Philosophical thought of the day

I have a large seashell collection, which I keep scattered on beaches all over the world
(© Steven Wright)

While people desperately try to be more powerful, more respected, get richer and own more 'things' - I found the above quote quite apt.

I suggest with each new "Rich List" they publish a "Poor list"; highlighting the world's most stark deprivation. Oh, but wait, it's not fashionable or aspirational to be poor. The societal machine works in such a way that you work as hard as you need to, for your own gain - at other's expense if necessary - to get bigger houses, more money and faster cars so that people can look on at how brilliant you are...

Medical ethics

Ethics is a peculiar arena.

I've been reading - with interest, this week - the proposals for sanctioning the experimental use of hybrid human-animal embryos and the reduction on pregnancy termination time-limits.

I often find - with such emotive and controversial subject matter - that the objections are difficult to comprehend. I, fairly obviously, have a legal bias towards many topical issues raised in the contemporary media and will often adopt the correct legal stance (out of habit) before considering any moral implications.

My problem (with the hybrid embryo proposals in particular) is that so many of the objections vociferated on the Radio or in the national press are arguments on "ethical" grounds.

"Ethical" - eth·i·cal - [eth-i-kuhl] –adjective

1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession.

What is ethical? There is demonstrably no consensus on 'ethical' issues or debates would not be so divisive. It seems, to me, that very often ethical correctness is borne out of indoctrinated religious ideals. I'd be interested to see what percentage of those against the experimental utilisation of hybrid embryos are religious against those who vote in it's favour.

I'm not criticising religion per se. I am more concerned that, as we strive to diversify our population with a multitude of cultural and religious denominations, we are allowing politics and laws to be determined by an increasingly varied representation of religious beliefs. I'm not religiophobic. And I understand and respect the need to embrace everyone's beliefs. But not to the detriment of the majority who do not uphold such ideals.

Democracy will out in Parliament. But I reserve uncertainty over the interference of religion in law.

Crossing lives..

Events recently have prompted me to wonder how many people we interact with during the course of our lives who we could, given the opportunity, get along with really well - as partners, I mean.

I'm not just referring to fleeting glimpses of pretty girls across crowded city streets (although I suppose that is just as valid). More though, I'm thinking of other people's partners (or friends of friends) who you get on with really well. If we all, as individuals, were picked up, shaken about and re-scattered it would be interesting who our friends would be, who we might have the chance of striking up relationships with etc.

Lately I've been pestered by the thought of what could have happened between myself and a particular someone if we were both stripped of our daily trappings (family, friends, commitments, etc.)

Hmm..