Tonight, my husband and I wanted to escape together, but didn't want to battle the crowds that we supposed would be at the local resurants. So, we watched a movie about "Life".
A dying woman and her memories of a past love had burned her heart with regret. The moive kept going back and forth between the aged woman in bed and her two grown daughters and their present struggles to the woman's past life and its struggles.
In her "past life" she'd met a man named "Harris", who she'd fallen in love with at her best friend's wedding. "Fate" did not look down upon their romance as a life long commitment, but a week of making deep memoires that would haunt her on her dying bed. One daughter was intensely interested to find out about "Harris", as her mother mentioned him often upon waking or going to sleep.
One day, the woman's best friend, whose wedding she'd met "Harris", came to visit. The visit was short but the connection was deep and it settled the "haunting" of the dying woman and the curious questions of her daughter. The best friend's advice to the two women, "There are no mistakes in life".
"There are no mistakes in life" is a life based on an understanding of human choice and fallibility within parallel universes. One cannot be outside of "what is/should be". Parallel universes mean that there are many contingent "worlds" that are just as valuable, as another. Human choice at a particular point in time is not evaluated by "wisdom"s fine-tuned experience, but what was of value at a particular point in time.
Particular points in time cannot be evaluated on historical standards, because human choice is a present reality in a particular individual's human development, not an absolute objective of historicizing of life and all that is.
Human choice is necessary for taking individual responsibility. and taking responsibility is about growing up, owning one's life and not blaming others. But, it is also about forgiving oneself and acknowledging human fallibility and fraility. It is knowing that probably could not make another choice, given certain limitations.
I enjoyed the movie in all respects. The story, the acting (Meryl Strep) and the message all were good Valentines for my husband and for myself.
Showing posts with label human choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human choice. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
How Can We Support the Deficit?
What is Moral or Responsible about continuing to enlarge our national debt? Do we really believe that responsible choices define moral value and virtue? Then, none of us should support increases to our national debt!. This is the "ideal" of free societies, otherwise we become enslaved to our debt, which will determine overtly or covertly our policies.
If government continues to undercut private business, while cozying up to large corporations, then, I believe unemployment will continue to increase. And when unemployment increases, on a large scale, then the practical needs at hand make for "collective demands for justice"! And collective demands for justice means government intervention with social programs that increase individual dependence on government as "provider". Or, such demands for justice means revolution, because human choice has been limited by government's partiality to corporate interests .Isn't this the means of totaltalirinism? The end of revolution is "social order", which won't be promoting human value or choice, unless government gets back to supporting the rule of law. Government will then, be a co-cercive means of controlling human choice and value.
Large corporations base their "need" on utility, which isn't based on the ethical or moral demands of responsible behavior, but what is most expedient to the needs at hand. Profit is the end. While profit is not immoral, it is only a necessary end to "good business". But, when profits outweigh any other considerations, human life becomes a means to the end of justifying enslavement of the employee.
Both profit of corporations, and employee agreement must be based on the interests of both parties, not an undermining of human choice and value.
If government continues to undercut private business, while cozying up to large corporations, then, I believe unemployment will continue to increase. And when unemployment increases, on a large scale, then the practical needs at hand make for "collective demands for justice"! And collective demands for justice means government intervention with social programs that increase individual dependence on government as "provider". Or, such demands for justice means revolution, because human choice has been limited by government's partiality to corporate interests .Isn't this the means of totaltalirinism? The end of revolution is "social order", which won't be promoting human value or choice, unless government gets back to supporting the rule of law. Government will then, be a co-cercive means of controlling human choice and value.
Large corporations base their "need" on utility, which isn't based on the ethical or moral demands of responsible behavior, but what is most expedient to the needs at hand. Profit is the end. While profit is not immoral, it is only a necessary end to "good business". But, when profits outweigh any other considerations, human life becomes a means to the end of justifying enslavement of the employee.
Both profit of corporations, and employee agreement must be based on the interests of both parties, not an undermining of human choice and value.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Ethics and Science in Stem Cell Research
Because of the recent commitment of our president to stem cell research, there has been much discussion about science and ethics. Our president suggested that stem cell research was not to be determined on an ideological commitment, but on the "facts of science".
While I believe that science has added to our quality of life, science should not function without a proper ideological frame, which are the ethical questions. Many on TV, radio and in the paper were talking about the struggle between science and ethics. Science does not answer any "moral question", it just "works". But, should our society condone anything that "works"? Pragmatism is the road to expediency, but not the road to wisdom.
Stem cell research holds much promise for those who suffer from many diseases, so this area of research would breed much "good". The ethical questions are based on questions that cannot be solved quickly, if at all, and only divide all of us along ideological lines. So, why attempt to answer any ethical questions when science's expediency in meeting human need is of primary importance? Isn't human suffering something that we all should be committed to? But, at what costs?
I have written before about the questions concerning genetic research, and some of the same questions apply to stem cell research. Who will determine when an embryo has become a separate life? And how will that be determined? Will each case pose the question and allow the individual woman the choice, such as we do with organ transplants? Is the embryo to be viewed as an "organ", part of a woman's body, that might give life to another? Organs must be taken from the donor while the donor is alive for the organ to be fully functioning. Our state license bureaus ask us whether we want to be an organ donor when we get our driving lincense. If we agree to be an organ donor, then we are giving our living consent for our organs to be used for a 'greater purpose" of saving another life. Is this wrong to allow the individual a choice? I don't think so.
Many religious believe that to give any person the right to choose is a "sin" against God, since God is the giver of life. But, when does God give life, at the moment of conception? at the moment of birth? at the moment of the heart-beat? at the moment of brain waves? at the moment of viability? When? These questions are not easily answered.
I think more importantly is who will determine when life "happens", as the political realm must remain "free" for choice, otherwise, we have political or religious authorities determining for the individual what is "best". Either way, we will be setting up our public forum for ideological war. Personal decision is of utmost importance, such as we allow with organ donation. This personal decision should not be made without all information, or deep reflection, as we must be convinced in our own minds. The separation of Church and State is commenable in this arena as well.
While I believe that science has added to our quality of life, science should not function without a proper ideological frame, which are the ethical questions. Many on TV, radio and in the paper were talking about the struggle between science and ethics. Science does not answer any "moral question", it just "works". But, should our society condone anything that "works"? Pragmatism is the road to expediency, but not the road to wisdom.
Stem cell research holds much promise for those who suffer from many diseases, so this area of research would breed much "good". The ethical questions are based on questions that cannot be solved quickly, if at all, and only divide all of us along ideological lines. So, why attempt to answer any ethical questions when science's expediency in meeting human need is of primary importance? Isn't human suffering something that we all should be committed to? But, at what costs?
I have written before about the questions concerning genetic research, and some of the same questions apply to stem cell research. Who will determine when an embryo has become a separate life? And how will that be determined? Will each case pose the question and allow the individual woman the choice, such as we do with organ transplants? Is the embryo to be viewed as an "organ", part of a woman's body, that might give life to another? Organs must be taken from the donor while the donor is alive for the organ to be fully functioning. Our state license bureaus ask us whether we want to be an organ donor when we get our driving lincense. If we agree to be an organ donor, then we are giving our living consent for our organs to be used for a 'greater purpose" of saving another life. Is this wrong to allow the individual a choice? I don't think so.
Many religious believe that to give any person the right to choose is a "sin" against God, since God is the giver of life. But, when does God give life, at the moment of conception? at the moment of birth? at the moment of the heart-beat? at the moment of brain waves? at the moment of viability? When? These questions are not easily answered.
I think more importantly is who will determine when life "happens", as the political realm must remain "free" for choice, otherwise, we have political or religious authorities determining for the individual what is "best". Either way, we will be setting up our public forum for ideological war. Personal decision is of utmost importance, such as we allow with organ donation. This personal decision should not be made without all information, or deep reflection, as we must be convinced in our own minds. The separation of Church and State is commenable in this arena as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
