Thakkus, you are confused about what science is.  Science isn’t interested.  Science is merely a series of techniques for observing phenomena, looking for patterns, and cataloging data.  While a specific scientist may have motivations, science does not.  People may decide which life has more value; science does not.  That is completely outside the purview of science.

Likewise, science would not be involved in or any way “likely suggest”  any value judgement.

I try to maintain an objective tone to my posts, but, Thakkus, I suggest you do quite a bit of studying to learn what science is and is not before you continue posting erroneous statements.

Occam

I appreciate both of the above posts suggesting that I do more reading.  I suppose doing more reading is always a good thing.  So much to read, so little time. 

As for science and philosophy concluding that the physician and the child are equal, that is simply not a view that can be scientifically or philosophically substantiated. 

Using faith, the two lives can be valued as equal.  However, science and philosophy would likely not come to the same conclusion.

[quote author=“thakkus”]As for science and philosophy concluding that the physician and the child are equal, that is simply not a view that can be scientifically or philosophically substantiated. 

How do you know it can’t be philosophically substantiated? Have you investigated utilitarian ethics? Kantian ethics? Socratic ethics? Any sort of humanist ethics?

In fact, the sort of notion that human lives are equally worthy is justifiable in nearly any form of ethics.

[quote author=“thakkus”]Using faith, the two lives can be valued as equal.

“Using faith” ... how do you do this? “Faith” just tells you to believe things without reason. Which things? Whatever the guru of your faith tells you that you have to have faith in. If your guru tells you that you have to have “faith” that doctors are always superior to children, then your faith would tell you not to save the child.

Faith can justify absolutely anything, including killing people.

Doug answered very well for philosophy.

Science WON’T AND CAN’T conclude anything. 
If you don’t have time to learn what science is and isn’t, at least go to wikipedia and read what they say about science. 

Your posts are similar to saying that the dictionary is against South Americans or against German speakers.  A person can be for or against something, but a book that merely defines words obectively cannot. 

I fear that neither Doug nor I are getting through to you.  I don’t know whether it’s because we aren’t explaining ourselves well, because you have a closed mind and don’t want to change your views, or whether our level of language and concepts are incomprehensible to you.  In any case, I see no value to my continuing this discussion.

Occam

[quote author=“thakkus”] Using faith, the two lives can be valued as equal.  However, science and philosophy would likely not come to the same conclusion.

I’d like to point out that in any of the abrahamic monotheisms the old testament in the book of Lavidicus makes some claims that if your homosexual your life is forfit, oh and if you work on the sabath to and a bunch of other things.  I dont see were anyone can draw the conclusion that faith in this monotheism some how teaches you that all life is equel. 
So I guess with “faith” if a gay man or woman was about to get hit buy a car its perfectly ok, hell you can even put your foot down on the gas and make a real mess of them.

No i think that because of points like this in the bible it’s a perfectly good reason not to put your faith in a old book and use Philosophy when reading it and then deduct that it was writing by some very old school desert hicks who are way to up tight and need a nice big hug maby some beer to.

I just use this as an example Thakkus im not suggesting you belive in that type of god or book as i have no idea

CHEERS!