Abortion Poll - Yes or No.

Yes there is a reason, without these rules society wouldn't function. But most people don't understand this and think that there's some sort of invisible set of rules that they have to conform to and try to force other people to do this as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Behold some good advice there from Raithere and s0meguy. In the first instance moraility is about getting through the day to the night with not too much of a bad dream or a hangover after, perhaps.

If the hope is for more, to pursue some kind of greater ideal beware of the advice of John Lennon: "Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans."

Beware of your own immaturity.

Eventually, with a sufficient accumulation of defeat to shame you, the knowing will come that most momentous decisions in life also happen to be the most lonely with anything but an obvious appreciation of beauty and taste to guide them.

Abortion is not about the quest for truth and beauty. It is about the futility of the attempt to cope with shit that happens while the Gods sit back and laugh at the joke of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PJ,

Both sperm and eggs are alive. Both are half human.
Should women be executed for menstration?
Should women be executed when they spontaneously abort?

And how can you subscribe to moral absolutism, when you support war yet not abortion?

War kills thousands of innocent civilians. Through sheer negligence, the entire military structure ought to be held responsible, and by your reasoning, executed, for wrongfully taking other people's lives.

Or is it that only people in your country matter? Then why bother invading to halt dictators, such as Saddam? Why risk our people's lives to save people that, by your twisted reasoning, don't matter? Anyone who supports a war that doesn't further American interests should be executed, as they're wrongfully taking lives from Americans.

Furthermore, since foreigners' lives don't matter, how can you be morally absolute on the value of any human life? What's the difference then between a raghead and a fetus?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Roman:

First off: I all ready answered these things.

Secondly: Clearly you have only an elementary knowledge of biology. For you would be well aware that neither egg nor sperm are human beings, but sexual cells, if you had a greater depth of such.

And certainly no woman should be executed for menstration - she is not killing anything purposefully, nor accidentally. And no woman should be executed for a natural miscarriage.

Innocence v. guilt. I have gone over this before...

Intention is necessary for an act to be considered truly evil. There is a profound difference between blowing up a home purposefully and through collateral damage.

I have never claimed this.

Raithere:

Actually, I could care less about the consequences. I am merely stating what seems to be a necessary analytic truth. No objective ethics = "do as thou wilt will be the whole of the law".


s0meguy:

Society not functioning is not an objective quality of ethics. Anarchism could give a damn, for instance.

Sauna:

 

What I’m interpreting this to mean is that you don’t approve of “do as thou wilt will be the whole of the law”. But this is insufficient argument to conclude that objective values must therefore exist. It is an argument from consequence. It is also circular as you are using your moral values to determine the nature of morally. So no, it does not constitute a “necessary analytic truth”. It’s not even a valid logical proposition.

~Raithere

 

It is rather hard to get, isn't it, even with the grant of a poetic licence for the inexact use of a term such as "neccessity"... what is this "objective"?

If we speak the same language and expect to communicate then per se an objective ethic exists, but do we?

"Anarchism could give a damn, for instance"?

Should I desire to know if an Anarchist gives a damm, I shall rather consult the Anarchist, or was he already blown up with his home?

I'll bet at least that the Anarchist with his home blown up was not so keen to agree the difference between purposeful and collateral damage, let alone his opinion of the event as an implemetation of James's objective ethic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is a very good point. As medicine moves forward, the idea of "viability" is ever changing. Eventually, the situation you describe will probably come to pass. It will be interesting to see what happens then. I suspect feminists will still assert a right to kill the baby even when the option exists to transfer it to an artificial womb thus removing the the whole "it's my body" issue.

 

It is rather hard to get, isn't it, even with the grant of a poetic licence for the inexact use of a term such as "neccessity"... what is this "objective"?

If we speak the same language and expect to communicate then per se an objective ethic exists, but do we?

"Anarchism could give a damn, for instance"?

Should I desire to know if an Anarchist gives a damm, I shall rather consult the Anarchist, or was he already blown up with his home?

I'll bet at least that the Anarchist with his home blown up was not so keen to agree the difference between purposeful and collateral damage, let alone his opinion of the event as an implemetation of James's objective ethic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mandatory abortions for anyone under 120 IQ points.

 

Raithere:

You have mistaken me, Raithere. I am not claiming that objective values exist because the opposite would be unpleasant. Only pointing out the necessary consequence. In fact, I have not made my argument for what I construe as an objective ethics - only asked if some people would like it.

 

Well, I disagree with you about that too. Just because values are subjective does not mean that many or even most people will not assign similar values to the same things. If one then values society or the approval of others one would quickly conform to a standard of behavior. In fact, just running off the top of my head I would say that this is the way it does work. But I would be interested in seeing your argument. In particular, how you deal with the problem of immoraliy.

~Raithere

 

Raithere:

I shall alert you when I make my system of ethics known here on SciForums.

Yet in regards to your assertions: Whereas clearly you are right that society and social norms would likely bring people in line, this would not validate morality if it is subjective. It would simply mean people would act in accordance with such and such aims of society and fraternity. Yet because morality would be considered subjective, none of them could rightfully claim that another has committed an act of evil, nor that anyone's system is deserving of punishment, or any other normative claim on behaviour. Accordingly, morality would remain "do as thou wilt".

 

What?

Any one of us may rightfully claim that another has committed an act of evil, as many often do, and so long they remain the sole judge and jury of their own chosen cause they may just as well judge themselves to be right, and the other wrong, albeit alone with their own psychosis.

Alternatively, as soon as they deign to consult their fellows at large the result may rather tend to accord with the aims of society and fraternity, with some of us glad of that small mercy.

We have seen enough already of self appointed validators of an absolute morality when allowed to proceed as such. George W Bush, Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, take your pick; the World was not so short of rightful validators, objectively.

 

I don't see an escape but perhaps you will surprise me. As to enforcement of morality, it seems to me that this it falls necessarily under the purview of culture and society. Seeing as we’re all human we’re able to set certain semi-objective standards based upon common needs, drives, and desires. And I would argue that some amount of this is hard-wired into us. But they remain subjective in that we necessarily approach them from a human perspective. Nor do I find them rigid, what is unethical in one situation is ethical in another.

~Raithere

 

Raithere:

QUOTE]As to enforcement of morality, it seems to me that this it falls necessarily under the purview of culture and society.[/QUOTE]

Certainly a culture and society can enforce its laws as its sees fits, but its arbitrary nature would remain as it were. Morality would become nothing more than "what we say it is!" and therefore foundationless and without any philosophic merit.

Yet there is never any reason aside from pragmatism that one ought to take any of these courses. This is thus not properly a matter of ethics. Indeed, all such systems essentially make ethics superfluous.

Sauna:

The judgement of acts cannot be made on grounds which are epistemologically or ethically valid in an amoral system. They amount to a mere whim.

 

Yes, we were already beginning to get the gist.

Prince James, as if omnipotent, wants to be the rightfully objective validator, while whoever else with a different idea of it is nought but a whim to suffer the misfortune of collateral damage.

Why is it that the word "psycopath" comes to mind?

 

Sauna:

You will note that an objective system allows for multiple people to independently validate or invalidate things. Whereas a subjective system gives full reign to the individual to do as he wills. If I wanted to be a megalomaniac, I would actually affirm a subjective morality for that reason.

 

i have mixed feelings about abortion.
i feel a woman has a right to decide what medically happens to her body.
on the other hand what if the aborted baby was destined as the next einstien or king?

 

Nonsense.

Independently it is impossible to be anything but subjective. On your own on the proverbial desert island there would be no choice but to be affirm subjectively, with full reign if you please.

Communal moralities deprive the individual of the opportunity to validate independently. That is their very point and purpose, to influence if not to coerce.

A system by definition is ordered or coordinated, restrictive. A system to give full reign is an oxymoron.

It is only possible to be communally objective to the extent that the object is communally viewed, and the larger the community the lower then the common denominator. To achieve high ideals, go alone. To proceed at the pace of the slowest member, follow the crowd.

This is why the subjective morality is essential, because the subject stands the better chance to know himself and the local need.

 

Yet in order to satisfy the requirements of a subjective moral system, one must do away with anything that can rightfully be called morality to begin with. It becomes a system whose arbitrary nature is central to its functioning. Indeed, it question on everyone's mind in such situation ought not to be "is this moral?" but "whether morality here exists to be spoken about at all"?