Is it bad to deny medecine to a child on religious grounds?

[The Dark]

Gandhi took a "half-enlightened" approach to the caste system. He believed that the lower castes should have been treated humanely but accepted the fact that they were inferior scum by birthright.

I wouldn't go so far as to even call that approach "half-enlightened". More like "fucking ignorant". But Gandhi is considered a saint, so it gets shoved under the carpet. It's often quite surprising what dirt can be dug up on a typical saint (Mother Theresa being another example).

While Gandhi was certainly weird, this is not one of them.

While Gandhi did support the caste system, he was also the supporter of the Untouchable caste, insisting that they had a place in India and were entitled to the rights of a citizen.

There were other activists at the same time who were speaking out against the caste system in its entirety. Gandhi was viewed by the British as a sort of compromise, a way to appease the Indian people without completely altering the social structure that they had manipulated to remain in power. Thus, they quickly (relatively) conceded to Gandhi, so that they would not be blamed for destroying the caste structure.

And DW, if the acid-melted men you were talking about were the ones from National Geographic, they were fishing in the wrong pond. The pictures were very disturbing.

About Utilitarianism: Mill did refer to Bentham's theory as "a doctrine worthy only of swine," in Chapter 2 of Utilitarianism, first published in 1863. He was altering the theory so that the class of pleasure mattered as much as the degree of pleasure, thus making something pleasurable and refined more valuable than something pleasurable and base.

[Darth Wong]

There were other activists at the same time who were speaking out against the caste system in its entirety.

The caste system is a grossly unjust social custom which persists for no other reason than religion. Its injustice was noted by every school of ethical philosophy long before Gandhi. He supported it because of the (widely supported) power of religion to contravene ethics whenever the two come into conflict.

Gandhi was viewed by the British as a sort of compromise, a way to appease the Indian people without completely altering the social structure that they had manipulated to remain in power. Thus, they quickly (relatively) conceded to Gandhi, so that they would not be blamed for destroying the caste structure.

The destruction of the caste structure would be something they could have taken credit for, not blame.

And DW, if the acid-melted men you were talking about were the ones from National Geographic, they were fishing in the wrong pond. The pictures were very disturbing.

Fishing in the wrong pond, drinking from the wrong well, whatever. The point remains, and the pictures were very disturbing to me as well. What's more disturbing, however, is the fact that such behaviour is commonplace and widely accepted. And no matter how much religious apologist bullshit gets thrown around, I will continue to point out that this was clearly caused by a religion.

About Utilitarianism: Mill did refer to Bentham's theory as "a doctrine worthy only of swine," in Chapter 2 of Utilitarianism, first published in 1863. He was altering the theory so that the class of pleasure mattered as much as the degree of pleasure, thus making something pleasurable and refined more valuable than something pleasurable and base.

That's just the result of stuffy upper-class indoctrination. The basic concept is still good; something which makes a lot of people feel pleasure is more ethical than something which makes a lot of people feel pain.

[The Dark]

There were other activists at the same time who were speaking out against the caste system in its entirety.

The caste system is a grossly unjust social custom which persists for no other reason than religion. Its injustice was noted by every school of ethical philosophy long before Gandhi. He supported it because of the (widely supported) power of religion to contravene ethics whenever the two come into conflict.

Gandhi was viewed by the British as a sort of compromise, a way to appease the Indian people without completely altering the social structure that they had manipulated to remain in power. Thus, they quickly (relatively) conceded to Gandhi, so that they would not be blamed for destroying the caste structure.

The destruction of the caste structure would be something they could have taken credit for, not blame.

True, but at the time they were worried about the upper castes, who held much power within the government, causing problems if the lower castes were given power. Idealistically they would have gained much from the support of the lower castes, but the brahmin and kshatriya were both the ones who controlled the services and had the most to lose by abolishing the system. Americans are seeing something similar in Iraq right now where the government has grown to represent all, but those who lost their positions of power are fighting to regain their system. It's an imperfect analogy, but it is similar to what could have happened.

And DW, if the acid-melted men you were talking about were the ones from National Geographic, they were fishing in the wrong pond. The pictures were very disturbing.

Fishing in the wrong pond, drinking from the wrong well, whatever. The point remains, and the pictures were very disturbing to me as well. What's more disturbing, however, is the fact that such behaviour is commonplace and widely accepted. And no matter how much religious apologist bullshit gets thrown around, I will continue to point out that this was clearly caused by a religion.

True, and I am as disgusted by it as you. Much like Christianity, Hinduism needs to reexamine its doctrine and practices, and listen to the more socially liberal portions of its body, which I believe (in both cases) are more similar to the original beliefs rather than the more legalistic beliefs of both societies today. And I was more curious as to whether it was the same men I saw or other ones; I didn't mean to sound rude in saying they were fishing and not getting water. Either way it is a punishment which the so-called "crime" did not deserve. The only good thing I read in that article is that courts are beginning to treat untouchables as legal equals.

About Utilitarianism: Mill did refer to Bentham's theory as "a doctrine worthy only of swine," in Chapter 2 of Utilitarianism, first published in 1863. He was altering the theory so that the class of pleasure mattered as much as the degree of pleasure, thus making something pleasurable and refined more valuable than something pleasurable and base.

That's just the result of stuffy upper-class indoctrination. The basic concept is still good; something which makes a lot of people feel pleasure is more ethical than something which makes a lot of people feel pain.

True; I believe Mill was mostly speaking out against the fact that even pigs seek pleasure, so nothing in Bentham's philosophy made us morally different from pigs (which most people would find repugnant even today). His argument centered around the fact that even a moderately happy educated person would generally not choose to trade places with a very happy idiot. Whether this argument is true universally I don't know; in my case it is true.

[Darth Wong]

True, but at the time they were worried about the upper castes, who held much power within the government, causing problems if the lower castes were given power. Idealistically they would have gained much from the support of the lower castes, but the brahmin and kshatriya were both the ones who controlled the services and had the most to lose by abolishing the system. Americans are seeing something similar in Iraq right now where the government has grown to represent all, but those who lost their positions of power are fighting to regain their system. It's an imperfect analogy, but it is similar to what could have happened.

It is still better than attempting to preserve the status quo. To use yor Iraq analogy, it would have been like keeping the Ba'ath party in power and simply replacing its leader.

The only good thing I read in that article is that courts are beginning to treat untouchables as legal equals.

Yes, and I find it interesting that it often falls upon the courts to defy religion in the name of larger guiding principles. Witness the gay marriage dogfight brewing in Canada and the US.

True; I believe Mill was mostly speaking out against the fact that even pigs seek pleasure, so nothing in Bentham's philosophy made us morally different from pigs (which most people would find repugnant even today).

The equation is incorrect. Pigs do not concern themselves with any pleasure but their own. A philosophy which seeks to maximize pleasure for all is far more enlightened than one which seeks to maximize pleasure for oneself and ignore society.

His argument centered around the fact that even a moderately happy educated person would generally not choose to trade places with a very happy idiot. Whether this argument is true universally I don't know; in my case it is true.

In other words, ignorance is bliss, but I'll pass anyway. I'd agree, but the enjoyment of base pleasures and personal idiocy are not related.

[NapoleonGH]

this is something from the first essay that i noticed

A religion that uses illicit drugs might be restricted as would a religion that calls for the sacrifice of young virgin women


This is a wrong point of view at least according to the law, under the law today certain religions that can demonstrate a long standing use of a currently illicit drug can still use them legally. Native american tribes with Peyote is the perfect example.

[Alyeska]

this is something from the first essay that i noticed

A religion that uses illicit drugs might be restricted as would a religion that calls for the sacrifice of young virgin women


This is a wrong point of view at least according to the law, under the law today certain religions that can demonstrate a long standing use of a currently illicit drug can still use them legally. Native american tribes with Peyote is the perfect example.

Actualy my statement is correct. Note how I said restricted, not made illegal. Native Americans can only use Peyote for religious events, not for recreational use.

[NapoleonGH]

ohh i guess i misread then. ahh well. was a long paper