A Question for Christians

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> So, unless the person freely gave up his own body, then that body that now has the criminal's brain, belongs to the non-criminal, and should not be destroyed. </font>

Hmm, this is interesting and I admit somewhat surprising. So if George is a mass murderer who is on death row and Harry is a do-gooder, and their brains are transplanted, you feel Harry's body should get a reprieve from execution (try to omit any personal opinions on the death penalty itself)? Would you go a step further and say it should be released from the confinements of jail?


Very interesting, because I do see your point about ownership of bodies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's imperative that George (his brain) is not released to cause further harm. If it's possible, his brain should be removed from Harry's body (if it is still Harry's body), and transplanted back into his own body (if it is still his own body).

If that is not possible, then I'd say it's more important for George (his brain) not be released, than it is for Harry to get his body back.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">You answer was not quite clear to me, but your other answer led me to believe that you were saying that the order of execution should follow the brain, not the body -- do I understand correctly? </font>

I assumed your question was, "Which person WILL die if the execution is carried out" My answer was, whoever's brain is in the executed body. But I now see you were really asking, "Who SHOULD die? Or is it moraly correct to execute George's body, if it now has Harry's brain in it?".

I do not place much significance on the body, so I would say it's ok to execute Harry's body if it possesses George's brain. And to let George's body go if it has Harry's brain.

If a criminal's mind was in my body (and my brain were in someone else's), I would say, go ahead and place my former body in the execution chamber. The body is now in possession of a criminal mind.

And that is my answer. My rationale is that the person follows the brain not the body. Why? Because I believe in evolution. I believe we are who we are, because of the way nature organized the synapses and neurons of our brain. We are who we are because of the way nature designed us, not God. We are who we are because of the way we think, not because of the way we look.


However, I don't think every atheist would agree with me on this. And I also suspect there are theists who WOULD agree with me. You have moved the discusion from one of the soul to one of morals. Btw- What would your answer be?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
"THEY" were a god and a human. Much along the lines of Multiple Personality Disorder, the body is human, but there is more than one entity sharing it.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure about that. That 3=1 is just something you have to accept as a christian, I think.

I agree that he wasn't only human, of course. But I don't agree that he wasn't human.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"THEY" were a god and a human. Much along the lines of Multiple Personality Disorder, the body is human, but there is more than one entity sharing it.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure about that. That 3=1 is just something you have to accept as a christian, I think.

I agree that he wasn't only human, of course. But I don't agree that he wasn't human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the 3=1 in this case is something that comes along for the ride if you take the Christian perspective. And yes, what I meant was that he was not only human.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">You answer was not quite clear to me, but your other answer led me to believe that you were saying that the order of execution should follow the brain, not the body -- do I understand correctly? </font>

I assumed your question was, "Which person WILL die if the execution is carried out" My answer was, whoever's brain is in the executed body. But I now see you were really asking, "Who SHOULD die? Or is it moraly correct to execute George's body, if it now has Harry's brain in it?".

I do not place much significance on the body, so I would say it's ok to execute Harry's body if it possesses George's brain. And to let George's body go if it has Harry's brain.

If a criminal's mind was in my body (and my brain were in someone else's), I would say, go ahead and place my former body in the execution chamber. The body is now in possession of a criminal mind.

And that is my answer. My rationale is that the person follows the brain not the body. Why? Because I believe in evolution. I believe we are who we are, because of the way nature organized the synapses and neurons of our brain. We are who we are because of the way nature designed us, not God. We are who we are because of the way we think, not because of the way we look.


However, I don't think every atheist would agree with me on this. And I also suspect there are theists who WOULD agree with me. You have moved the discusion from one of the soul to one of morals. Btw- What would your answer be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I didn't intend the question to move to one of morals -- but was instead an attempt to rephrase the "soul" question as relevant to a situation for those who don't subscribe to a belief in the soul.

My answer would actually beg the question a bit: if it is possible to transplant brains ( as apparently the situation implies ) then I think the brains should be re-transfered to their original bodies, and then the execution carried out.

Also, if you are truly interested, you may want to do some reading regarding early childhood development; specifically how delayed gross motor development can have an adverse affect on "thought" skills such as speech. The body a brain is connected to greatly affects the way the brain develops, so is it really so easy to say that the brain defines the "who" of a person?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you are truly interested, you may want to do some reading regarding early childhood development; specifically how delayed gross motor development can have an adverse affect on "thought" skills such as speech. The body a brain is connected to greatly affects the way the brain develops, so is it really so easy to say that the brain defines the "who" of a person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

Now where does the soul come in?

[ QUOTE ]
The body a brain is connected to greatly affects the way the brain develops, so is it really so easy to say that the brain defines the "who" of a person?

[/ QUOTE ]

The environment also plays a huge role in how the brain develops. But, we don't have any problem separating the environment that the brain developed in from the person. The body is just part of the environment -- albeit a very important part.

[Lestat]

C'mon, sifmole! The insult is in the eye of the beholder.

BluffThis called the transplanting of a brain a ridiculous premise. So too, was a heavier-than-air flying machine at one time.

Now if guys like BluffThis won't accept that it might one day be scientifically possible to perform a brain transplant, do you honestly think they'll ever agree to discuss the concept of transplanting neuronic bundles?!! Pleasel!

[BluffTHIS!]

Your premise is ridiculous not because such a thing might not be possible one day medically, but because there is a logical answer to your question. But of course you know that, because your true motives are as sifmole suggested in his first post in this thread.

[IronUnkind]

Mathematical proofs deal with objective entities which are morally, politically, and ontologically neutral.