1009, earlier I believe you said you were an atheist/agnostic. That makes this easier, since you've likely realized there is no "superior moral lawgiver" and hence no ABSOLUTE standards of morality, no transcendent rules that determine right and wrong (and let's just set aside the silly notion that the book that endorses genocide, war crimes, slavery, misogyny, requires death penalty for adultery/being gay/picking up a pencil on the wrong day, etc. contains "higher" moral standards).
The place where many go wrong is by forgetting that the absense of ABSOLUTE moral standards implies that people are free to do whatever they want, AKA anarchy.Jehovah, Vishnu, Ahuru Mazda or not, there ARE mad-made laws that remain.
ALL morality is relative, not fixed in stone (changable), and as you've said, it's used to drive making laws, which largely are based on community standards: laws are an expression of community morals. Sometimes the community IS wrong, and the beauty of the Constitution is that it often protects the fundamental human rights of the minority FROM the majority, who'd vote for all kinds of laws if not was in place to check to will of the majority. Hence why higher aspirational ideals are encapsulated in controlling documents like Constitutions.
Now if someone believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and decides to EXCEED the laws based on those beliefs, then more power to them. HOWEVER, if they lose touch with reality and start to actually believe that their hypotheses ARE reality, AND they use their flawed beliefs as an excuse to VIOLATE the laws, then I've got a problem.
Just yesterday, someone posted a link to a current story of a Christian couple who relied on faith healing, and their child died as a result of not seeking medical care. After being punished for his death, they relied on faith healing again with a 2nd child, who ALSO died as a result of their refusal to seek care:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2013/08/08/ac-pkg-tuchman-faith-healing.cnn
Now from where I'm sitting, that's just insanity, letting their own children die due to THEIR own ignorance and blind hopes of what they WANT to be true. That's crossing a line.
And as someone who understands evolution, it's actually OK with me on THAT level (self-elimination of their offspring from the gene pool). However, the problem is they also believe in the "be fruitful and become many" policy, and have 7 OTHER children; they're seemingly trying to turn 'Idiocracy' into a prophetic movie. And from the ethical/moral standpoint, it's not OK to allow such practices to continue, since it's tantamount to child sacrifice; fundamentally inhuman, since condoning it robs us all of our basic moral decency, forcing us to look the other way.
Now, JWs do the same for blood policy; fortunately, courts are USUALLY able to step in to temporarily remove custody from the parents, since they're supposed to refuse to accept blood for their child, or be DFed. However, that "legal workaround" doesn't make the practice any less immoral, since it's a fundamentally flawed belief, based on another false belief.
1099 said:
But abstaining from blood, is not a medical advice. They believe (I believed) it was a divine law. So they consider it (religiously) wrong to use blood, whereas you have no religious objections.
I used to have an invisible friend when I was a child: then I grew up.
Delusional beliefs flying under the umbrella of practice of religion doesn't justify breaking the law, be it from child neglect or murder (and wouldn't it be a better World if someone reminded the Islamic sectarians (Shia/Sunni) of that fact, the ones who are tearing apart Syria right now after 100,000 deaths, both doing so in the "name" of Allah?).
Adamah stated earlier: " The eisegesis in Acts rests upon a foundation of their far-greater misunderstanding of Genesis 9, which is based on a mistranslation which resulted from confusing a blessing with an obligation."
Is it ethically wrong to misunderstand something?
Ignorance is no excuse for violating a law; you can plead, "But your honor, I didn't KNOW it was illegal to do X", but it's likely going to fall on deaf ears.
The real World of criminal law doesn't operate on the Christian-based concept of "giving fair warning" before trial and punishment (eg Noah in the Flood account "preaching", or JW's warning everybody about upcoming Armageddon to give them due notice, etc); that's a concept from ancient Jewish law, where someone couldn't be found guilty of a crime UNLESS a fellow Jew reminded them that it was breaking the law.
Nowadays, if someone makes a decision that is contrary to the law of their land, it IS legally wrong, for WHATEVER reason they may have for doing so. Motives are factors that MAY be considered during the 'punishment' phase, but rarely during the 'guilt/innocence' phase (unless it's so compelling that it MUST be considered, eg not guilty by reason of insanity, etc).
While there may be higher-level ethical concerns where the law is on the wrong side of an issue (eg Jim Crow discrimination laws), then we're into the territory of discussing the moral considerations of whether civil disobedience (eg Thoreau, MLK) is justified, but that's a different ball of wax.
Is it ethically wrong to believe that what the Biblical commands on the subject of blood should be applied to the medical use as well?
As stated, people can BELIEVE whatever they like. The problem enters when people ACT based on their beliefs; they cannot ACT if it's against the law.
And if you believe that, is it ethically wrong to abstain from blood?
If a person is an adult of sound mind and body, then I personally don't have a problem with them making that decision for themselves, as I tend to lean towards saying that individuals should have the right to die whenever they want (assisted suicide), and for whatever reasons they want (be it due to their own stupidity or firm convictions in their deluded beliefs, or for practical reasons, eg they're terminal and facing a painful death, etc).
And if you are a religious leader, is it ethically wrong to teach what you believe?
If they KNOWINGLY are advising and supporting beliefs that they personally feel or know are FALSE, then they're ethically responsible for any resultant harm. Granted, I'm an atheist and know there's no punishment waiting them in Hell, etc, but the only "punishment" they face is a guilty conscience for engaging in the oldest abuse of power known to man: religious beliefs. It's not a crime, mind you, UNLESS they're actually violating laws (and religion enjoys freedoms to engage in actions that would not otherwise be allowed, eg committing suicide in a State where it is not legalized, under the banner of practicing one's religion by refusing blood).
Jehovah's Witnesses teach strict obedience without compromise. They are expected to die fairly horrible deaths rather than buy a political party card, salute a flag, etc. Peer pressure hardly compares to a concentration campe does it?
Strict obedience, yes. But to who? The JW who doesn't buy a political party card: is that because they don't want to disappoint the the GB? The average JW probably doesn't even know their names. When they don't salute the flag: is that because they are afraid of the elders? Maybe in some cases, especially the ones who have some doubts. But they will not stand firm for long. The individual JW will endure hard times because of the conviction that it is God's will.
The GB has a much-greater effect in controlling policy, but as you point out, they ALSO operate in an environment of facing DFing if they stray too far from the group. That's exactly why I referred to the collective guilt, the shared responsibility of ANYONE who's a member of the organization who supports it. By it's very structure, it is an authoritarian group where by the time someone gets appointed to the GB, they've played the "I'm imagining God" for so long it's second-nature: they may actually BELIEVE in Jehovah (or sociopaths who are actually closeted atheists; that's a scary scenario)!
While the ultimate responsibility for resultant harm and death CAN be diluted amongst many, that doesn't mean it disappears away into non-existence.
And of course, members have to actually ACCEPT (recognize) their moral responsibility for the actions of the GROUP, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon, since many are just like the Germans who felt they had ZERO responsibility for the war crimes committed by their Gov't, yet did nothing to "do the right thing" if they DID know about the genocidal actions of their leaders. THat's why high-control groups DISCOURAGE members to exercise their "flawed" moral senses: they're trying to DISCOURAGE them thinking and feeling, just trying to turn them into obedient FOLLOWERS.
It's truly insidious, and the worst part is many cannot who are in just can't see it, exactly because it IS so subtle and easily covered with denial.
Adam
