The May 2007 issue of Discover magazine features an interview with evolutionary biologist, Marc Hauser, beginning on page 62. He uses hypothetical examples of moral dilemmas to discover what persons actually believe regarding moral choices.
The first example in the article is a contrast between these two scenarios:
Scene one: a trolley is running wild down the tracks, a person has to choose between throwing the switch and saving five people but killing one or leaving the trolley alone and killing five people. Should the person pull the switch or let the trolley take its course?
Scene two: a healthy person walks into a hospital where five people are dying of diseases that can be cured with transplants from his body. Do the medical people jump him and take his organs and thereby save five people while killing one or not?
First, in scene one, the person facing the dilemma will most likely do nothing because he'll stand there with his mouth hanging open while his brain tries to process all the issues he's facing. Studies of crisis situations reveal very few people are able to act at all. When a nigh club burned, most of the people remained seated exactly where they had been before the fire started while panic and the inability to process all their issues kept them pinned. The poor fool Hauser has placed in the dilemma will most likely do nothing, therefore proving nothing regarding morality, except that after he finally processes all the information and his issues, he'll probably feel like a worm.
Second, the trolley is an inanimate object, it is not a group of medical personnel in a hospital. It is not contemplating taking the five persons' lives, in fact, it is not contemplating anything at all; it's incapable of contemplation! Medical personnel will not take the life of one healthy person to save five unless that healthy person walks up to the counter and says, "I'm here to donate myself to science." Jumping a healthy person for any reason which will result in his death is called "murder" unless it is a war situation, then it's called "defending your country," and is not considered murder.
These two scenarios have nothing in common to prove anything about morality.
In another example Hauser contrasts these two scenarios:
Scenario 1: A violinist (I have no idea why the violinist part matters, except maybe he thinks there's more moral value to a talented person compared to someone who has no talent) is suffering kidney failure. A woman, sleeping peacefully in her bed wakes up to discover she has been hooked up to this sick violinist. She is told that if he can remained hooked up to her for 9 months, he will recover and his kidneys will be able to function on their own. Will the woman permit this or not?
Scenario 2: A woman wakes up one morning to discover she's pregnant. Will she keep the baby or not?
Hauser crows that even Christians say that the woman linked to the violinist should be permitted to tell him to buzz off and this proves that morality has nothing to do with religion. Duh, I don't get it. Exactly what do these two examples have to do with one another? Didn't someone teach Hauser that sex can and often does lead to conception? Unless the pregnant woman was raped, these two examples have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever. A woman who has consented to have sex with someone should not wake up surprised to discover she's pregnant. FYI: for all you evolutionists, feminists, etc. take note: sex (boy + girl) = baby. It's simple, so simple even a caveman can figure it out.
In the scenario, the woman who was hooked up to the violinist didn't consent to even permit him into her bedroom, never mind all the medical personnel it would take to complete the procedure--she was essentially raped. Christians have long held that raped women may abort babies conceived as a result of the rape. Christian morality is consistent, but either the Christians involved in this study hadn't thought through all the variables involved in these two examples or, as in the case of so many of these types of studies, they weren't permitted to discuss the two cases with the questioner. For instance, it's likely they were not permitted to say, "These two scenarios have about as much in common with one another as the Rocky Mountains have in common with a Florida beach."
Hauser and the Discover interviewer, Josie Glausiusz, seem to believe that they've hit upon something enlightening about human nature, natural selection and morality, but actually they've only proved they have faulty paradigms driving their research. With faulty paradigms, their research results are false. But you can be sure, with evolutionists at the helm, their results will become the paradigms for future policies that will drive programs for quite some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment