Stephen Black wrote: "This brings me back to the original point for which I cited this case: religious beliefs can and do lead to immoral decisions."
The same story could be used to confirm that "legal decisions can and do lead to moral decisions" and we all know how rare that is. :-} Maybe single anecdotes aren't the best evidence of general principles. If the point was simply that a person can make an immoral decision based on their religious beliefs, so what? That was made all too obvious in the events of Sept. 11. That doesn't tell us how rare or common it is relative to moral decisions made in response to religious beliefs. And on what empirical basis does Stephen make the moral judgment that "a moral decision of the highest quality was made in this case is clear to all except those blinded by religious conviction."? What scientific study can be used to test the theory that this was a moral decision? If I take the contrary position (just for the sake of argument) and say that the judges' decision was immoral, what evidence do you have to contradict me other than your own feelings and a direct reassertion of the fact that it was moral and the fact that all right-thinking Norte Americanos agree with me? On what is morality based? Survival of the species? Life is better than death? The greatest good for the greatest number? The dignity of the individual human life? Freedom of choice? Pragmatism? We should do it because we can do it? (I actually heard a medical ethicist say this during a discussion of the ethics of the latest biotechnology.) Many of these will occasionally be in conflict with one another. In the final analysis, on what basis do we decide what is moral? Rick Dr. Rick Froman Associate Professor of Psychology John Brown University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
