Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Mahaprajnaparamitashastra', 'fragments/reports' and 'No Moral Difference'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts

---

4 ideas

9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 6. Constitution of an Object

6019	If someone squashed a horse to make a dog, something new would now exist [Mnesarchus]
	Full Idea: If, for the sake of argument, someone were to mould a horse, squash it, then make a dog, it would be reasonable for us on seeing this to say that this previously did not exist but now does exist.
	From: Mnesarchus (fragments/reports [c.120 BCE]), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 179.11
	A reaction: Locke would say it is new, because the substance is the same, but a new life now exists. A sword could cease to exist and become a new ploughshare, I would think. Apply this to the Ship of Theseus. Is form more important than substance?

23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues

7903	The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna]
	Full Idea: The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom.
	From: Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88)
	A reaction: What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate').

25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 2. Euthanasia

4053	If it is desirable that a given patient die, then moral objections to killing them do not apply [Rachels]
	Full Idea: The cause of death (injection or disease) is important from the legal point of view, but not morally. If euthanasia is desirable in a given case then the patient's death is not an evil, so the usual objections to killing do not apply.
	From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.102)
	A reaction: Seems reasonable, but a very consequentialist view. Is it good that small children should clean public toilets?

4052	It has become normal to consider passive euthanasia while condemning active euthanasia [Rachels]
	Full Idea: It seems to have become accepted that passive euthanasia (by withholding treatment and allowing a patient to die) may be acceptable, whereas active euthanasia (direct action to kill the patient) is never acceptable.
	From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.97)
	A reaction: He goes on to attack the distinction. It is hard to distinguish the two cases, as well as being hard to judge them.