Interesting development of thought.
Pretty general though.
If you have not yet decided that you have come to your absolute conviction of "what is" and cannot be any other way, based on the information and resources you have come across so far, let me share my opinions with you merely for something to do.
What is right or wrong, being human, is not subjective and arbitrary.
Just because you beleive that the sun revolves around the earth does not make it so. You have just not come across the resources and info.
That of what is actually real.
There are natural laws.Truths.Facts that cannot be altered by mere wishes or because one beleives it to be.
Because of this, there are objective truths to live and guide your life by.
Just because you choose to ignore the truth, will not change it.
Choose to ignore gravity all you want while jumping out of a ten story building.
Won't change a thing.........splat.
But if you do choose to look at truth, and build a heirachal structure of thought based on reality, you must begin with what is truth, or real, and be able to define it.
Once you are able to ground yourself in the fundamental truths of existence, you can then begin to build a philosophy grounded in reality.
A truth, or an axiom can be desrcibed as such....
An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.
The term "axiom" has been abused in many different ways, so it is important to distinguish the proper definition from the others. The other definitions amount to calling any arbitrary postulate an 'axiom'. The famous example of this is Euclidean geometry. Euclid was a Greek mathematician who applied deductive logic to a few postulates, which he called axioms. In this sense, "axiom" was used to mean a postulate which one was sure was true. Later, though, it was shown that his postulates were sometimes false, and so the conclusions he made were equally false. The "axiom" he used was basing his geometry on a two dimensional plane. When his work was applied to the surface of a sphere, though, it broke down. A triangle's three angles add up to 180 degrees on a plane; they do not add up to 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere. The point is that Euclid's "axioms" were actually postulates.
True axioms are more solid than that. They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge. There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness.
This post could easily become quite long because of my lust for life, but Let me keep this as basic as possible for you to nibble on.
In life you have only one choice....to live, or not to live.
If you decide to live, then....
Choosing to live is a pre-moral choice, after which, the question becomes "How?" This is the same as "What do I do?" One can either go about it randomly or with a methodology designed for success. That methodology is called morality.
An explicit morality allows one to choose rationally among values. It makes the selection of values rational by providing a method to evaluate them. Values are compared to a moral standard, and prioritized according to how well they promote that standard. To make decisions easier, we develop virtues which are moral habits which tend to help gain values.
Historically, the concept of morality has often been used negatively as a list of thou shall not's in check against ones actions. The stance taken is often that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't violate any moral edicts; but the source of these moral edicts is often mystical or arbitrary.
A list of prohibitions, even if founded in reason rather than mysticism, is not a sufficient outline for success. Morality should be positive rather than negative. Not What shouldn't I do? but What should I do?. The problem with defining morality negatively is that pretty much anything goes provided one avoids a few problem areas. This is not useful because within the sphere of pretty much anything goes, there is no methodical way to choose which action is best, whereas positive morality sets forth habits which lead to the achievement of values and methods for choosing what to value which is the way to live and thrive.
With ones own life as the standard of value, morality is not a burden to bear, but a prudent and effective guide which furthers life and success.
And as for abortion, whether it should be legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, highlights the question of who has rights and why do they have them. On one side of the debate the argument goes that a woman owns her own body (right to life) and has the right to do whatever she pleases to it. On the other side holds that the growing fetus within the woman is not actually her property to do with as she pleases and itself has the right to life and, morally, can not be aborted. The two main issues to tackle are:
1) does the fetus have rights, and
2) if so, does it also have the right to remain in the womb against the mothers wishes.
To analyze whether or not the fetus has rights, we must go back to what specifically are rights and why men in general possess rights. Rights define the guidelines for social interaction between rational people. They allow society to exist by banning the initiation of force between rational men. A fetus does not act, let alone act rationally. There is no reason to recognize fetal rights. Rights are not arbitrary handed out by edicts, they are corollaries of an entity's nature.
Even if a fetus did have rights, would it have the right to stay in its mothers womb against her wishes? The answer is no. There are no unchosen obligations or duties. If a woman does not want a fetus inside her she may use any means necessary to force it out just as she would force an unwelcome visitor in her house. Even if you invite a visitor in, you still have the right to ask him to leave.
There is very little grounds to rationally argue for a ban on abortions. Almost all "pro-lifers" get their bloody politics from their evil ethics which come from their irrational epistemology which comes from their mystical metaphysics which they call religion.
Fuck I'm awesome!
