for instance, somebody working in a munitions factory? … You get into very difficult areas; these things aren't black and white at all."
Asked if the allied bombing of Dresden in the Second World War, in which thousands of civilians were killed, was just, he answers: "Dresden will always be very controversial. I think nowadays more and more of us think it wasn't right because we were winning the war anyhow. But if you had been involved, you might take a rather different view and I think it would be very wrong of us to condemn everybody who was involved." He also points out that London was indiscriminately bombed as well, resulting in the loss of over 40,000 lives.
Questions today
Turning to topical issues, the Field Marshal believes a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons "would be completely wrong" at the moment because it would make the situation worse. Similarly, he is firmly opposed to military intervention in Syria at the current time, believing it would further destabilise a country in a "very dangerous region."
Regarding the war in Afghanistan, the veteran soldier says he has "a problem" with the military operation as "people didn't really think of the consequences." But he believes the initial reasons for the intervention – to allow UK and US special forces to destroy the Al Qaeda camps -- were "perfectly lawful" and "morally right."
"I think that was achieved brilliantly," he said. "I would then question – and we come to unforeseen consequences again – should we not have just come home then?"
He frequently mentions the problem of unpredictability in war, and especially the difficulty of preparing for the aftermath of a conflict. "You've got to think: what are the consequences of what I'm going to do, and have a plan," he says. "It is difficult because soldiers are quite good at winning battles, but who is actually going to pick up the pieces? Soldiers aren't ideally trained to be policemen, civil lawyers, prison officers. Why should they be able to do it, really? And yet they're the only people around."
He says this was particularly true of the 1991 Iraq War when many argued the coalition forces should have marched onto Baghdad and ousted Saddam Hussein's regime. "It would have caused logistic problems … which I dare say could have been got round. But I think there were people in the United States who really didn't want to go on, and I can see why," he says.
"But of course by not going on, the second Iraq War became more likely."
* * *
Edward Pentin is a freelance journalist and can be reached at pentinzenit@gmail.com
Monday 2 July 2012
Suggested reading list
Some suggested optional reading for Yr 11 into Yr 12
for Philosophy and Ethics A Level students
- Sophie's World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy, Jostein Gaarder
- ISBN-10: 1857992911
- ISBN-13: 978-1857992915
- The God of Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Roy Jackson
- ISBN-10: 0953761118
- ISBN-13: 978-0953761111
- A Little History of Philosophy, Nigel Warburton
- ISBN-10: 0300152086
- ISBN-13: 978-0300152081
- The Puzzle of Ethics, Peter Vardy
- ISBN-10: 0006281443
- ISBN-13: 978-0006281443
Monday 11 June 2012
Screening breakthrough could lead to eugenics, says pro-life group (ht The Catholic Herald website)
A new breakthrough in foetal screening could lead “down the path of eugenics”, a pro-life group said today.
The charity Life said that a “real danger exists” that such genetic testing could lead to wide-scale abortion for disability.
The prenatal test, which is able to predict a foetus’s genetic code as early as 18 weeks, will allow unborn babies to be screened for 3,500 genetic disorders.
Scientists from the University of Washington believe the test, which raises many ethical questions, will become widely available in the future.
Currently more than 2,000 disabled unborn children are aborted every year in Britain, a figure that Life said could increase.
Life spokesman Mark Bhagwandin said: “How can it be that in this modern age of equality and non-discrimination thousands of babies are being screened and aborted because they are genetically defective?”
Down’s syndrome is currently the only genetic disorder routinely tested for on the NHS. The American scientists say the tests will be a considerable improvement on the existing invasive method of screening.
While recognizing “the positive potential that these new tests may bring”, Life said they could be misused.
But the tool of genetic screening itself is not a detrimental factor, “it is how it is wielded”, said Mr Bhagwandin.
Mr Bhagwandin also said that genetics were not the whole picture.
He said: “Human beings are greater than the sum of their genes and science cannot yet measure what makes us truly human – courage, compassion, creativity.”
By Francesca Gillett on Friday, 8 June 2012
Friday 27 April 2012
Year 13 schedule of lessons and input as at 27.04.12
Mon 30th
– double –essay on miracles
Tues 1st
– single – MC away
Thurs 3rd
– double – George on Virtue Eth
Fri 4th
– double
Tues 8th
– single
Thurs 10th
– double –
Fri 11th
– double – Olivia on Revelation
Mon 14th
– double – George on Conscience
Tues 15th
– single –
Thurs 17th
– double – Sam H on Life and Death
Fri 18th
– double – Chris G on Miracles
Mon 21st
– double – Sam S on Sexual ethics
Tues 22nd
– single –
Thurs 24th
– double –
Fri 25th
– double –
Saturday 14 April 2012
Richard Dawkins and George Cardinal Pell in an Australian TV debate – excellent
Of general interest but of particular interest to those
studying AS, this televised debate is excellent. I suggest all AS students
watch and note its content for assistance with the Science and Religion
chapter.
Click here: Dawkins & Pell
Click here: Dawkins & Pell
Below is a rough guide to
the debate using the questions being asked by the audience to move through the content.
1.20
Is goodness
dependent on God?
5.40
Why bother
being good?
7.20
Without
religion aren’t we only left with Darwinian survival of the fittest?
14.0
Mr Dawkins –
are you an atheist or an agnostic?
21.0
How does the ‘Big
Bang’ create ex nihilo?
28.40
Cardinal Pell
clarify the dichotomy between science and religion
And clarify the concept of the soul (31.20)
38.40
Why does Cardinal
Pell require different standards of evidence for the issue of climate change
and the existence of God?
41.0
What happens
to atheists after death?
47.18
Is it OK to
teach children that God does not exist?
50.10
Why is there
suffering?
54.45
How can the
Catholic Church oppose ‘gay marriage’?
57.80 Are there health benefits to belief?
Friday 16 March 2012
Exam dates: May 16th and 31st
On May 16th and
31st luck should not be in anybody’s mind. It really is time to be
getting on with genuine revision.
Eight and a half weeks ‘til
AS
Ten and a half ‘til A2
'The Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James.
The American novelist Henry James famously made London his home and
himself more English than the English. In contrast, his psychologist
brother, William, was deeply immersed in his American heritage.
But in 1901, William came to Britain.
He had been invited to deliver a series of prestigious public lectures in Edinburgh.
In them, he attempted a daringly original intellectual project.
For the first time, here was a close-up examination of religion not
as a body of beliefs, but as an intimate personal experience.
When the lectures were printed, as 'The Varieties of Religious Experience', they were an instant success.
They laid the ground for a whole new area of study - the psychology
of religion - and influenced figures from the psychiatrist Carl Jung to
the novelist Aldous Huxley.
To date, James's book has been reprinted thirty-six times and has
been hailed as one of the best non-fiction books of the twentieth
century.
With:
Jonathan Ree, Freelance philosopher
John Haldane, Professor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews
Gwen Griffith-Dickson, Emeritus Professor of Divinity at Gresham College and Director of the Lokahi Foundation
John Haldane, Professor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews
Gwen Griffith-Dickson, Emeritus Professor of Divinity at Gresham College and Director of the Lokahi Foundation
Click the link below to listen to the podcast
Saturday 10 March 2012
Abortion and Infanticide - Re-discovering the Slippery Slope
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, MARCH 9, 2011.- "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
While this quote from “Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There” is from a work of fiction, it is an apt way to depict the article published on Feb. 23 in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled: “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”
Authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, academics based in Melbourne, Australia, argued that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
Abortion is routinely permitted when the fetus is suffering from some type of defect or disease, or even for economic, social and psychological reasons, they said. And in Holland, under the 2002 Groningen Protocol newborns who have a “hopeless prognosis” may be killed.
Instead of the universally accepted term of infanticide to describe such a procedure they argued in favor of their neologism, “after-birth abortion.”
"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual,” they claimed.
They did not put any limit as to how long after birth this so-called abortion should be permitted, aside from noting that normally any disability would be detected in a matter of days. When the justification is on non-medical grounds they also omitted any time period, saying it just depended on the neurological development of newborns.
Reasoned engagement
Not surprisingly their article elicited a great deal of criticism. In reaction to this, in the journal’s blog on Feb. 20, Julian Savulescu, the editor of the journal, said their proposal of “after-birth abortion” was not disturbing, but what was disturbing were the hostile responses to what he termed “any kind of reasoned engagement.”
In an open letter penned by the article’s authors, published March 2 on the journal’s Web site, they proclaimed their astonishment at the hostile reactions, saying: “It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic.”
Their tactic of describing the article as an intellectual exercise was anticipated by Bill Muehlenberg in an article posted the day before on the Australian Web site On Line Opinion.
“Decades prior to the Holocaust there were many academic positions and pronouncements which prepared the way for what Hitler and the Nazis did,” he pointed out.
“Using the classroom and scholarly journals to make the case – coolly and calmly – for baby killing is not an indication of professionalism and progress,” he argued. “It is a sign of barbarism and regress.”
Ideas have consequences, argued Trevor Stammers in an article published March 5 on the Web site Mercator Net.
“To put it in plain English, every social revolution begins with an idea and Giubilini and Minerva’s ideas are no exception and have every relevance in the world beyond academia,” he said.
As a parent of a Down syndrome child, their arguments disgust me, declared David Warren, writing in the March 2 edition of the Canadian newspaper, The Ottawa Citizen.
It’s true, he admitted, that others such as ethicist Peter Singer have previously advocated infanticide. Then again, he pointed out, Singer also advocates the acceptance of bestiality.
“Kill babies and sleep with apes: it’s fine with the ethics mob,” was the title of Rod Liddle’s article in last weekend’s Sunday Times. Describing the article as a flawed rendition of Peter Singer’s position, Liddle ridiculed it, saying it lacked not only common sense, but any logic.
In Scotland on Sunday, commentator Gerald Warner noted that: “the most dangerous place on earth for a Scottish baby is its mother’s womb. In 2010, infant mortality claimed the lives of 218 babies; abortion killed 12,826.”
Ethical nihilism
While the advocacy of “after-birth abortion” might be a good example of what he termed “ethical nihilism,” he observed that the authors had, in fact, helped the pro-life cause. “It abandons the weasel euphemisms, lies and anti-scientific impostures of the pro-abortion lobby and calls a spade a spade,” he said.
Writing in Australia’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, Andrew Bolt said: “Indeed, there is no obvious boundary once you've rubbed out the absolute line in the sand: Thou shalt not kill the baby in the womb.”
The slippery slope does exist, he argued, and this case shows just how slippery it can become.
On March 7, Barney Zwartz, religion editor of the Age newspaper in Melbourne, Australia, said that a fatal step was taken in the debate about life when “quality of life” was allowed to replace the value of life in such discussions.
Also the father of a child with Down, he said that: “Nor is it any justification to claim one is following logic. Logic is a tool, whose usefulness depends on the premises with which it works; it is not a good in itself.”
Those upholding firm moral principles are criticized as being overly “rigid.” This latest episode shows what being “flexible” comes to when dealing with fundamental moral principles.
ROME, MARCH 9, 2011.- "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
While this quote from “Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There” is from a work of fiction, it is an apt way to depict the article published on Feb. 23 in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled: “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”
Authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, academics based in Melbourne, Australia, argued that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
Abortion is routinely permitted when the fetus is suffering from some type of defect or disease, or even for economic, social and psychological reasons, they said. And in Holland, under the 2002 Groningen Protocol newborns who have a “hopeless prognosis” may be killed.
Instead of the universally accepted term of infanticide to describe such a procedure they argued in favor of their neologism, “after-birth abortion.”
"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual,” they claimed.
They did not put any limit as to how long after birth this so-called abortion should be permitted, aside from noting that normally any disability would be detected in a matter of days. When the justification is on non-medical grounds they also omitted any time period, saying it just depended on the neurological development of newborns.
Reasoned engagement
Not surprisingly their article elicited a great deal of criticism. In reaction to this, in the journal’s blog on Feb. 20, Julian Savulescu, the editor of the journal, said their proposal of “after-birth abortion” was not disturbing, but what was disturbing were the hostile responses to what he termed “any kind of reasoned engagement.”
In an open letter penned by the article’s authors, published March 2 on the journal’s Web site, they proclaimed their astonishment at the hostile reactions, saying: “It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic.”
Their tactic of describing the article as an intellectual exercise was anticipated by Bill Muehlenberg in an article posted the day before on the Australian Web site On Line Opinion.
“Decades prior to the Holocaust there were many academic positions and pronouncements which prepared the way for what Hitler and the Nazis did,” he pointed out.
“Using the classroom and scholarly journals to make the case – coolly and calmly – for baby killing is not an indication of professionalism and progress,” he argued. “It is a sign of barbarism and regress.”
Ideas have consequences, argued Trevor Stammers in an article published March 5 on the Web site Mercator Net.
“To put it in plain English, every social revolution begins with an idea and Giubilini and Minerva’s ideas are no exception and have every relevance in the world beyond academia,” he said.
As a parent of a Down syndrome child, their arguments disgust me, declared David Warren, writing in the March 2 edition of the Canadian newspaper, The Ottawa Citizen.
It’s true, he admitted, that others such as ethicist Peter Singer have previously advocated infanticide. Then again, he pointed out, Singer also advocates the acceptance of bestiality.
“Kill babies and sleep with apes: it’s fine with the ethics mob,” was the title of Rod Liddle’s article in last weekend’s Sunday Times. Describing the article as a flawed rendition of Peter Singer’s position, Liddle ridiculed it, saying it lacked not only common sense, but any logic.
In Scotland on Sunday, commentator Gerald Warner noted that: “the most dangerous place on earth for a Scottish baby is its mother’s womb. In 2010, infant mortality claimed the lives of 218 babies; abortion killed 12,826.”
Ethical nihilism
While the advocacy of “after-birth abortion” might be a good example of what he termed “ethical nihilism,” he observed that the authors had, in fact, helped the pro-life cause. “It abandons the weasel euphemisms, lies and anti-scientific impostures of the pro-abortion lobby and calls a spade a spade,” he said.
Writing in Australia’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, Andrew Bolt said: “Indeed, there is no obvious boundary once you've rubbed out the absolute line in the sand: Thou shalt not kill the baby in the womb.”
The slippery slope does exist, he argued, and this case shows just how slippery it can become.
On March 7, Barney Zwartz, religion editor of the Age newspaper in Melbourne, Australia, said that a fatal step was taken in the debate about life when “quality of life” was allowed to replace the value of life in such discussions.
Also the father of a child with Down, he said that: “Nor is it any justification to claim one is following logic. Logic is a tool, whose usefulness depends on the premises with which it works; it is not a good in itself.”
Those upholding firm moral principles are criticized as being overly “rigid.” This latest episode shows what being “flexible” comes to when dealing with fundamental moral principles.
Friday 2 March 2012
Exam deadlines and revision
11 weeks ‘til AS
13 weeks ‘til A2
You really do need to be getting on with revision, even if
only for your timed essays.
You have had the specification many times from me, if you
still don’t have easy access to it either go to the website and get a copy or
see me.
“Know your enemy”
Thursday 1 March 2012
Multiple Births: When 'Supply' Exceeds 'Demand'
What's to Come of Treating Children as Commodities?
By Dr. Rebecca Oas
Seventy-five years later, Nadya Suleman, a single mother of six in California, gave birth to octuplets and became infamously known as the "Octomom," following in vitro fertilization (IVF) conducted by a doctor whose license was subsequently revoked. Throughout human history, multiple births have been regarded with interest, sometimes bordering on morbid fascination as we approach and surpass the known limits of human reproductive capability, now with the assistance of novel scientific interventions.
Part of what makes multiple births interesting is their relative rarity. Within the United States Canada and Japan
Advancing medical technologies in the latter half of the 20th century have greatly reduced the level of infant mortality in general, and notably among multiple births as well. Between 1960 and the early 1980s, mortality rates among triplets and higher order multiples decreased by approximately 50% (5), which signaled that while such children were likely to require special care to survive, their survival was increasingly likely. Nevertheless, given the inherent hazards of being a twin or triplet as opposed to being a singleton, it follows that care must be taken wherever possible to not artificially increase the likelihood of multiple births, given the medical risks to the unborn children, as well as their mothers. To put this in terms of Catholic teaching, as the 1987 instruction Donum Vitae reminds us, the life and integrity of unborn children must be respected and not subjected to disproportionate risks, whether diagnostic or therapeutic (6).
A further matter of concern involves the underlying causes of the reported increase in multiple births in the last three decades. The studies from the United States , Canada , and Japan Japan United States
There is no doubt that reproduction is an industry, and a very lucrative one, at that. The costs of IVF run in the tens of thousands of American dollars for a single attempt, and the woman must receive regular hormone injections and undergo invasive procedures to both retrieve eggs and transfer embryos into her uterus. Given the physical and financial toll exerted by IVF, prospective parents and medical professionals place a great deal of emphasis on achieving a successful birth with as few attempts as possible. Therefore, it is common to transfer more than one embryo at a time, in the hopes that at least one will survive. In the event of the survival of multiple embryos, or if the embryos further divide in a case of identical twinning, the parents are offered the option of a "selective reduction," in which one or more of the foetuses is aborted.
The argument used to support this practice is that the fewer the number of babies, the better the projected outcome for the survivor(s). In other words, even if a mother would be happy to accept twins or triplets, she may be counselled to "reduce" the number of her children for fear that she might be more likely to miscarry and lose the entire pregnancy. Sadly, this barbaric practice is being increasingly recommended not only for higher-order multiples, but also for twins, including those which occur naturally (7). In an opinion piece in Newsweek, a doctor justified his practice of performing reductions by asserting that "lots of lives are at risk" -- yet further admitted that he takes parents' gender preferences into consideration when deciding who lives and who dies (8).
Just as medical advances are being abused to produce children as commodities, they are likewise being abused to destroy those children when the "supply" is perceived as being greater than the "demand." Researchers, medical professionals, and ethicists alike are working to establish standards regarding the number of embryos transferred in IVF, and there is broad condemnation of those who ignore all standards and recklessly endanger patients and their children, such as the doctor responsible for Ms. Suleman's shocking case.
A recent article in the journal Fertility and Sterility reports a novel way to screen unfertilized oocytes (eggs) to determine which would be more likely to produce viable embryos once fertilized (9). This method, if successful, might be used to strengthen the argument for single-embryo transfer in IVF, and since the test is performed prior to fertilization, it might potentially reduce the number of embryos being generated in vitro and subsequently frozen. However, this discovery, as well as all other efforts to "perfect" IVF, are insufficient inasmuch as they fail to address the core problem with the fertility industry: the removal of the procreation of human life from the context of the marital embrace is an affront to the dignity of the couple, and to produce children on-demand as commodities is an affront to their dignity as human beings.
While every child born is cause for celebration, the sharp increase in multiple births is cause for sober reflection since we have identified assisted reproductive technology as a major contributing cause for this increase. On the one hand, medical advances have made it possible for more sets of multiples to be born and survive infancy than ever before in human history. On the other hand, the booming fertility industry and the resulting commodification of children have certainly made its mark on international demographics, as evidenced by these recent reports. As faithful Catholics, we must continue to educate our culture about the arguments against IVF, even as we welcome the children conceived both naturally and through the use of assisted reproductive technology -- whether they come alone or in groups of two or more.
* * *
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D., is a Fellow of HLI America, an educational initiative of Human Life International. Dr. Oas is a postdoctoral fellow in genetics and molecular biology at Emory University
--- --- ---
1) Martin, JA; Hamilton
2) Cook, JL; Collins, J; Buckett, W; Racowsky, C; Hughes, E; Jarvi, K. Assisted Reproductive Technology-Related Multiple Births: Canada in an International Context. www.jogc.com/abstracts/full/201102_HealthPolicy_1.pdf
3) Ooki, S. Effect of Maternal Age and Fertility Treatment on the Increase in Multiple Births in Japan
4) Alexander, GR; Kogan, M; Martin, J; Papiernik, E. What Are the Fetal Growth Patterns of Singletons, Twins, and Triplets in the United States
5) Kiely, JL; Kleinman, JC; Kiely, M. Triplets and higher-order multiple births. Time trends and infant mortality. American Journal of Diseases of Children. 1992 Jul;146(7):862-8.
6) Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (Donum Vitae), 1987.
7) Antsaklis, A and Anastasakis, E. Selective reduction in twins and multiple pregnancies. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Vol. 39, 2011.
8) Evans , MI
9) Swann K, Windsor S, Campbell K, Elgmati K, Nomikos M, Zernicka-Goetz M, Amso N, Lai FA, Thomas A, Graham C. Phospholipase C-ζ-induced Ca(2+) oscillations cause coincident cytoplasmic movements in human oocytes that failed to fertilize after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertility and Sterility. 2012 Jan 2.
Tuesday 28 February 2012
Pope Encourages Scientists in Efforts to Solve Infertility
But Says Vocation to Marriage Isn't Frustrated When Conception Is Impossible
By Kathleen NaabVATICAN CITY, FEB. 27, 2012.- The scientifically best approach to infertility, and also the one most respectful of the persons involved, is a pursuit of diagnosis and therapy, says Benedict XVI.
The Pope affirmed this Saturday when he received some 200 members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, convened for their 18th general assembly, which was on the topic of infertility.
"The pursuit of a diagnosis and of a therapy represents the most scientifically correct approach to the question of infertility, but also that which is most respectful of the integral humanity of the subjects involved," the Holy Father said. "In fact, the union of the man and woman in that community of life that is matrimony constitutes the only dignified 'place' in which a new human being, which is always a gift, may be called into existence."
The Pontiff said he encourages "intellectual honesty," which is "the expression of a science that keeps the spirit of the pursuit of truth alive, in the service of man's authentic good, and that avoids the danger of being a merely functional practice. The human and Christian dignity of procreation, in fact, does not consist in a 'product,' but in its connection with the conjugal act, the expression of the love of the husband and wife, of their union that is not only biological but also spiritual."
Vocation to love
Benedict XVI acknowledged that science cannot find a remedy for every cause of infertility.
He affirmed the Church's attention to infertile couples and its support of medical research.
"The science, nevertheless, is not always able to respond to the desires of many couples," he said. "I would like again to remind the spouses who experience infertility that their vocation to marriage is not frustrated because of this. The husband and wife, because of their baptismal and matrimonial vocations themselves, are always called to work together with God in creating a new humanity. The vocation to love, in fact, is a vocation to the gift of self and this is a possibility that cannot be impeded by any organic condition. Therefore, where science cannot find an answer, the answer that brings light comes from Christ."
Saturday 25 February 2012
Whose design will be used for designer brains?
Dr Paul Root Wolpe is the senior bioethicist at NASA and a
pioneer in the field of neuroethics. Peering into his children's and
grandchildren's future, he sees an America that rewards
competitiveness and productivity over relationship-building, and suspects that
future generations will face intense pressure to enhance their minds and bodies
in unhealthy ways. If parents already use Ritalin to give kids a competitive
edge, what will happen when we can genetically engineer their talents?
by Michael Cook | Feb 20, 2012
Assisted-suicide booms in Switzerland
by Jared Yee | Feb 25, 2012
The number of patients in Switzerland who killed themselves
with the help of assisted-suicide organisations rose significantly in 2011, new
figures show. Exit, which caters exclusively to Swiss residents, announced on
Monday that it had helped 416 patients to kill themselves last year. Of those
deaths, 305 occurred in the country's German-speaking region, up from 257 in 2010,
and 111 occurred in the French-speaking areas, up from 91 in the previous year.
The organisation also saw a boom in new memberships. It now has 75,000. In
2011, Dignitas, Switzerland's other major
assisted-suicide organisation, helped 144 people kill themselves - a 35%
increase as reported by the Sonntag Zeitung.
Dr Jérôme Sobel, president of Exit for the French-speaking
cantons, said the increase in assisted suicides directly correlates with the
increase in memberships.
"There are people who call us to get reassurance and who
will fix a date [to end their lives] if their situation further deteriorates.
So there are people for whom calling us acts as a reassurance, and there are
people whom we have been to see but who then in fact died a natural death."
Only Dignitas helps foreigners. Reports of "suicide
tourism" have sparked fiery debate both domestically and internationally,
increasing pressure on the Swiss government to tighten assisted-suicide laws.
Last June it ruled out introducing new legislation to regulate the practice,
but the government has since proposed a set of measures to bolster suicide
prevention and improve palliative care options. The Swiss Federal Court has
ruled that a person has a right to end his or her life provided he or she is of
sound mind. ~ swissinfo.ch, Feb 20
Ethicists give thumbs-up to infanticide
by Michael Cook | Feb 25, 2012
If abortion, why not infanticide? This leading question is often
treated as a canard by supporters of abortion. However, it is seriously argued
by two Italian utilitarians and published online in the prestigious Journal of
Medical Ethics this week.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated
respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne,
Australia, and with the
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, in the UK.
They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only
potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons
involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise
the continuity between the two acts, they term it "after-birth
abortion" rather than infanticide.
Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert
them very confidently. "We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically
permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such
circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at
least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk." This
assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after
birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the
best interests of the person who dies. But in "after-birth abortion"
it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.
To critical eyes, their argument will no doubt look like a
slippery slope, as they are simply seeking to extend the logic of abortion to
infanticide:
"If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological,
economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion
even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same
as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a
potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also
justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a
newborn."
How long after birth is it "ethically permissible" to
kill infants? Guibilini and Minerva leave that question up to neurologists and
psychologists, but it takes at least a few weeks for the infant to become
self-conscious. At that stage it moves from being a potential person to being a
person, and infanticide would no longer be allowed. ~ Journal of Medical
Ethics, Feb 23
Sunday 5 February 2012
Free will
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the philosophical idea of free will.
Free will - the extent to which we are free to choose our own actions - is one of the most absorbing philosophical problems, debated by almost every great thinker of the last two thousand years. In a universe apparently governed by physical laws, is it possible for individuals to be responsible for their own actions? Or are our lives simply proceeding along preordained paths? Determinism - the doctrine that every event is the inevitable consequence of what goes before - seems to suggest so.
Many intellectuals have concluded that free will is logically impossible. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza regarded it as a delusion. Albert Einstein wrote: "Human beings, in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free agents but are as causally bound as the stars in their motion." But in the Enlightenment, philosophers including David Hume found ways in which free will and determinism could be reconciled. Recent scientific developments mean that this debate remains as lively today as it was in the ancient world.
With:
Simon Blackburn Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge
Helen Beebee Professor of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham
Galen Strawson Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading
Listen in:
Free will - the extent to which we are free to choose our own actions - is one of the most absorbing philosophical problems, debated by almost every great thinker of the last two thousand years. In a universe apparently governed by physical laws, is it possible for individuals to be responsible for their own actions? Or are our lives simply proceeding along preordained paths? Determinism - the doctrine that every event is the inevitable consequence of what goes before - seems to suggest so.
Many intellectuals have concluded that free will is logically impossible. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza regarded it as a delusion. Albert Einstein wrote: "Human beings, in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free agents but are as causally bound as the stars in their motion." But in the Enlightenment, philosophers including David Hume found ways in which free will and determinism could be reconciled. Recent scientific developments mean that this debate remains as lively today as it was in the ancient world.
With:
Simon Blackburn Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge
Helen Beebee Professor of Philosophy at the University of Birmingham
Galen Strawson Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading
Listen in:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)