Wednesday, May 12, 2010

I'll Choose...Ethics

The majority of my FV neighbors have reached levels I can no longer access easily. This is a good thing for my blog readers because it means I will be blogging in the mornings again. It is a bad thing for my FV neighbors because I cannot help them as much as I would like. Such is life.

I have many topics running through my head this morning. It's been a while since inspiration has struck so forcefully but it makes it hard to pick just one.

The new Doctor Who continues to fascinate me. His writers chose to explore the ethical implications of cloning for research purposes (unlike James Cameron's Avatar) even though the Doctor has no appreciable grounds for ethical behavior. His "morality" springs from nothing more than a general desire to "do good."

(I could diverge into the argument that the concepts of "good" and "evil" can exist only within the framework of a moral law, and a moral law can only exist if there is a moral lawgiver, but Ravi Zacharius does it so much better, I'll leave it to him.)

Suffice it to say, the Doctor had a problem with humans being grown solely for research purposes and so do I. As I think about it, in another episode, he refers to using the "souls" of humans as well as their minds to solve an unsolvable problem. Interesting. The pre-2000 Doctors would never have allowed for such a metaphysical possibility as a soul. Perhaps post-modernism has reached a point where no viewpoint consistency is required at all. Or, England is swinging back to some form of conservative sanity. I suppose anything is possible.

Which starts me on the path of consistency. I was recently arguing in Sunday School (yes, I argue in church; deal with it) about how the post-modern lack of consistency has wormed its way into nearly every form of entertainment media. I've spent a few (wasted) hours watching the Disney Channel with the nieces and I can personally attest to the complete lack of logical consistency or even natural consequences in the majority of those shows. It's no wonder children today don't relate actions with consequences. When do they ever see the two linked?

(Does anyone else have a problem with the use of the word "kids" instead of "children?" I personally hate the word when applied to humans, but I must admit, when trying to refer to children between the ages of 10 and 18 as "children," I now feel personally uncomfortable. Thank you, political correctness. And don't get me started on the use of "he or she" instead of "he." Stop messing with my language!)

Where was I? Oh, right. Post-modernism.

For those who don't know, post-modernism is what happens when ultimate truth is rejected as a concept. Our society is smack dab in the early middle of the consequences for said rejection. It's how someone can say, "Well, I don't personally agree with abortion, but it's not my place to tell a woman she can't have one." Right...because murder is okay as long as someone else does it and you wouldn't personally.

Unfortunately, ethics is something being lost, ignored and just plain rejected today. Jeff Goldblum's (oh, that irony!) Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park said it very well: "You were so busy trying to see if you could, you didn't stop to think whether you should."

But maybe the Apostle Paul said it best: "Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial."

'Nuff said. For now.

No comments:

Post a Comment