The Science of Moral and Ethical basis

Science cannot prove the existence of a deity, and belief requires quantification of pure principles (of belief) into being. A literal approach takes Religion out of its context and that is why I use Social Science to attempt at a description of phenomenal forces including Religion and Materialism or good and evil. This is exemplified by analogical explanation of the physics and their metaphysics.

Pure principles rest in the metaphysical realm while the material resides in the physical realm. According to science, it is either one or the other and not both especially in different dimensions and various layers. The String Theory suggests a reality can be upheld in various places and different dimensions. But that's too extreme.

The principle value for moral and ethical reasoning is Freedom. By using reduction, the material is stripped to purity on a linear plane. It is supposed to be a state of freedom when nothing else is attached to it. Remember stripping the atom releases the elements in a state of deterioration, and cutting the apple leads to nothingness.

So when the material is purified in order to set it free, it actually deteriorates its condition. A pure material attracts negative attachments to itself which overwhelms it and cause it to submerge. If you attempt to split the elements in a liquid mechanism like water, the pure elements can cause a destructive explosion.

The cell structure is already exploited by DNA investigation and improvements have been made in genetic engineering and food preservation in the Nano structure.

Now a social approach examines Freedom in a human 'need' and follows that when I am hungry, my need for food reminds me when my mouth salivates at the sight of food or images and thoughts of food in my mind as my stomach rumbles. If I don't eat for a while, I may become weak and die. And at the same time if I eat too much too often, I may develop an addiction to food which could result with addiction and illness.

While hunger is a natural need, I am obliged to eat in order to stay alive. But if I follow my senses and material desires, I would either end up weak and die or addicted and become ill. Therefore, somewhere in between starvation and addiction is the principle measure of need that I must follow in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle. By following the principle measure is freeing myself from the demands of material desires on the one hand, to safekeeping from addiction and illness on the other hand.

Hunger is a natural feeling that is capable of deteriorating my condition if I don't free myself from its material demands. The material desire on the one end and addiction on the other end are both subjective and destructive while the principle measure in the middle is objective.

And so it follows that the linear subjective material alone by itself exists in a state of deterioration and therefore not free. And at the same time, the principle measure enables the material to free itself from a state of deterioration.

The principle is the basis of belief, and the material is the human person. Now the belief in principles quantifies the behavior transcending the human material into a human being. And this is the paradox of the String Theory, quantum, and dimensional etc, that you are not the body alone or the spirit alone, but both in the objective of being. That means you here in the physical realm and in the metaphysical realm at the same time.

And this is the basis for moral, ethical, and religious analysis the objective that can be applied to everyday problems.

EUTHANASIA

There are quite a few ideas on Euthanasia as well as there are also few counter arguments. They are relative in propositions and counter arguments, which descended it a verdict on commonsense. I have heard supporting arguments in favour of Euthanasia based on a mention of a law, and an alleged right of the individual. Still, no one has defined what life is or death for that matter let alone a purpose for that law in terms of life or the purpose of medical and health care.

Current to my recent series on Social Relations, I have distinguished the subjective material from the objective. And it is the objective outcome of the material that makes sense in a realistic sense. It is somewhere in between the mind and the heart that practically quantifies an idea into the physical manifestations that are sustained productively in the maintenance of a quality of living. It is when this reality is supported by the purpose of health care and of the law that their intersection lies the definition. It is therefore valid to say that the law is not arbitrary in its deliberation of the individual's right. This means it has to find a meaning and purpose for one's material freedom. It will argue in the end that a right to refuse the basic means of sustaining a life, or to refuse enhancing treatments to support life is invalid and absurd.

If the law infers the protection of life, then one's right to refuse treatments or basic means of sustaining it such as food and water is over ridden. If the medical profession and health care is based on a similar principle of enhancing life, even in dying the patient or subject is not refused treatment. The patient or subject at a deteriorated stat e of mind cannot be relied upon to reason and objective outcome from his/her subjective state of deteriorated existent.

If the patient of subject is not in balanced frame of mind and heart, then his/her decision is also dubious. I have clarified this position to a measure, but I will not demonstrate it in here. The above has already reached a logical decision that is not all clinical.

There are two existing layers of the argument that must meet in a balance. But it seems that the material side of the argument is forcing the issue in the public arena. The danger is that one cannot argue against politics or material freedom. And if individuals are not governed by a valid law or moral principle (belief), then there is not much anyone can do. It is defining roles for doctors and the law, and meeting the definition in the intersection of material freedom and the valid responsibility, the heart and the mind.

Homosexual right in the church

You cannot integrate incompatible principles without some kind of adverse effect or dangerous reaction. Encroaching one’s right upon someone else’s is a violation. Homosexual as a right is an arbitrary imposition, a target of a socialist agenda aiming to sabotage the church. It is an effort to poison the fundamental elements of the foundation upholding social organization including that of the economy itself, of political and other social institutions.

By corrupting the principle bind to the social organization weakens the relationship endorsing the product its market value. For example, having a gay person employed to teach ethics at a Christian school will do nothing for the church other than raising conscience awareness among the believers that would cause it to undermine the gay person’s productivity necessarily downgrading the value of the gay person’s economic production.

The fundamental basis of the economy is related to the foundation of social organization (the social structure). The integration of incompatible principles between the product and its social organization therefore will results with uneconomic and disrupting relations.

It reinforces the fact that relationships between the principle of social organisation and the foundation of the economy or the product must be mutually exclusive.

Diverse organisations seem to maintain their own unique structures in a hierarchy of the social structural order of the economy. An arbitrary right pertaining to a specific group does not bind it the social value of another (group). Because a human right that is universal may span across divers boundaries, but an arbitrary imposition is restricted to only a specific group identified by their personal choices (sexual orientation).

We are all humans first and foremost before our preferred choice of sexual orientations. That means our feelings, thoughts and spirit are universal because they constitute the whole human persons, but the contents of feelings, thoughts and spirit are our own personal choices different from each other. What we feel, think, or believe in are not the same in every human person, our choices of sexual orientation are therefore not universal. That is why you have a right to your own opinion, and your belief, and I have mine. To impose your opinion, your ideology, or your belief upon mine violates the principle of freedom, the value that merits it a right. So the integration of arbitrary rights with incompatible principles outside its barriers is a bad exercise.

God is good

There is doubt in the reliability of the DNA to sustain human progress especially when it is susceptible to manipulation not only by biotechnological and genetic engineering, but also by its very own nature of mutation by genetic defects.

Persons restricted to poverty conditions for long periods of time have developed genetic defects from a consistent diet lacking nutrition where a mutated variant is offset to contaminate the whole people. The defect is cultivated by both biological and social environments; a whole village can be wiped out in time if the defect is not corrected.

The weakness or strength of a genetic development is inherited and passed down the generations. And the social existent of a group is summed up by its social behaviour within the boundaries of an economic and political system. So interventions can be sustained by correcting the social behaviour of the growing generations. It involves mental, social, spiritual and physical programmes, the holistic approach to the material or economic and political forces of modernity.

[This aspect of social development has been exploited by political forces to offset economic behaviour at the expense of obvious defects. Also the question of culture rests with the reason validating social behaviour. That is why I have earlier distinguished culture from tribal hierarchies as the valid form of social organisation based on values and beliefs, the result of validating habits and customs. Some form of tribal behaviour remains taboo and subjective...]

As you see, the human genome is not a linear development but a correlation of all its physical, social, and spiritual aspects. The tree of life contains the footprint of holistic existent, and not just a bundle of fibres and bones to be cultivated into variations of choices and whims.

If you shift this explanation into logical order, we are looking at quantum physics and intuition at best. But our singular perception of the material world has convinced us of a certainty that this singular world is developed and promoted to take over the holistic tree of life. We are feeling our desires and swaying our popular opinions of the here and now to be the only true existent. And thus if we see a mirage in front of our vision, it is granted to be the truth of reality.

The biological development is naturally consisting of nutrients and proteins in function to produce energy and chemicals maintaining our health and growth of the body. The social development explores our attributes and expands the material to another world. And the spiritual world makes sense and purifies our material aspects to transcend ourselves into being. But material science has come close to creating a drug as to produce the preferred behaviour and appearance and belief. It seems to take over the function of the mind and its accumulated experience.

However, you cannot turn the whole genome and the tree of life upside down in order to cultivate a deviation to take over its place. Why? Because a deviation especially one derived from a material political desire is a genetic defect. And genetic defects contaminate the whole of life into oblivion. And the same logic applies to the social analysis of related issues.>

How can you promote life if your belief is based on that which is not naturally possible to produce any? How can you desire something that is not naturally possible? How can you purify the spirit from the belief concreted upon the self construct? It's a delusion the mirage in the way of our vision, a false belief.

And following from above, an organisation founded upon a pure principle must precede that principle in all its aspects of existent. A development formed from deviation of the pure principle is self serving away from the main stem. And since the deviation cannot promote or produce life, what are its chances of survival in the long term? Obviously, the pressure placed upon deviational belief is self imposed. And by permitting its practice cannot offer to help them let alone anyone else.

The UN and its endorsement of arbitrary rights upon deviational beliefs do not promote life or the wellbeing of those who are delusional. God is not corrected by popular opinions or delusional beliefs. Anyone who is oppressed and isolated because of their valid belief is a violation, but anyone who is oppressed and isolated by a delusional and political belief is self imposed. No amount of arbitrary intervention can cure such delusions, as the future doesn't give hope for any life continuum of such a practice.

GENDER CHOICE

Do parents especially mothers have a right to choose the gender of her baby? As a person who is a baby, does he/she has a right to his/her own gender as inherent? What does the future hold for the family depends upon decisions we make today, it is why some of us have to be on guard for the sake of humanity. In this site, it is the social relations that make sense.

Multinational corporations especially in the Pharmaceutical industry have funded private practices across the world for their research interests, the findings are patented in their collection of ownership of the world’s natural resources as well as biotechnological procedures on human therapies whether medicinal or surgery. Trials of some medications are endured by local patients or some folks with a genuine hope for a cure of some disease. When these findings are published as success, the government moves in to regulate a drug or treatment and obviously pay a huge price to multinationals for the application of such findings.

Now supposing a research was about manipulating the cells in order to determine the sex of a baby or to remove some inherent trait in the makeup of that baby only to be replaced by another; it has not only challenged conventional beliefs sanctioning the integrity of the human make up, but it has also interfered with the process of nature. We have established the understanding that biotechnological research may be applied in an effort to improve the quality of life, especially for someone who is enduring a disease or illness or had suffered an injury. How then can the technology be applied to someone who is well and has decided to have something that he/she is unable to have such as a baby?

When technology threatens to invade the sanctity of human, we become fearful of what might happen to us and the possibility of what's likely to happen next. Public approval is sought and the media propaganda machine is geared into action in favour of scientific research. All the so-called interests of society or democratic rule are put aside in a campaign to promote the possibility of a major economic venture.

New Zealand has maintained a predominant European class prompted by a few minority groups. Social issues based on popular opinion polls with a foreseeable patriotic advantage are certain to pass legislation. And the controversial research is regulated in New Zealand. When this is established, US, UK, Canada, and Australia follow the precedent New Zealand has registered. And all of a sudden Natural Selection favours the strong who happen to be Europeans in the West. The ideal social set up of a predominant class and the inclusive of ignorant minority groups has made New Zealand the Western Laboratory to register social and controversial issues otherwise wouldn't have been passed elsewhere. The pressing economic interests and the availability of desirable subjects can produce a convincing emotional appeal to the senses.

What justifies the application of the technology and what are the right circumstances it should apply weighs the balance of opposing views. We are aware of the pressing economic interests, and we have also discarded the vote whether popular or democratic on the issue. It has thus become a concern of principles in terms of sanctioning the integrity of humanity from economic exploitation on the one hand, and meeting a genuine need on the other. We have understood that the outcome must objectify the subjective state of existence to a reality where the subject can experience an improved quality of his/her living. But this is referring to someone whose life is greatly deprived from enjoying the basic needs and the use of the technology may even save him/her from a premature death.

Since the technology will permit parents to choose the gender of their child, we consider the feelings associated with possible reasons of having a loss of a child earlier and their loss would be enlightened by having another child of the same sext. A family which only has all boys or all girls may also consider the technology to change that for them.

In the age of individualism and subcultures of anarchical and rebellious groups who can do whatever they want, we cannot discard the possibility of a closed group who must decide to have only girls or only boys in their enclosure. Maybe the availability of varieties can also add eye colours, or brown hair to the mix according to peer pressure and expectation.

There is no guarantee the process can be reversed and thus leaving the gate open to upset the cause of nature in yet another manmade disaster. The emotional appeal may bring dollars to the economy, but having millions hasn't solved the urgent problems of the world at this time.

On the social side, what is the meaning of love and its sanctions on the subject makes no claims. The fact that a woman may conceive but the gender of the baby is no longer her inherent attribute. In time this decision might also be dominated byt the husband or the family or the tribe or culture, and she becomes a mere means to an end. The product of her love has loss value for she can always blame someone else's decision for the sex especially when times are depressing. The child will also have someone to complain about or even sue in the future for changing his/her sex. He/she can claim that it wasn't his/her idea that he/she has ended up a woman or man when he/she could have been better off being one or the other. It could be a critical decision in times of need.

At least we can try to protect what natural attributes humanity has in order to remain a human person and a creature of God and not some unsatisfied result of a decision making process.

Taking into account the pressing and urgent material demands in favour of gender choice against the protection of natural human and from further exploitation I have found that the emotive appeal to gender choice is not a life threatening matter, and parents or those couples who cannot produce a baby boy or girl can always adopt another. But the angle I am taking against this gender choice is the fact that the company may patent the individual's gender as their trademark. The individual no longer can say I am a boy and male or girl and female. In time it would inevitably become my gender was chosen for me therefore I have no natural or inherent right to my gender. The company may be able to operate on a sex change, but the previous decision is irreversible. Sex as it were does not always equal to the gender in the modern as the modern couple could be a combination of sex and genders! If given this arbitrary right to choose the sex of their babies, would their children in the future hold it against them, and impose guilt on their conscience for doing so? I don't think parents have a natural right to choose their babies gender.

But yes, man has yet again lost his inherent right to his gender as his very own. It is now someone else's choice.