did aristotle believe euthanasia was moral?
357551
i guess so euthanasia was a practise common at that time and aristotle being a philospher of that time wud have supportetd the fact bcoz there was no state of the art med facilitis over there and it wud be better for someone to die than to cringe on to life which is non existent \n\n\ni am  talkin of that time at this time 2006 he wud probably b against euthanasia
1158936
Aristotle\n\n\n: Αριστοτέλης, Aristotélēs) (384 BC – March 7, 322 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote books on many subjects, including physics, poetry, zoology, logic, rhetoric, government, and biology. Aristotle, along with Plato and Socrates, is generally considered one of the most influential of ancient Greek philosophers. They transformed Presocratic Greek philosophy into the foundations of Western philosophy as we know it. The writings of Plato and Aristotle founded two of the most important schools of Ancient philosophy.\n\nhttp://www.ancientlibrary.com/medicine/0051.html
1186774
How in the World are you asking that question of "moral man"?  \n\nGOD has a plan, and JESUS CHRIST is part of the plan...\n\nGOD knew that we would screw up, and that HE set up HIS SON, so that we might have Salvation after all our sins were forgiven.  We are a sinful race by nature, as we were given free will, and we dont do very well, with it at the moment, do we?\n\nBelieve in HIS SON, that HE died for our Sins, and you too, can be forgiven of them...\n\nI wish you well..\n\nJesse
971434
No, God has put animals under the dominion of man. However it talks about dealing with them kindly. That would include if we killed them for food, for example, to do it in a humane way, and not to promote their suffering. (I know I'm gonna hear from vegetarians on that one, but I stand by it.)
1073056
No. \n\nCleaning my apartment  would be good.\nHaving someone else clean my apartment would be better.\n\nNeither is right -- neither is wrong. \n\nThe same principle can be applied to moral situations.
638242
Socrates died 2,400 years ago this June. More precisely, he was executed, a criminal condemned on a capital charge. How seriously Athens took her philosophers! It fills the modern scholar with envy more than dread, that one could die for such a cause. The formal charge that cost Socrates his life—“Socrates is guilty of not believing in the gods the city believes in, and of introducing other strange divinities; and he is guilty of corrupting the young”—has set philosophers to offering apologia ever since, as if in defending Socrates from this charge philosophy can define and understand itself. Yet it might be that Lady Philosophy protests too much, that two thousand years of self–defense might conceal (at least from the unobservant) an equal period of self–doubt. If Socrates’ death had in it nothing but answers, it would by now be a historical curio, like similar tales in innumerable hagiographies. It is the questions about him and what he represented that keep his death alive.\n\nHe was a man of neither wealth nor personal beauty, the butt of the comedians of the day for his bulging eyes and swaggering gait. His fashion sense ran toward old clothes and bare feet. Even his admirers compared him to a satyr, an uncanny mixture of beast, man, and god. Yet this man, as famous then for ugliness as leading ladies are now for beauty, has been the Helen of philosophy. He launched a thousand ships, and his rival suitors have long been fighting an often bitter war hoping to take secure possession of him. Most of the major philosophical schools during the first six centuries after his death traced their origins to Socrates, and vigorously disputed other claimants to the Socratic legacy. Stoics, Skeptics, and Cynics all proudly claimed him as their founder and looked to him as their exemplary sage. The millennium and a half that followed, dominated by Christendom and then the “new science,” displaced him with other exemplars, but the Socrates Wars broke out in earnest again during the last two centuries. \n\nThe Enlightenment found in him a hero and martyr of autonomous reason, while Romanticism felt the burn of his old flame when it rediscovered irony as a privileged vehicle of philosophy. Even today these are the two interpretive camps with which the still disputing heirs affiliate. It is not the worst way to gauge whether philosophers are “analytic” or “continental” to ask them what they find most attractive in Socrates. In Anglo–American circles, the saint of reason is regnant; elsewhere Socrates wears the crown of the Compleat Ironist whose ruthless dialectic exposes the ways reason must inevitably undermine or (we might as well say it) deconstruct itself. Books and articles continue to accumulate, the love letters of the scholarly caste. This, too, is a love letter.\n\nSocrates had other ways to express his loves, and wrote no books. Our experience of him and his ideas depends almost entirely on the writings of three of his contemporaries, two admirers and one detractor. All three wrote in genres bound to frustrate every foursquare scholar’s desire to pluck out the heart of the mystery of the historical Socrates. Our oldest major source comes from the detractor, Aristophanes, the greatest comic dramatist of the ancient world. His caricature of Socrates in the Clouds, produced in 423 b.c., when Aristophanes was about thirty and Socrates in his mid–forties, is the only substantial source we have that was written by someone who knew Socrates but was not one of his devoted companions. This makes it a precious document. Many scholars dismiss it and are offended by what they take to be the manifest unfairness of Aristophanes’ portrait of Socrates. Indeed, Aristophanes’ portrait is unflattering, as would be expected of a comic caricature. But a caricature cannot have its intended effect unless its exaggerations are also revealing. The works of Plato and Xenophon, Socrates’ two greatest literary admirers
1148668
I have always said that if my illness ever takes me to a point where I am suffering unduly, where my dignity and self-worth are  compromised, I would want someone to take my life if I couldn't do it myself. Because this isn't legal,  I wouldn't expect anyone to do this for me but it is how I feel on the subject.\n\nWe do it for animals, so that they don't suffer, and I strongly believe in these circumstances euthanasia is thr only humane way.
163833
Been reading Plato's Socratic dialogue with Euthyphro?  The question is: Is something good because it is loved by God(s), or is something loved by God(s) because it is good?  It's a delicious paradox.  Since I'm an atheist, I answer it by saying that morality stems from that which is considered good  in the society in which one is brought up.  Immorality stems from that which is considered wrong in that same society.  Right and wrong are not absolutes, but also not under the control of any beings other than ourselves.
334041
Your namesake, Aristotle.  He laid the foundation for Western thought and philosophy that freed the mind of mankind.  All of us in the West today still enjoy the benefits of his discourses.
1096673
Morally? No-God permit this with the people. Until he changes things to a new way people were allowed to judge of earthy things just not the heart. it was a protection to the people.
1182372
The one poster noted rejection issues, and there are numerous ones. Naturally, animal organ transplantation can never replace human organ transplantation (though stem cell research does offer some hope to replace the latter in 50-100 years).\n\nIt is moral to sacrifice an animal life to save a human life from the perspective that a human life is more valuable than that of an animal
1183636
Idiot. See: Aristotle's writings.
531272
PRINCETON, N.J. -- April 1999 -- More than 100 protesters denounced Princeton University on Saturday for hiring a philosopher whose extreme views include allowing parents to end the lives of their severely disabled infants. \n\n"Nazi Germany did the same thing to the disabled, judging their lives not worth living. We object to that," said John Scaturro, 49, who protested near the Ivy League school along with his wife and young daughter. \n\nUniversity officials stood by the appointment of Peter Singer, a professor whose academic work they say will contribute to scholarship and ethics debates at Princeton. \n\nSinger, a professor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, was appointed last year to the Ira W. DeCamp Professorship of Bioethics at the university's Center for Human Values. He is to begin work in July. \n\nThe 52-year-old academic is widely considered the father of the international animal rights movement yet has argued parents should have the right to euthanize newborn children who have severe handicaps. \n\nIn his books, Singer has said that children less than one month old have no human consciousness and do not have the same rights as others. \n\n"Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person," he wrote in one book. "Sometimes it is not wrong at all." \n\nHis appointment at Princeton has drawn fierce opposition from pro-life groups, the disabled and others.
773181
That's a very generalized question. What is the cause of the pain? What pain management alternatives have been used...there are many that you may not have heard about? What is the emotional status of the patient...pain is perceived a lot more acutely in depressed patients...and depression can be treated, thus reducing the pain?\n\nIN THEORY...unremittant pain "could" be a valid justification for euthanasia, but I certainly wouldn't just say "yes" without knowing a whole lot more than what you have told us.
511952
I think it was euthanasia.
4379
Being athiest doesn't mean you don't value life, I think if you value life that's enough to base morals off of your conscience.  How much you value life and living is what most laws are based on anyway so in a completely athiest society as long as the majority value life(which most would since the majority of people do) you could base the law off of that value since law isn't based on religious morals it's just based on preserving and respecting life.\n\nI'm athiest and my morals probably do come a bit from my parents, but mostly I just try to do what I feel is right.  The majority of athiests I know wouldn't deny that the morals in most religions are good things to adopt, they just don't want all the other crap that comes with the religion.  I have no problem following the golden rule, but I don't believe that I should have to scare myself into following it because I don't want to go to hell or dissapoint Jesus or whatever.  I believe that morals came before religion and that religion is just one way invented to get people to adopt the morals and to follow laws. If people are made to believe that there are eternal consequences for their actions they'll be more thoughtful before acting.  In the human society there are certain things you have to do to keep alive and to live well and they just happen to be more complicated than in the societies of other animals. The morals most of us have today are a survival instinct, we learned early on in our society that working together would help us thrive and in order to get people on your side you have to treat them a certain way and act a certain way yourself.  I think morals are more of a basis for religion than religion a basis for morals...religion needs morals but morals don't need religion.
662279
Euthanasia is the overall term used to describe a medical process whereby a sickly patient ends his/her life rather than continue suffering until an inevitable death.  Physician assisted suicide is just one type of euthanasia.\n\n"Voluntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medication or other interventions to cause the patient's death at the patient's explicit request and with fully informed consent. Involuntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medications or other interventions to cause patient's death when patient was competent but without the patient's explicit request and/or fully informed consent. Nonvoluntary active euthanasia is the intentionally administering medication or other interventions to cause patient's death when patient was incompetent or not able to explicitly requesting it. Terminating life-sustaining treatments is withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatments from the patient to let him or her die. Palliative care or indirect euthanasia is administering narcotics or other medications to relieve pain with incidental consequence of causing sufficient respiratory depression to result in the patient's death. Physician-assisted suicide is a physician providing medication or other interventions to a patient with the understanding that the patient intends to use them to commit suicide."