Alonzo Fyfe

I don't think that this will help. Those who want to believe in an afterlife will simply say, "He does not remember." Or, if he has memories, are these real memories or just interpretations of the last random firings of the neurons in his brain before death sat in? Or . . . is he telling the truth?

I do not think it is possible to underestimate the will to believe in a large segment of the population, and the irrelevance of evidence to those beliefs.



I don't think so. This will be called the "second coming", and I suspect would lead to a great deal of disruption, particularly given the fact that Jesus is a dead mortal brought back by aliens. A lot of people will refuse to see it that way -- including, I suspect, Jesus himself.

Rusting Car Bumper

Actually this is not true.

A risen historical person could silence mistruths said about him or herself. Imagine a James Madison coming back and commenting on constitutional interpretations.

DC

Alonzo Fyfe

I have a long history of posts around here against the practice of trying to defend right and wrong by asking what some historical figure would tell us to do. "What would Jefferson do" (or James Madison, for that matter) is as faulty a practice as asking "What Would Jesus Do?"

James Madison may be able to answer all sorts of questions about what he believes, but it still leaves open the question of whether he was right to believe it. And, on this, what we should be doing is trying to find out the best answer INDEPENDENT of what James Madison may have said on the matter. AFter all, maybe he was wrong. It's not like he was the Son of God after all.

In short, what any historical figure may have said is of only historical significance. It has no moral significance. Worshipping the words of any historical figure is a mistake.

Secular Elation

In answering a moral question, I hold that the fame and the significance of the person is of the highest significance. Should I be bringing a personal friend or family member back to life when I have an opportunity here to bring a great benefit to the world? Morally speaking, that is.

There's the issue. If you brought someone back who has fame and historical significance, that would be a benefit for the world. However, if you brought back your personal friend, it would benefit you. Which one is more important? That is the moral dilemma.

sergeyvladimirovich

Whoever is dead is dead for a reason. "Bringing them back", I believe, would upset the course of life. I am (or at least must be) satisfied with the world of the living, while the world of the dead is not my turf and way, way beyond my comprehension.

It would be especially dangerous to bring back people who were of percieved importance to the humanity (someone mentioned JFK). Saying "I want them back" is a very arrogant thing to say-- how the hell does one know just what effects on the society that will have? Society is a very complicated organism and our petty notions of "good" and "bad" really are irrelevant to its workings.

As far as bringing back a loved one goes...well, I believe it would be an act of selfishness and weakness. I say "weakness" because one should not attach himself to anybody so much-- naturally, such attachment is supposed to end with the death of the object of attachment and extending it beyond this natural boundary sounds like a perversion to me. I say "selfishness" because this is not being done for the sake of the dead (they might be very tired of life) but to satisfy one's sentimental ego.

Thus, I would treat the alien to some food and then politely show it to the door.

Alonzo Fyfe

I think that you are using a strange definition of the word 'moral' here.

If this were to be our concept of 'moral', we would have to understand the person saying that "theft is wrong," to mean "you would not benefit from theft." Which would make theft permissible in any case where the thief WOULD benefit from theft. And it would turn questions such as whether to exercise, or what to have for supper, into moral questions. Whereas, typically, questions that only affect the person answering the question are not considered MORAL questions at all.

Moral questions, by definition, involve 'the world.' Questions that merely involve the individual are not 'moral questions'.

To call this characterization of the question a 'moral dilemma' then is a bit like calling a question about whether to drive to the park or to walk a 'driving dilemma'. It is not a question about the best way to drive to the park, but a question about whether to drive at all. Correspondingly, your question turns out not to be a question about which is the best moral option, but whether one is going to answer the moral question or some other type of question.

JerryM

I'd request that he resurrect a friend of mine who died suddenly a couple of months ago of a ruptured aneurysm. He was only 52. He was a good guy and a great science teacher who positively influenced a lot of students. Good teachers, especially those who encourage young people to pursue science, reason, and rational thought are a precious resource.

Silent Acorns

Possible options:

1) Bring back a great polititian
I don't think this is a good idea because a) (s)he may not be as great a person as the books tell us, and b) because it's naive to think that one person can make a significant difference. There's no reason to think that they'll come up with any great new ideas. The best we can hope for is that they'd easily become Pres/PM/Whatever and finally set things straight. Unfortunately, there's no guarentee that they'll do what we hope they'll do.

2) Bring back a great philosopher
Most great philosophers won't have anything more to add. At most, we'd just get a chance to talk to them in person.

3) Bring back a great religious leader
If he comes back a moderate, the extremists won't believe it's him, and if he comes back an extremist, the extremists will only become worse. No win either way.

4) Bring back a great artist who died in their prime
More great art could only make the world better. Offhand, I wouldn't mind brining back Jimi Hendrix. Given more time, I could probably find someone better, but for now, Jimi will do.

5) Bring back Grandpa, etc.
My mother's father was executed by the Nazis for being an officer in the Dutch resistance. He also built a secret room in his house to hide at least one family of Jews. The Nazis never found the room. The world is a slightly better place today thanks to the sacrifice he made. If I was allowed to be selfish, I'd love to talk to him at least once.

Secular Elation

Moral questions, by definition, involve 'the world.' Questions that merely involve the individual are not 'moral questions'.

You're right. I don't know what I'm talking about.

xorbie

Who would I bring back. I think just for me, it would have to be Douglas Adams. The guy is simply a genius, and also takes up many noble social causes. Also, cultural shock would not be an issue, as he just died.

Otherwise, here would be some of my leading candidates:
(1) Rhieman
(2) Einstein
(3) Feynman
(4) Darwin (surprised his name hasn't popped up)
(5) Nietzsche (just so I could meet him, mostly)
(6) MLK Jr
(7) Henry David Thoreau
(8) Ghandi