Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 193 results found
Why has our discussion been about what is legal instead about what is moral? I suggest it's for one reason: self-interest . We can always adjust what is legal to fit what we want.
Think carefully about how you justify some moral actions because it could turn on you in another moral situation.
When it comes to ethics, we are often asked to focus on the person and ignore the morality of their actions. If he's a nice guy or is skilled, then the moral conduct of his sexual life is benign.
What are the moral implications of surrogacy? It reenforces morals that aren't good for family or society. I want to talk about what I call "broodmare motherhood" for a moment, this unfortunate surrogate mother situation between Anna Johnson and Mark and Crispina Calvert ruled on last week in Santa Ana.
The morality of homosexuality can never be defended by any appeal to nature, but only by an appeal to moral rules. Nature alone can never provide us with those. Nature merely tells us what is, not what ought to be.
There is a slippery-slope fallacy, but the slipper slope isn't always a fallacy. What else can be justified in the way same-sex marriage is argued for? I've got a piece from the LA Times, Tuesday, July 13, and there is an interesting piece written by Joseph Ferra that is entitled "Bias for Gays: Hollywood's Dual Standard." This is something that I want to draw your attention to and it's worth thinking about.
Me: You believe that euthanasia should be allowed because it eases the psychological or physical suffering of a person. Is that correct?Him: Yes. Me: I object because I believe that life is a gift from God and we must answer to Him for how we use our life. Therefore, we don't have the liberty to take our life; it's not ours to take.Him: You're inappropriately bringing religion into the issue because my views are otherwise.
While waiting in line at the theater, I spoke to a young man named Ira who was a musician from Canada. I don't know what led up to it but somehow the issue of karma came up, the eastern religious concept of cause and effect. We were walking into the theater for the showing so I couldn't get into detail exploring the issue and trying to refute it so I used a tactic I call "Columbo" to get him thinking.
If this argument works, then we should release Susan Smith. I want to talk about a recent book that's created a flurry on the talk radio circuits. It's entitled Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent, by Eileen McDonagh. It hit with a splash about three weeks ago. A piece in the LA Times on February 3 entitled, "The Tiny, Voiceless Enemy Within" (referring to the unborn child) dealt with the McDonagh's thesis.
Why are human beings valuable? What is a human being? You have to answer those questions before you can say that this child isn't a human being without value. I had a fascinating discussion with some Christian friends and some non-Christian acquaintances last evening at a dinner party. It reminded me of something that Chuck Colson said last year when he addressed the Harvard Business School on the issue of ethics. He said, "Every person has an infinite capacity for self-rationalization."