Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Maybe you can explain to me why you are so concerned about whether or not pregnant women have abortions, while showing a complete disregard for the wanton killing of the living today and express a total lack of concern for the likelihood that modern human civilization is paving the way towards extinction?

I am not concerned at all, but merely reporting the modern day killing of millions in a matter-of-fact way. At least some people genetically screen the fetus, while others give the thumbs-down no matter what.

Is killing a fetus immoral, but causing the deaths of everyone in a few generations perfectly acceptable by whatever sort of moral standard you adhere to?

"Modern" society kills lots of things, including people. Think of it as the Mayans making a sacrifice to their gods for a great harvest.....our "god" is economics. As for your prediction of everyone's death in a few generations (because of "climate change"), such melodrama is quite silly. Nobody will take the issue seriously because of that silly tantrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as long as the majority agree with a practice then anything goes? How do we determine the majority, with a referendum?

Ya screw it, my definition doesn't work.

Moral relativity only works to a point. i say whatever leads to the positive, progressive healthy growth of human society is moral. What is immoral eventually leads to the opposite.

Hmm that's also a very good definition. So now I'm confused. But of course, what is deemed "positive" for human society is relative and subjective, isn't it? I think healthy is the key term in your definition. However, I think what is positive and healthy for one society can be a bit different depending on the culture of the society. There may possibly be some universals, like murder being wrong, but other differences may be okay.

Also, I've always been attracted to the Utilitarian "greatest happiness principle": In A Fragment on Government Jeremy Bentham claims "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong". But then there is an issue of minority and individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't think the pursuit of greatest happiness should be the goal. Often the greatest individual happiness negatively impacts others. Psychedelics induce happiness as well; but, I doubt that widespread use of them will leave a society better off. I prefer the goal of greatest human well being. There is still the problem of determining what positions lead to the greatest well being though.

Neuroscientist/philosopher Sam Harris wrote an interesting book on the subject called The Moral Landscape. It's an interesting read. Harris suggests that we should break down the barriers between science and morality. He believes that neuroscience can be used as a tool to help determine what is most beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not concerned at all, but merely reporting the modern day killing of millions in a matter-of-fact way. At least some people genetically screen the fetus, while others give the thumbs-down no matter what.

No, you are arguing against your own straw man! Because I don't know of any pro-CHOICE advocates who take the position that abortion should be allowed, at least under most circumstances, as arriving at that position lightly. I think you watch and listen to so much right wing bullshit media that the ubiquitous pro-life messaging that gets cycled in on a constant basis, has even taken hold in your brain, along with the other doctrines on economics and world affairs that you listen for.

The first principle to pro-choice is WHO has the right to decide? So called pro-lifers, who invariably complain about government interference on every other issue, all of a sudden switch polarity, and want not only want the government in the bedrooms of citizens, they want them right in a woman's uterus...as we seen with Republican governors who go so far as to demand that any woman seeking an abortion for any reason, subject herself to an invasive (and we're told sometimes painful) probing device...even though it serves no purpose under those circumstances.

The only contentious issue, and the one that cannot be properly addressed in public policy in the present political climate, is when or if a fetus's right to continue living should override the rights of privacy and freedom of the pregnant woman who is doing all the work and has the most at stake in the issue. In the last 30 years, improved knowledge through modern neuroscience has revealed that all of the things we consider hallmarks of a person: consciousness, capacity to feel pain, although the level of awareness of even a late term fetus is hotly disputed by neuroscientists. The developing brain of the fetus does take away the magic cutoff point that was felt to exist in earlier times. Many secular thinkers were acting under the presumption that a fetus comes alive at birth, and even religiously-minded thinkers did not use that conception bullshit more than a couple of centuries ago. The old standard used to be that God implanted a soul into the newborn at the 'quickening.' This was the point when the baby first starts testing out its motor nervous system - felt by the mother as kicking, and begins involuntary movements. Now, we know that quickening is as bogus as any other magical demarcation in the fetal development process, just like conception. And with the problem of having a long, slow, gradually development of human personhood, that is still not complete even after birth, it's easy to see how this issue becomes the bloody flag for patriarchal conservatives to attack women's rights, under a sham concern for 'babies.'

But, enough about abortion; abortion isn't the only moral issue today; neither is private personal morality! I want to see an honest study of morality and moral theories include what our social obligations are, and deal honestly with the question of whether we have moral obligations to people who are far away, and even to the generations that will come after us. I'm surprised that such moral obligations are considered new and radical now, because many people who lived close to the land, and were more dependent on nature than human societies since civilization, actually did express the point that deciding how much to hunt in a certain area, how much to fish the rivers and streams, and those that had started growing grains - how long to work the land before allowing it to allow fallow and rebuild, did all this with the understanding that there would be generations following them, and they had a special obligation not to despoil the land. It's too bad that this moral principle was so badly devalued and ignored during our enchantment with technological progress.

"Modern" society kills lots of things, including people. Think of it as the Mayans making a sacrifice to their gods for a great harvest.....our "god" is economics. As for your prediction of everyone's death in a few generations (because of "climate change"), such melodrama is quite silly. Nobody will take the issue seriously because of that silly tantrum.

Guess what the only lifeform in nature that keeps growing exponentially is: Cancer! That should tell us all we need to know about our present sick, materialistic, self-absorbed culture that is stuck on overdrive right now and can't slow down. If you think that's melodrama, let's see your economic "God" tell us how continuous, unending growth, can go on in spite of the law of diminishing returns, that everyone studying resources is well aware of. You seem to think that living under some sort of plausible deniability frees you from moral obligations to the future generations. You are only fooling yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I've always been attracted to the Utilitarian "greatest happiness principle": In A Fragment on Government Jeremy Bentham claims "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong". But then there is an issue of minority and individual rights.

Problem with going strictly by utilitarian happiness principles is where is the demarcation between doing the greatest good for the greatest number, and causing the least amount of harm to the fewest? It seems to work in theory, but look what happens when a simple moral puzzle is presented to utilitarians like (if I get this roughly correct) imagine if someone is in the hospital and due to be released, but it is discovered that he is a perfect match for five terminally ill patients in desperate need of transplant organs. Do they have the right to kill this man and harvest his organs to keep the other five alive? It's a five vs. one loss. In numbers alone, that would pass the basic utilitarian calculation....similar to that trolley car example of sending the train down the sidetrack to kill one man to save the five on the main track!

But, just as when the trolley car dilemma is adjusted to ask whether it's okay to just throw someone off a bridge to stop the train, a red flag goes up in our unconscious processing that is a little difficult to rationalize away. I'm not saying that the hospital example would likely become part of public policy, but I notice that strict utilitarian philosophers have to start creating qualifiers and making adjustments when the utilitarian principle faces even this simple problem.

And then we have to ask if creating the greatest good for the greatest number, includes those generations of people who come after us? Because it quite clearly appears now that too many people are doing the greatest good for their immediate needs and desires, and not showing any concern for those who will have to follow after us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are arguing against your own straw man! Because I don't know of any pro-CHOICE advocates who take the position that abortion should be allowed, at least under most circumstances, as arriving at that position lightly.

I am quite sure that has little relevance to the actual decision for safe, lawful abortions. Indeed, the most militant supporters (Pro-Choice) specifically emphasize a women's right to control her own body, regardless of any lesser rights for an unborn human being.

I think you watch and listen to so much right wing bullshit media that the ubiquitous pro-life messaging that gets cycled in on a constant basis, has even taken hold in your brain, along with the other doctrines on economics and world affairs that you listen for.

OK...then I think your brain has been cooked by global warming. See how that works?

But, enough about abortion; abortion isn't the only moral issue today; neither is private personal morality! I want to see an honest study of morality and moral theories include what our social obligations are, and deal honestly with the question of whether we have moral obligations to people who are far away,

Why start now? I hope you realize that you are living in a world that would not exist without many "moral" compromises, that will continue into the future.

Guess what the only lifeform in nature that keeps growing exponentially is: Cancer! That should tell us all we need to know about our present sick, materialistic, self-absorbed culture that is stuck on overdrive right now and can't slow down. If you think that's melodrama, let's see your economic "God" tell us how continuous, unending growth, can go on in spite of the law of diminishing returns, that everyone studying resources is well aware of. You seem to think that living under some sort of plausible deniability frees you from moral obligations to the future generations. You are only fooling yourself!

You have every right to be a Chicken Little and scream that the sky is falling. Just realize that many millions of people live under conditions that you (and I) can't even imagine, and now you (not I ) want to preach to them about putting the genie back into the bottle. Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite sure that has little relevance to the actual decision for safe, lawful abortions. Indeed, the most militant supporters (Pro-Choice) specifically emphasize a women's right to control her own body, regardless of any lesser rights for an unborn human being.

Your side is not just focused on "the most militant supporters."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree. However, there is also a higher level of immorality. As people do have more leisure time and the ability to relax, something else happens. They eventually get bored and seek to be "entertained". Amused, what have you. Now that can include all kinds of things, couldn't it...

I don't necessarily agree. I know people will seek diversion if they have too much time on their hands, but society has an awful lot of perfectly lawful things to serve that purpose, from a wide variety of arts, crafts, and sports, to a huge array of popular entertainment, not excluding posting opinions on web sites like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since the subject is about what principles and guides we use to make decisions about morality and ethics, I expect even trolls to be consistent in the application of their moral rules.

But then they wouldn't be trolls...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

society has an awful lot of perfectly lawful things to serve that purpose, from a wide variety of arts, crafts, and sports, to a huge array of popular entertainment, not excluding posting opinions on web sites like this.

Indeed. Those are the things that are by and larger, good for us. It is not entertainment per se that is "immoral". People seek to be immoral themselves, by nature. The types of entertainment, the purpose and social benefit of the entertainment should also be considered in regard to its morals, imo.

If the people flock to movie theatres instead of churches, if they stay home and watch tv a lot, there should be some way of reaching them with important moral messages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your side is not just focused on "the most militant supporters."

I don't have a "side" when it comes to abortion, it is just the perfect vehicle to challenge the logic and "moral" underpinnings of those who live with such cognitive dissonance. It is an Achilles Heel for purveyors of liberal ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting question... one people have been trying to answer for a long long time, using many approaches:

- Utilitarian approach (whatever provides the greatest good for the greatest number is moral)

- Societal approach (whatever a society commonly accepts/defines as being moral)

- Religious approach (whatever people believe god(s) told them is moral)

- Codified approach (whatever is written in some document is moral)

- Legal approach (whatever is considered justified/acceptable by law is moral)

- Altruistic approach (whatever is good for others is moral)

- Biological approach (whatever would be the natural course based on evolutionary/biological considerations of human nature is moral)

- Selfish approach (whatever is in one's own best interest is moral)

- Self-consistency (any self-consistent set of principles an individual follows is moral)

- Species/nation/tribe survival (whatever helps to ensure the survival and prosperity of the group is moral)

Personally, I don't know that any one of these is always the right way to think about morality. Depending on the situation, different approaches of the above may be relevant/applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a "side" when it comes to abortion, it is just the perfect vehicle to challenge the logic and "moral" underpinnings of those who live with such cognitive dissonance. It is an Achilles Heel for purveyors of liberal ideology.

Why bother discussing moral issues, if you don't believe in or follow any principles?

And it's used as a strawman issue when it's implied that pro choice means pro abortion. I haven't read anything from a pro choice writer that preferred abortion to birth control. The so called pro life side is not following a moral principle on the abortion issue. They are just following a rule! So, when the rule says no abortions under any circumstances, then we end up with cases in Catholic countries like Ireland, where a man is suing the hospital for refusing to terminate his wife's pregnancy, and allowing her to die instead. Or the case in Brazil two years ago, where an 11 year old girl was pregnant with twins...which were aborted, because she wasn't physically capable of delivering a baby....let alone two at once. But, sure enough, the Catholic Church excommunicated the doctors for performing a life-saving abortion, and also excommunicated the girl's mother....but for some reason they refrained from excommunicating the girl!

People who have really studied the abortion issue agree that a perfect solution is impossible; because a fetus's right to life can conflict with the mother's freedom to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. At one extreme, prolifers are trying to ban birth control that have abortifacient properties, while at the other end, most people agree that late, third trimester abortions should only be performed in cases where the mother's life is at risk, or the baby will have severe defects. It's kind of weird that you talk about this issue, but you don't feel any stake in it either way. But, then in other threads, you declare a lack of concern for the fate of the human race entirely. If you are that nihilistic, why bother with any subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... It's kind of weird that you talk about this issue, but you don't feel any stake in it either way. But, then in other threads, you declare a lack of concern for the fate of the human race entirely. If you are that nihilistic, why bother with any subject?

Because this is a web forum that invites such debate. The abortion issue is just one arrow in my quiver, and it shoots straight and true, right through the heart of other "moral" arguments. There will be more debate about gun control in the United States and limiting the rights of citizens to own firearms (something that is actually enshrined in their constitution, unlike abortion), but any mention of limits on abortions because of fetal viability enrages the left. Noting that abortions kill millions of children before they ever get to a classroom is just extra mustard.

Mine is a technical argument based on logic, not personal feelings about what is "moral". I don't care what you do in pursuit of saving the "doomed" human race from climate change, but that doesn't mean I must agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because this is a web forum that invites such debate. The abortion issue is just one arrow in my quiver, and it shoots straight and true, right through the heart of other "moral" arguments.

Only in your own head, because you claim that pro choice means advocating abortion.

Mine is a technical argument based on logic, not personal feelings about what is "moral".

And that is what makes me curious and a little sickened by your approach to issues like these! You seem to be detached about everything, and feel nothing for other people. Most of us aren't able to detach our feelings, and have to try to use logic to work around them to arrive at practical solutions to moral quandaries. I don't trust anyone who doesn't feel any emotional stake in any issue or any story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only in your own head, because you claim that pro choice means advocating abortion.

Pro choice means advocating for safe, legal "reproductive services". I'll let you figure out what that means.

And that is what makes me curious and a little sickened by your approach to issues like these! You seem to be detached about everything, and feel nothing for other people. Most of us aren't able to detach our feelings, and have to try to use logic to work around them to arrive at practical solutions to moral quandaries. I don't trust anyone who doesn't feel any emotional stake in any issue or any story.

Yes, I am actually a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 with poor typing skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...