Latest post of the previous page:
surely there should be discussion over what people's ethical objections really amount to in a case like this, and most people's opinions are pretty half-baked and confused (as also they are over whether, say, they consider themselves religious). One Jason supporter said something like "Dead people are still people" - well, no, they ain't!Dave B wrote:I have a sort of thought forming in my (?) mind that I can't answer: this is an ethical question - are ethics a form of democratic will?
no, we should not simply go along with the majority, whatever than means; and yes, of course we should use human bones to obtain informationDave B wrote:Do/should we go along with the majority, even when that majority will be formed from those with the strongest opinions (i.e. mostly religious people and humanists - unfortunately there are a few more of them than there are of us!) Or should we use even human bones to gather the most scientific/cultural information that we can?
I don't think that Lindholm Man and other similar ancient human remains are mere "curiosities" but important scientific discoveries, and whyever should they be reburied? Let them continue to teach usDave B wrote:Programme on radio earlier about Lindholm Man, the body in the peat bog sufficiently well preserved to tell us a great deal about his culture. He was a Celt from about 2000 years ago who, apparently, succumbed to a ritualistic murder/execution. How should he be treated? As a museum curiosity or should he be interred? If the latter with xtian or some sort of (pseudo) druidic ceremony?