I've been having an argument with two friends of mine over on Facebook, and I'm inviting them here to carry on the debate in my combox, where there are not such limitations on length of comments as there are at Facebook.My basic premises:
- That abortion entails the intentional taking of an innocent human life.
- That the intentional taking of an innocent human life is morally wrong.
- That it is a legitimate function of government to protect innocent human life.
This is a public discussion, all are invited to take part.
124 comments:
Paul, I assume this is in reference to the letter to the editor post.
Will review the whole discussion & see if there is anything I can add. But for now, I will say your premises pretty well sum it all up.
or as you put it:
Abortion is not a "right" and should be illegal.
Actually there are two major and minor syllogisms implicit in the statement. The first is that abortion is wrong since it is the killing of a human being."
That is:
1). It is wrong to kill a human being.
2). A pre-born human being is killed in an abortion.
thus, since a pre-born human being is a human being,
3). (Conclusion) abortion is wrong.
QED, right?
But then there is the purpose of law, but it boils down to:
1). Governments are set up to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens/subjects.
2). Abortion is the taking of a human life.
3). The government must protect the preborn from abortion. Since this means preventing those that would take human life by means of law enforcement, this means that abortion should be illegal, and that the peace officers of the nation should enforce that law.
Or, to sum up, "abortion should be illegal."
Of course, liberals tend up get up and mad when you try to use reason and logic on them.
Steven P. Cornett
cornetts@wcoil.com
Even atheists can't stand liberal nonsense and the constant running away from the facts.
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2009
Example of Liberal Delusion: Huffington on Van Jones
Recently, I've just stopped arguing with liberals. Most are unwilling to see any viewpoint that's slightly beyond the mainstream. To liberals, no matter the veracity of the claim, the value of a statement depends primarily on the person making it.
To prove my point, I give you Arianna Huffington defending Van Jones. I blogged about this extreme radical a few days ago. VFR also had a great article on him here. Pay very close attention to Mrs. Huffington blinding herself to the nature of Jones' beliefs:
Thank you, Glenn Beck. By helping force the resignation of Van Jones, you have done a great service to your country. But in the exact opposite way than what you intended. Your vile and vicious smear campaign has helped reverse one of the worst examples of miscasting since John Wayne took on the role of Genghis Khan in The Conqueror.
So quoting the man's own words is now tantamount to "smearing". I recall Obama using this same defense.
Contrary to the media caricature, the real Van Jones is a thoughtful leader who knows how to use words to move people to action.
All demagogues "know how to use words". Such a talent doesn't mean those words will have positive effects. I also love the condemnation of a so-called "caricature". Even if Jones' entire personality wasn't displayed on Fox News, aren't the vile statements he made enough to warrant extreme criticism?
More at:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/09/example-of-liberal-delusion-huffington.html
IF you can get a pro-choice person to acknowledge that the life in the womb is an innocent human life then you might be able to make your point. But, if you get a pro-choice person to agree that it is, in fact, an innocent human life in the womb, and they remain pro-choice, then they have to argue that it is acceptable to kill innocent human life. I have yet to meet a pro-choice person who will make that claim. It will be no surprise to me if the argument never moves beyond your first claim. This will be an interesting discussion to watch.
Arby has a good point. "Abortion entails the intentional taking of an innocent human life" is the controversial(1) point here. Therefore, it is necessary to convince pro-aborts of that particular point.
I'm not sure how to do to that. Maybe like this:
A. All beings that have certain attributes, such as the ability to speak and reason abstractly, are defined as human beings.
B. Beings who do not have those abilities, but are likely to develop them if cared for properly, are defined as human beings. This includes, for example, toddlers.
C. An embryo, if kept in the proper environment (= womb) and cared for correctly, is likely to develop all the attributes we associate with human-ness.
(1) In the technical sense of "this is where the disagreement lies", without trying to prejudice the discussion to one direction or another.
Here's my $0.02:
a) If the life in a mother's womb is NOT a human being worthy of protection, then why do some states have laws on their books, whereby if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with 2 counts? That is a disconnect that bears explanation.
b) If the life in a mother's womb is NOT a human being worthy of protection, then why do some pregnant mothers go through the exercise of natal surgerendure natal surgery to fix problems pre-birth? Isn't that just a waste of time and money that could be better spent on someone post-birth? Another disconnect that bears explanation.
Two things that have always made me wonder:
1) If scientists found a fertilized human egg in space, would they call it Life? If so, then why not when it's in the womb?
2) Why do all textbooks and videos about human reproduction begin with the moment of conception? Are they implying that life begins at conception?
Jennifer
Just as I was writing the previous comment, my 29-month old daughter came up beside me and pointed at the picture of the fetus and said "Look at the baby sleeping!"
Why does she see a baby while others see only potential?
Jennifer
Interesting, thought-provoking blog! I got here by searching for "Duggar" articles.
-Elizabeth
Christian missionary, 1 of 7 children, pro-life
oops - I should have re-read my second point before hitting 'publish'. It should read "...then why do some pregnant mothers endure natal surgery to fix problems pre-birth?"
Interesting and thought provoking, but I'm afraid that this is mostly preaching to the choir.
Maybe it would be more productive to think about why pro-aborts are pro-aborts, or how to create subversive memes to change their opinions.
Ori: "I'm afraid that this is mostly preaching to the choir."
Too true. Their are pro-choicers who reads this blog. They either have not read it yet or they will not comment for the reason that I previously stated.
Ori: "Maybe it would be more productive to think about why pro-aborts are pro-aborts, or how to create subversive memes to change their opinions."
The reason that they are pro-aborts is because they refuse to bend their will to God's. They are, to use an old testament description, stiff-necked Jews.
Now, as for creating "subversive memes to change their opinions," that is an interesting proposition.
Arby: The reason that they are pro-aborts is because they refuse to bend their will to God's. They are, to use an old testament description, stiff-necked Jews.
Ori: Can you come up with a more charitable explanation? Many of us (me included) don't know what is God's will. We only know that a bunch of people tell us that certain things are God's will, and that those things are sometimes incompatible.
For subversive memes, "parenting empowers you" might work.
A more charitable explanation? Nope. God's will is in the Bible. If you want know God's will, read His words. If a good Study Bible doesn't help clear up His meaning, find a good pastor who can help make things clear. I suggest Alistair Begg. Use Google.
One detail I'd like to point out, re: "effectiveness" vs. "logic":
There are at least two main themes in which the pro-life message can be framed: defense of the child, and defense of anyone else harmed by abortion (mother, father, society, etc.). IN NO WAY should the pro-life movement feel constrained to use only one theme; we seriously can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can defend the humanity/personhood of the child, and we can defend the rights of women (who are brutalized by abortions in manifold ways--even if the procedure "goes well" from the abortionist's point of view), men (try here or here for information on that), and anyone who is harmed by degrading human life to the level of a commodity--where people are "hand-picked" for being "worthy enough to live".
That last point is where I'd have to take exception to the framing of your suggested schema, Ori:
A. All beings that have certain attributes, such as the ability to speak and reason abstractly, are defined as human beings.
B. Beings who do not have those abilities, but are likely to develop them if cared for properly, are defined as human beings. This includes, for example, toddlers.
C. An embryo, if kept in the proper environment (= womb) and cared for correctly, is likely to develop all the attributes we associate with human-ness.
I think it's obvious that such a schema would clear the way for the abortion of all Down's Syndrome babies, those with Trisomy (see here for an illustration--but have kleenex handy), and other so-called "unproductive undesirables" with no "standard of living" acknowledgeable by those who hold those powers of life and death.
No... if we do not recognize the intrinsic value of every human life, no matter how little "utility" it has to any given political pressure group, then we betray the whole.
it is acceptable to kill innocent human life. I have yet to meet a pro-choice person who will make that claim.
Hmm...I have. It is generally framed in the sense of the mother's rights outweigh those of the child's, thus the mother wins. Weak, but there it is.
Also goes to their motivation - many pro-aborts see it as a necessary evil so mom (or dad, if pressuring her) can continue with her (his) life at the expense of her child's. Our culture pushes for the "quick fix" of abortion to deal with this problem rather than the more resource consuming approach of helping to care for the new life. That, and fear of taking on responsibility - would rather dodge it than face it. Subverting those attitudes would go a long way to restoring some sanity.
I notice that your premises all include the word "innocent". So firstly, I'd like to know what innocence has to do with the abortion debate. Are there any guilty babies? :p
In any event, no one can meaningfully equivocate as to whether abortion involves the taking of a human life. Unborn babies are human beings. Abortions, by definition, involve the termination of human life. That's the simple fact of the matter. Any pro-choice advocate who claims otherwise is, quite simply, full of crap.
But that isn't the point of the abortion debate. It's not a question of anyone trying to twist and tug at the definition of abortion in order to justify it. Quite the opposite: the point of the abortion debate is simply whether or not it is justifiable to DO it -- ethically, or legally.
Ethical justification and legal justification are, of course, distinct. I'm sure we could have just as hardy a debate as to whether or not the state holds the ethical imperative to put a murderer to death; but the law of the land holds that it wields that power.
So too is it with abortion. You assert that it is government's role to "protect innocent life" when, in fact, our government has no such role. It instead has a role to protect the rights of its *citizens*. And here and now, the law is this: the mother is a citizen. As such, she possesses the right to control her own body. Thus, the government in fact has a responsibility to *defend her right* to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Even if that means the murder of her child.
I use the term murder because abortion is precisely that. It is murder. It is the ending of human life, purposely, with premeditation and intent to kill. I admit to this fully, with no hesitation. The definition is simple, clear, and undeniable.
Yet this murder, this sanctioned ending of human life, MUST be permitted. It must be permitted because the alternative is unconscionable, worse even than murder. The alternative is allowing the state to impose its will upon the mother, to force her to become a factory for producing offspring. She becomes a slave to the state; she becomes the state's chattle. She loses then her humanity, her citizenship, her rights.
And if we've learned anything from history, we must remember this: as her rights are eroded away, so too then are ours. Thus while it is a terrible line to draw, the line must be drawn here nevertheless.
Robert Schwartz wrote:
So firstly, I'd like to know what innocence has to do with the abortion debate. Are there any guilty babies? :p
No, of course not... but I've seen at least two uses for bringing such an idea up:
1) pro-abortionists who try to condemn pro-capital-punishment people as "hypocrites" because they're "inconsistently pro-life"; whereas the death penalty seeks to execute *guilty* parties... and babies cannot possibly have incurred such guilt. (I do not defend the popular "death penalty" practice in the USA, by saying this; but the distinction is a fair and important one.)
2) Those who argue that babies conceived through rape (see here for some better insights into that!) are supporting the death of an innocent bystander (i.e. the baby) for the guilt of another (i.e. the rapist father); highlighting the innocence of the baby emphasizes the inhumanity of such a "choice".
BTW, Elizabeth: God bless your efforts in Russia! Wow...!
Paladin: No... if we do not recognize the intrinsic value of every human life, no matter how little "utility" it has to any given political pressure group, then we betray the whole.
Ori: You're right, this is a "logic vs. effectiveness" issue for me. I doubt we'd be able to convince many pro-aborts to recognize the intrinsic value of every human life. At least, not immediately.
It seems a lot more doable to chip away at their support for abortion by convincing them to viable embryos should not be aborted. That includes those with Down's Syndrome, BTW - killing somebody with Down's Syndrome is clearly murder.
We'd still lose on the Trisomy issue, as well as euthanasia. But just as we got to where we are by a gradual process, any change from here is likely to be gradual.
Robert: And here and now, the law is this: the mother is a citizen. As such, she possesses the right to control her own body.
Ori: If the mother decided that her hand offended her, and asked a doctor to amputate it, what would happen? Either nothing, or the doctor would lose his/her license.
If the mother decided she wants marijuana for her morning sickness, what would happen? I don't know, but the baby may well be born in the prison infirmary.
What if the mother needed a real medical treatment, and that treatment was experimental and not approved by the FDA yet? Again, the government won't let her get it except under very controlled circumstances.
It seems that when it comes to medical treatment, we don't let people control their own bodies.
Okay, I have a little more time to breathe and write! Robert Schwartz wrote:
But that isn't the point of the abortion debate. It's not a question of anyone trying to twist and tug at the definition of abortion in order to justify it. Quite the opposite: the point of the abortion debate is simply whether or not it is justifiable to DO it -- ethically, or legally.
(??) I'm afraid you've lost me. "Ethics", as a discipline, is the study of that which is good or evil to do... which is *intrinsically* linked to the idea of whether it *should* be done or not. To say that something is "intrinsically evil" but saying that it is "morally allowable" is self-contradictory, without further qualification...
You [Paul] assert that it is government's role to "protect innocent life" when, in fact, our government has no such role. It instead has a role to protect the rights of its *citizens*.
That simply isn't true. Any tourist from a foreign country is afforded basic rights of protection; no USA citizen can kill/torture/rape them with impunity!
And here and now, the law is this: the mother is a citizen. As such, she possesses the right to control her own body. Thus, the government in fact has a responsibility to *defend her right* to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Even if that means the murder of her child.
I'm afraid that you're saying (and it's quite true), in essence, "USA law is incoherent, on this matter."
Yet this murder, this sanctioned ending of human life, MUST be permitted. It must be permitted because the alternative is unconscionable, worse even than murder. The alternative is allowing the state to impose its will upon the mother, to force her to become a factory for producing offspring. She becomes a slave to the state; she becomes the state's chattle. She loses then her humanity, her citizenship, her rights.
Forgive me, but this makes no sense at all! Extend the age of the child to 2 years after birth, and see if it holds water; why is it morally licit (and even obligatory, in your eyes) to slaughter any unwanted children before birth, but not afterward? Why do you not defend the right of mothers to drown their "excess children"--especially after they've actually *tested* the so-called "burden" of raising them (instead of making an ill-prepared and wild guess about the predicted "burden" of the post-birth care of the child, before they're even born)?
And if we've learned anything from history, we must remember this: as her rights are eroded away, so too then are ours. Thus while it is a terrible line to draw, the line must be drawn here nevertheless.
Surely you can see that this same aphorism could be applied to the rights of the unborn child... and even more so, since the right to life is more basic and primal than the right to liberty (since life is a precondition of liberty, and NOT vice-versa)? If we give ourselves permission to kill anyone we find "unsuitably burdensome", then all rights are in danger. What the state grants, the state can take away. This is why we can NEVER admit the false premise that "the state" somehow "bestows" the right to life on anyone; it has no power to do so (nor to take the right away).
Ori wrote:
You're right, this is a "logic vs. effectiveness" issue for me. I doubt we'd be able to convince many pro-aborts to recognize the intrinsic value of every human life. At least, not immediately.
I see what you mean... but we who defend life cannot sit by and "hand-pick" whom we are to defend, like that. If the UN had brokered a deal with Nazi Germany (I'm abstracting from the manifold other reasons for WWII, here) and its enemies, in which the number of Jews slaughtered in any given month were cut in half--and the UN expressed great hope that this number might be reduced far more, if not eventually eliminated completely at some future time--what would be the moral result?
Some would argue: "Yes, we MUST do this... because the alternative is a bloody war with tens of millions killed in battles alone! And we can't hope to win over the National Socialist party all at once; their intense feelings on the matter will make this a slow process!" I would reply that such an argument is morally incoherent: it would serve only to place almost certain legitimate culpability on the hands of the heretofore "innocent" opponents of the Nazi regime. The instant we sign on the dotted line of any agreement which tolerates an intrinsic evil, it's extremely difficult (if not impossible) NOT to share responsibility in that evil.
It seems a lot more doable to chip away at their support for abortion by convincing them to viable embryos should not be aborted. That includes those with Down's Syndrome, BTW - killing somebody with Down's Syndrome is clearly murder.
That's the point: "clearly murder" is an appeal either to sentiment, to opinion, or to present political climate/consensus--and that's a horribly fickle standard. What is "clearly wrong" now may become the "celebrated right" in 50 years' time. And given that roughly 90% of Down's Syndrome babies (or those falsely diagnosed as such) are aborted in the USA, it doesn't seem so "clear" that all the mothers view themselves as murderers.
We'd still lose on the Trisomy issue, as well as euthanasia.
If we "lose" by choosing to write off (or otherwise tolerating the deaths of) those with Trisomy, brain damage, etc., then we've lost everything. By what standard will we be fighting? We'll be doing the same as our opponents: picking and choosing who's fit to live/defend, and who is fit to die/abandon.
But just as we got to where we are by a gradual process, any change from here is likely to be gradual.
Even that idea, I think, is mistaken. Take the drink away from an alcoholic in dribbles and drabs, and he'll eventually tear you to pieces in a half-crazed frenzy. Try to "wean" a sex addict away from sex, and he'll wring your neck before the process is done. No... even on a practical level, addiction must be broken "cold turkey"--with all your faculties and resources in unison against the foe--or not at all... since "a house divided against itself cannot stand". If we cannot say that all human persons are worthy of life (and defense of that life), then we are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
To say that something is "intrinsically evil" but saying that it is "morally allowable" is self-contradictory, without further qualification...
I'm simply noting that attempting to change the wording of the definition of abortion cannot in turn be used as any reasonable defense of it, nor as an argument against it. Whether or not it's murder by strict, dictionary definition speaks not at all toward its ethics.
Consequently, of course, I differ with the assertion that anything can ever be defined as "intrinsically evil." Nothing is intrinsically evil, as all ethics are relative.
Any tourist from a foreign country is afforded basic rights of protection; no USA citizen can kill/torture/rape them with impunity!
I'll rephrase then: government's responsibility is to defend the rights of individuals within its borders. Yes, that can and does include the unborn. However, when these rights conflict, a decision must be made as to whose rights supersede. The right to live, of paramount importance though it may be, is not sufficient, in my view, to supersede the right to personal liberty of an unborn child's mother.
Extend the age of the child to 2 years after birth, and see if it holds water; why is it morally licit (and even obligatory, in your eyes) to slaughter any unwanted children before birth, but not afterward?
Because... the child is no longer physically attached to the mother? I don't follow you. Once the child is born, personal liberty is no longer an issue. The mother can simply leave the child with foster care, social services, or however it works in her state.
Why do you not defend the right of mothers to drown their "excess children"--especially after they've actually *tested* the so-called "burden" of raising them (instead of making an ill-prepared and wild guess about the predicted "burden" of the post-birth care of the child, before they're even born)?
Because these supposed burdens do not impede upon the personal liberty of the mother. Free country as this is, the mother can go anywhere and do anything. She can abandon her children anytime she so chooses. Pregnancy, however, demands that the mother physically carry the child to term. She is bound by the pregnancy; she is afflicted with the pregnancy; she may, in fact, end up dead as a result of the pregnancy. These impositions constrain her right to personal liberty. Thus she, in turn, must be permitted to assert her rights to be free of such fetters.
Since we're dipping into the Silly Example Pool™, consider if you will a case wherein someone needs a bone marrow transplant or faces death. Woman X is the only compatible donor. Would you compel her to donate? Or does she have the right to let the patient die?
Surely you can see that this same aphorism could be applied to the rights of the unborn child... and even more so, since the right to life is more basic and primal than the right to liberty (since life is a precondition of liberty, and NOT vice-versa)? If we give ourselves permission to kill anyone we find "unsuitably burdensome", then all rights are in danger. What the state grants, the state can take away. This is why we can NEVER admit the false premise that "the state" somehow "bestows" the right to life on anyone; it has no power to do so (nor to take the right away).
I don't know what you mean by "primal". There are no "primal" rights, no "intrinsic" rights. And I'm not one to lend any credence to so-called "divine" or "God-given" rights. There are constitutional rights (in the USA, other rights elsewhere) which are explicitly defined. Other than the rights granted to you by the society in which you live, no, you have no rights at all.
We may have struck on something here, so I'd like to explore it further. You seem to be arguing from a position wherein all people have some sort of native, natural, automatic set of rights, rights that are self-evidential, that everyone can perceive and agree upon as existent, important, and immutable. Conversely, I acknowledge no such systematic construct; instead, I assert that this is all hogwash, and the only so-called rights afforded anyone are the ones that they purposely elect to invent, assign, and respect. Which rights are invented, how they're assigned, and whether or not they're respected, is how a society evolves and, if successful, thrives -- or, if not successful, withers.
Consequently, whether or not any one particular right is more "basic" or "primal" than another is a nonsensical question to me. The answer is a shrug, as rights, in my view, possess no such characteristics. I do, however, possess my own system of ethics, and I can and will merrily apply them as I see fit. And in my eyes, no, it is not ethically justifiable to weigh the right to live of a baby as greater than the right to personal liberty of a mother. To allow such an injustice, again in my opinion, would be the true horror, the true atrocity.
Ori: If the mother decided that her hand offended her, and asked a doctor to amputate it, what would happen? Either nothing, or the doctor would lose his/her license.
Voluntary amputation is a complex issue, one that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But yes, I agree with what I believe to be your point: that the right to make decisions about one's own body is superseded when the state can demonstrate that one lacks the capacity to act without harming one's self.
In the case of abortion, however, the reverse is true: the mother is acting in her own interests.
If the mother decided she wants marijuana for her morning sickness, what would happen? I don't know, but the baby may well be born in the prison infirmary.
The baby would probably suffer birth defects, which is why, in turn, this would be illegal even if (when?) marijuana smoking is permitted.
What if the mother needed a real medical treatment, and that treatment was experimental and not approved by the FDA yet? Again, the government won't let her get it except under very controlled circumstances.
Again, the government is acting in the interests of the mother, if and when it can positively demonstrate that the mother is not acting in her own best interests. This differs from abortion, where the mother *is* acting in her own interests, but anti-abortionists would have the government disallow her procedure.
It seems that when it comes to medical treatment, we don't let people control their own bodies.
We don't let people control their own bodies in all sorts of circumstances. I don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, even though they're my vocal chords. I don't have the right to pull the trigger of a gun pointed at somebody else, even though it's my gun and my finger. This is because exercising these rights (I do, after all, have the right to shout and to fire guns) are superseded by the rights of personal liberty of those who I would harm by my actions.
Similarly: if someone is holding me against my will or threatening my life, I can respond with physical force. If my only avenue of escape is the death of my captor, and if I understand USA law correctly, then yes, I may use deadly force to escape. Herein, my right to personal liberty supersedes my captor's right to live.
Paladin, I don't think I was clear in my suggestion. I am in no way suggesting that it would be good to accept any abortions as legitimate. My point is the much weaker point, that it would be beneficial to make both arguments. Some people may be persuaded by one, some by the other.
This isn't a matter of signing a treaty to accept some abortions, it's a matter of fighting where the enemy is weakest. The equivalent is British abolitionists making the slave trade illegal in 1807, 16 years before they had the strength to outlaw slavery completely.
If we "lose" by choosing to write off (or otherwise tolerating the deaths of) those with Trisomy, brain damage, etc., then we've lost everything. By what standard will we be fighting? We'll be doing the same as our opponents: picking and choosing who's fit to live/defend, and who is fit to die/abandon.
We cannot defend all human beings, or even all innocent human beings. Nothing we can do, for example, will reduce the rate of abortion in Russia. What we can do is try to be as effective as possible where we do have power.
No... even on a practical level, addiction must be broken "cold turkey"--with all your faculties and resources in unison against the foe--or not at all...
We are talking about a country, rather than an individual. Countries have a track record of doing things gradually:
1. The Roman Empire's idolatry was not broken "cold turkey". It took ~300 years from Jesus to Constantine. It took additional time between Constantine and the end of idolatry.
2. Slavery was not abolished in one fell swoop. Massachusetts made slavery illegal in 1780 (or 1783 if you consider it judicial activism). It would be over 80 years before the Civil War would release the last slaves in the US.
Robert: Similarly: if someone is holding me against my will or threatening my life, I can respond with physical force. If my only avenue of escape is the death of my captor, and if I understand USA law correctly, then yes, I may use deadly force to escape. Herein, my right to personal liberty supersedes my captor's right to live.
Ori: That is correct. If somebody is consciously holding you hostage, you're allowed to kill them to get back your liberty.
However, if a person is risking your life without any ill will, that's different. You're not allowed to run down kids playing in the street because you're on your way to the ER, for example.
Robert, welcome to the debate!
I'd like to take issue with your assertion that the "right" of the mother to not be pregnant supersedes the right of the unborn child to life.
The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade no less (!), disagrees with you. That ruling asserts the interest of the state in defending the lives of innocent unborns, and notes that if it were to be established that life begins at conception, the argument in favor of abortion would collapse utterly.
(By this we can see that the right to abortion is based entirely on pretended ignorance of a well-known scientific fact.)
You guys are trying to use logic with people who use what I would call traditional reasoning. Logic starts with a premise and works toward a conclusion.
However traditional reasoning starts with a desired outcome and works backward to create conditions that will render the desired outcome.
Basically a person wants A, B and C and figures he will have to do X,Y, and Z to get it. Kind of like buying a car. You work and save to get the car. The whole thing starts with wanting the car. Or alternatively stealing a car, for those with a greater moral flexibility.
So if I am not ready to start a family, I could keep my yearning self busy working and saving so I can get married and have a family, or if morally flexible could spend my money on rye whiskey and wild, wild women and kill any kids that get in my way.
Ori: That is correct. If somebody is consciously holding you hostage, you're allowed to kill them to get back your liberty.
However, if a person is risking your life without any ill will, that's different. You're not allowed to run down kids playing in the street because you're on your way to the ER, for example.
I fail to see how "ill will" is relevant. If in fact I am forced to kill in order to preserve my own life, I may do so -- even if that person that I kill is oblivious to my predicament. If my car brakes go out, and my only options are either to run off a cliff or purposely crash into a tree to stop myself, and some kid is standing in front of the tree, then yes, I can kill the kid to save my own life.
Mind you, this silly scenario is only meaningful or applicable if my ONLY available options are either to kill or to die. If I have any other options, then that's what I'd be expected to do (and, presumably, that's what I'd choose to do). But if forced to, I may kill to preserve my own life. The nature of the victim of my act of murder is irrelevant. I am acting in my own selfish interests to preserve my own life, a right afforded to me by law.
Btw: as an aside, not relevant to the topic at hand, I personally would choose to drive off the cliff.
Paul: I'd like to take issue with your assertion that the "right" of the mother to not be pregnant supersedes the right of the unborn child to life.
The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade no less (!), disagrees with you. That ruling asserts the interest of the state in defending the lives of innocent unborns, and notes that if it were to be established that life begins at conception, the argument in favor of abortion would collapse utterly.
The ruling does not assert such a state interest. It does mention three other state interests (mind you, I'm quoting Wikipedia here) in Section V:
(1) an interest in discouraging women from engaging in "illicit sexual conduct", which interest would be undermined by making abortion widely available;
(2) an interest in reducing access to a risky medical procedure—which abortion could still be in the late stages of pregnancy, despite modern medical techniques such as antibiotics; and
(3) an interest in protecting prenatal life.
Argument (1) was discarded, and arguments (2) and (3) were considered to be explicitly superseded by the rights of the mother, as per the 9th and 14th Amendments.
Whereas, in Section IX, it starts to make mention of the potentiality of the fetus to attempt to assert its rights. Therein, it makes mention that fetuses do not currently have any constitutionally-defined rights. However, it does not at all make mention of what ramifications, if any, granting fetuses such rights would have on the scenario. It simply notes that because unborn babies currently are not defined as legal persons, "there was no legal grounds for factoring into this balancing test any right to life of the unborn fetus."
Hence, they pulled the typical US courtroom switcheroo: we don't have to consider this aspect of the case, so we won't. Now, perhaps you feel confident that if in fact the unborn were defined as legal persons, then the ruling would be different or justification could then be found for the ruling to be overturned. Whereas, I hold no such confidence.
(By this we can see that the right to abortion is based entirely on pretended ignorance of a well-known scientific fact.)
What fact would that be?
Hi, Robert,
I'm not sure how much time I'll have to reply to your points, at the moment... but I'll try to do them justice, at least within the next few days or so. For now:
You wrote:
Nothing is intrinsically evil, as all ethics are relative.
I assert that this claim is flatly wrong, and logically absurd (i.e. self-contradictory). Unless you've decided to use an esoteric, idiomatic and personalized definition of "ethics", you can't possibly maintain (with logical coherence) that "ALL ethics are relative"; surely you see that this would demolish all ethics, whatsoever? Take away all objective standards whatsoever, and all talk of "right and wrong", "morally better or worse", etc., are all winds and words. You'd be saying, in effect, that "ethics is the study of that which is right or wrong--and there are no such things"; you're saying that ethics has no content whatever! That can't be right, I think...
As an aside: if I (hypothetically) managed to scrape together enough support (or military power) to pass a law making it legal for me to torture all moral relativists to death (and confiscate their property, family, etc.), would you still maintain that your objections are "merely your opinion, not binding on anyone else"? You would maintain your moral relativism, even to the point of sacrificing yourself in a self-evidently unjust denial of your rights? The mind boggles...
Anyway... consider that you made the following claims (above):
government's responsibility is to defend the rights of individuals within its borders
If nothing is right or wrong in an objective sense (i.e. beyond personal opinion/view), then your above sentence is totally void of meaning; what does "responsibility" mean, if there is no moral burden, and no justifiable consequences for failing to carry it?
The right to live, of paramount importance though it may be, is not sufficient, in my view, to supersede the right to personal liberty of an unborn child's mother.
Not meaning to offend, but (as a general question): why, given your philosophy, should anyone care about your opinion, if it has no chance of actually being "right"? Those who advocate moral relativism have not only rendered their position absurd, but they've removed all rational incentive for anyone to agree with them (since their opinions/views are just as valid, and usually far more pleasing to them)! And to talk of one right "superceding" another is to refer to an objective standard (whatever that might be); otherwise, you're simply talking nonsense. It's a bit like saying that one knife edge is "sharper" than another, without any possible objective standard of "sharpness"; it defeats itself.
Thus [the pregnant mother], in turn, must be permitted to assert her rights to be free of such fetters [as pregnancy, and its attendant risks/burdens].
And again: how can you say that "all ethics are relative", and then turn around to say that anyone MUST permit the mother to do ANYTHING? "Must" implies an obligation, yes? And to say, "Yes, it's a LEGAL obligation" merely begs the question: is THIS (abortion-tolerant) law obligatory? Why should anyone obey it, instead of defying it--especially since my view (that your idea is dead wrong) is just as valid as yours, in your philosophy? Or do you mean to say that you think "all enacted law should be observed and obeyed, by mere fact of their present existence"? If so, then you've abandoned all talk of ethics, altogether. To say "what I do, I do", says nothing about whether I SHOULD do it--which is the sine qua non of ethics.
More later... must dash!
P.S. One addendum: Robert, you wrote:
The right to live, of paramount importance though it may be, is not sufficient, in my view, to supersede the right to personal liberty of an unborn child's mother.
Just to clarify: when I spoke of the right to life having priority, I refer to the fact that it's a precondition for all other rights. The mother needs to be alive, in order for anyone to speak of her right to liberty, yes? Just so: I ask you why you choose a lesser right of one human person, over and against a greater right of an equally valuable person. By taking the life of the baby, you also take away all other rights of the baby, as well (e.g. liberty)... and I still don't see why you feel free to approve of that.
Robert: I fail to see how "ill will" is relevant. If in fact I am forced to kill in order to preserve my own life, I may do so -- even if that person that I kill is oblivious to my predicament. If my car brakes go out, and my only options are either to run off a cliff or purposely crash into a tree to stop myself, and some kid is standing in front of the tree, then yes, I can kill the kid to save my own life.
Ori: I suspect you're wrong on this - you can save your own life by running over the kid, but you're likely to spend the rest of them in prison.
However, I am not a lawyer. I may not even have the same "instincts" as a person born and raised here - I grew up in Israel. Therefore, I'd like to ask other people here - would it be legal to kill an innocent bystander to save your own life? If you were on a jury, would you let the perpetrator go or convict?
Whether it is abortion/unwanted pregnancy, HIV infection, drug addiction, or any other stupid problem that is easily avoided, people know X leads to Y. They know that they won't suffer Y if they avoid X, but because of a lack of character, they still indulge in X.
This why smarter, better people don't have all these stupid problems. Character is the reason there is a difference between people who have these problems and those who don't. If you are stupid enough to have suffered these problems, stop ignoring good advice and make smarter (read obvious) decisions. Start living better and your life will be better, duh.
Not very Pee Cee, I know, but someone has to say it.
Honestly, I think most pro aborts think women who have unwanted pregnancies are idiots and of low character and figure their abortions means there will be fewer idiots in the future. It is survival of the fittest. Anyone who is so bad that they kill their own kids hasn't much to contribute to the gene pool. So in the pro abort mind, abortion reduces idiots and immoral people by simply allowing them to destroy themselves. Pro abortion is inherently amoral comes from a world view of materialism.
Robert: Nothing is intrinsically evil, as all ethics are relative.
I assert that this claim is flatly wrong, and logically absurd (i.e. self-contradictory). Unless you've decided to use an esoteric, idiomatic and personalized definition of "ethics", you can't possibly maintain (with logical coherence) that "ALL ethics are relative"; surely you see that this would demolish all ethics, whatsoever? Take away all objective standards whatsoever, and all talk of "right and wrong", "morally better or worse", etc., are all winds and words. You'd be saying, in effect, that "ethics is the study of that which is right or wrong--and there are no such things"; you're saying that ethics has no content whatever! That can't be right, I think...
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the only meaningful, useful, or definable system of ethics is a universal one. I do not agree. I have a system of ethics that I apply to my life and wield when judging others. I invented it. I constantly adjust it, tweak it, on a daily basis. It is meaningful to me, useful to me. And yes, I can define it for you, simply by responding to ethically-related questions.
Hence, I can very readily, and very easily, assess any situation and decide, for myself, whether an action is "right" or "wrong". Whether I use one word or the other is subject only to my own, personal whim. I am correct, always, insofar as that I'm simply using my own ruler for measurement.
Naturally, others will disagree. Others will pull out their own yardsticks and assert the opposite: that some action might be right in my eyes, but is wrong in theirs, or vice-versa. This is undeniable, and inevitable. It is also absolutely perfect evidence of a fundamental and undeniable truth about ethics: they are *always* relative. It is sufficient to provide a single example of a single ethical conundrum wherein at least two people disagree to demonstrate this fact.
As an aside: if I (hypothetically) managed to scrape together enough support (or military power) to pass a law making it legal for me to torture all moral relativists to death (and confiscate their property, family, etc.), would you still maintain that your objections are "merely your opinion, not binding on anyone else"? You would maintain your moral relativism, even to the point of sacrificing yourself in a self-evidently unjust denial of your rights? The mind boggles...
My ethics have nothing whatsoever to do with what the law of the land is. There are, in fact, laws with which I hold a moral objection. I obey them anyway, since I do not want to go to jail. But I will break them, someday, if and when I feel a moral imperative to do so.
If in turn I find myself living in a country where laws are passed that I find so deplorable, so offensive, that I feel that I must act, then I would likely take up a cause, perhaps even a violent one, to see those laws overturned or the government overthrown. This is the rebel's stance. It is in fact that very stance upon which this country is founded, arguably.
government's responsibility is to defend the rights of individuals within its borders
If nothing is right or wrong in an objective sense (i.e. beyond personal opinion/view), then your above sentence is totally void of meaning; what does "responsibility" mean, if there is no moral burden, and no justifiable consequences for failing to carry it?
The purpose of government is to establish and maintain order. This is not an ethical concept; it is a logistical one. A government that fails to maintain order, falls. Thus, it is in the *government's* interest to govern, to establish rule of law and the means by which to enforce that rule.
By corollary: if a government asserts rights for its citizens, as many governments do, then that government must live up to its self-assigned responsibility to enforce those rights. Failure to do so will ultimately result in the failure of that government (or, I suppose, its transformation into a government wherein such rights no longer exist).
Again: there's no moral imperative here. It is not inherently *right* or *just* for a government to enforce its own laws and defend the rights of its citizens. It is simply useful, important, for purposes of that government's survival and that nation's well-being. Logistics; not ethics.
Note that this applies equally well to a free society as a fascist regime. It is important, in a totalitarian, dictatorship environment, for that dictatorship to maintain that the citizens have no rights, that military strength is all-important, that everyone is subject to the whim of the state at all times. Thus, that government's responsibility is to reinforce that mantra, constantly, repeatedly, to put down rebellion, to wash away all signs of resistance. These are the characteristics of a stable, powerful, and efficient fascist state. And while I (we?) might find such a society deplorable, it is nevertheless effective.
Not meaning to offend, but (as a general question): why, given your philosophy, should anyone care about your opinion, if it has no chance of actually being "right"? Those who advocate moral relativism have not only rendered their position absurd, but they've removed all rational incentive for anyone to agree with them (since their opinions/views are just as valid, and usually far more pleasing to them)!
Better you should ask: why, if as a moral relativist I respect only my own opinion, should I care about yours? :) Because societies are constructed by people. Laws in a free society are crafted with the intention to grant rights and liberties to its citizens, so they may live together in harmony. To accomplish that task, it's probably helpful to pass laws that as many people can agree with as possible.
Not everyone will agree, of course. There will always be difference of opinion. Heck, there will even be anarchists, who strive against lawfulness itself. But for a society to thrive, it must have rules. Rules to be obeyed; rules to be enforced. It is not sufficient, as history has shown, to simply assume that everyone uses the same standard of ethics. Clearly, they do not. Thus, society must intervene, and impose the will of the majority upon the minority.
And to talk of one right "superceding" another is to refer to an objective standard (whatever that might be); otherwise, you're simply talking nonsense. It's a bit like saying that one knife edge is "sharper" than another, without any possible objective standard of "sharpness"; it defeats itself.
I can easily talk about rights superseding one another within my own, personal ethical framework. That is the standard that I apply; indeed, that is the *only* standard I can ever apply, as I could never speak toward the ethical frameworks of others.
And again: how can you say that "all ethics are relative", and then turn around to say that anyone MUST permit the mother to do ANYTHING? "Must" implies an obligation, yes?
In my own, personal ethical system, one is ultimately obliged to defer some of the rights of the fetus to some of the rights of the mother. This is my view on the matter; it is my perspective; and, when applicable, it is my vote.
And to say, "Yes, it's a LEGAL obligation" merely begs the question: is THIS (abortion-tolerant) law obligatory? Why should anyone obey it, instead of defying it--especially since my view (that your idea is dead wrong) is just as valid as yours, in your philosophy? Or do you mean to say that you think "all enacted law should be observed and obeyed, by mere fact of their present existence"? If so, then you've abandoned all talk of ethics, altogether. To say "what I do, I do", says nothing about whether I SHOULD do it--which is the sine qua non of ethics.
As with any law, if you feel morally obligated to ignore that law, or break that law, then that may very well be what you'll do. I have, in my time, broken laws in circumstances wherein I felt ethically justified in doing so. That something is a law simply means that the majority has voted to establish that principle as a law. That doesn't mean that all of its citizenry agree. That also doesn't mean that the consensus of its citizenry can't change over time. I'm sure I needn't cite examples of radical changes to USA law over the last two hundred years based on an evolving moral imperative by its people.
Just to clarify: when I spoke of the right to life having priority, I refer to the fact that it's a precondition for all other rights. The mother needs to be alive, in order for anyone to speak of her right to liberty, yes? Just so: I ask you why you choose a lesser right of one human person, over and against a greater right of an equally valuable person. By taking the life of the baby, you also take away all other rights of the baby, as well (e.g. liberty)... and I still don't see why you feel free to approve of that.
In my view, robbing someone of personal liberty is worse even than consigning someone to death. To force a mother to bring her child to term is to enslave her, to transform her from a human being into a baby machine.
The very moment you tell a person that no, she is no longer has a right to her own freedom, that she must defer those rights to another; well, then, she isn't free at all. She has no rights at all; she is no longer a citizen, no longer even a human being. She is a slave; she is property of the state. Thus the abortion debate, in my eyes, is a choice between either denying the fetus of its rights as a human being, or denying the mother of her rights as a human being. Either way, a human being is lost. Either way, someone's rights must be forsaken.
In my eyes, it is unethical -- unconscionable -- to force any human being to act as a surrogate for another, to strip that human being of freedom, of liberty, of humanity, for the sake of another. Indeed: the true contradiction, as I perceive it, is to claim to be acting in the interests of humanity, in the defense of innocence, all the while forcing someone into bondage.
Robert: In my eyes, it is unethical -- unconscionable -- to force any human being to act as a surrogate for another, to strip that human being of freedom, of liberty, of humanity, for the sake of another.
Ori: So you would decriminalize child neglect? My freedom is somewhat curtailed by the need to take care of my children. Even a father who ditched the mother after conception can still be legally required to pay child support - would you remove that requirement?
Ori: So you would decriminalize child neglect? My freedom is somewhat curtailed by the need to take care of my children. Even a father who ditched the mother after conception can still be legally required to pay child support - would you remove that requirement?
I was speaking about being a physical surrogate, turning a human being into a baby production facility at the whim of the state.
Child support inflicts a financial burden, rather than a physical one. The two are vastly dissimilar. Arguably, all citizens are inflicted with a financial burden to promote the well-being of the country's children, in the taxes we pay which in turn go into our school systems.
Robert: I was speaking about being a physical surrogate, turning a human being into a baby production facility at the whim of the state.
Ori: I see. It's the difference between having to pay taxes to be in the military, and being conscripted to serve in the military.
If you consider freedom to be as important as life, and that each person is allowed to protect it at any cost to anybody else, I can see how you would accept abortion as legitimate. I assume you would also consider it OK for parents to decide they don't want to raise a kid anymore, and abandon the kid in a relatively safe place (say, a police station or a hospital).
I think the one way to convince you to oppose abortion would be if there was medical research showing it to be bad for the pregnant woman, in much the same way that cutting off one's hand is bad for a human being (in general, with known exceptions).
Robert,
I have to admit, your presentation pushes moral relativism further than most people are willing to go! Up to a point, you're being remarkably consistent; full marks, for that. Regrettably, your entire position is based squarely on a bit of logical nonsense... and you're "co-opting" language of objectivity (e.g. "must", "should", "unconscionable", "ethics", etc.) while ripping those words away from the only framework (i.e. objectivity) which gives them any meaning!
Consider: your position ultimately reduces itself to "I'll do whatever I [expletive] well please, for reasons that remain my own." Well and good, so far... and I *do* understand the attractiveness (after a fashion) of a position which seems logically unassailable and which (as a bonus) allows you to do whatever you wish--a sort of organized amorality, if you will. But consider: you've disqualified yourself from any ability to talk (coherently, anyway) about ethics, obligations, and the like; those things are topics for people who acknowledge a moral reality about which things can actually be said IN FACT, not simply as a double-handful of whims, opinions, and inherited prejudices... just as a discussion of fine wines is for those who actually imbibe, rather than teetotallers (such as myself). If your moral compass is truly as fickle and subjective as is your personal taste for (or loathing of) carrots, then I'm not sure what we could possibly discuss; you'll have made yourself completely irrelevant/superfluous to any discussion of ethics (such as we're having, here).
But even in your recent answers, you "plagiarize" the language of objectivity, while trying to maintain your absolute relativism:
Again: there's no moral imperative here. It is not inherently *right* or *just* for a government to enforce its own laws and defend the rights of its citizens. It is simply useful, important, for purposes of that government's survival and that nation's well-being.
But surely you see: even your privatized utilitarianism begs the questions of, "What is 'well-being'?" (a race of well-fed slaves enjoys "well-being" in one sense, but not in the sense of liberty), "What does it mean to be 'useful' rather than harmful?" (killing a cancerous tumour can be said to be "helpful" to a patient who wants to live, but it could be seen as "harmful" to one who wants to die--as well as harmful to the poor tumour, which is only obeying its nature!), and the like.
Logistics; not ethics.
You mean "utility" (which doesn't exhaust "logistics" at all). But do remember that Paul was starting an ethical discussion, yes? (See his original argument's references to "right" and "wrong".) I'm not at all trying to chase you away, mind you! But there's something to be said for bringing a gun (ethics) to a gunfight (a debate of an ethical question), rather than a squeegee...
I think the one way to convince you to oppose abortion would be if there was medical research showing it to be bad for the pregnant woman, in much the same way that cutting off one's hand is bad for a human being (in general, with known exceptions).
If anything, I believe that medical research would show that pregnancy itself puts a woman's life at risk, both during the term and at childbirth. Thus, if we're going in this direction, the comparison would have to be between the risks involved to the woman undergoing an abortion and the risks involved in bringing the child to term. I feel safe in asserting that the latter will always be more dangerous and traumatic.
paladin: I have to admit, your presentation pushes moral relativism further than most people are willing to go! Up to a point, you're being remarkably consistent; full marks, for that. Regrettably, your entire position is based squarely on a bit of logical nonsense... and you're "co-opting" language of objectivity (e.g. "must", "should", "unconscionable", "ethics", etc.) while ripping those words away from the only framework (i.e. objectivity) which gives them any meaning!
Consider: your position ultimately reduces itself to "I'll do whatever I [expletive] well please, for reasons that remain my own." Well and good, so far... and I *do* understand the attractiveness (after a fashion) of a position which seems logically unassailable and which (as a bonus) allows you to do whatever you wish--a sort of organized amorality, if you will. But consider: you've disqualified yourself from any ability to talk (coherently, anyway) about ethics, obligations, and the like; those things are topics for people who acknowledge a moral reality about which things can actually be said IN FACT, not simply as a double-handful of whims, opinions, and inherited prejudices... just as a discussion of fine wines is for those who actually imbibe, rather than teetotallers (such as myself). If your moral compass is truly as fickle and subjective as is your personal taste for (or loathing of) carrots, then I'm not sure what we could possibly discuss; you'll have made yourself completely irrelevant/superfluous to any discussion of ethics (such as we're having, here).
I see no contradiction in simultaneously maintaining that ethics are relative and discussing those very ethics. Indeed: we are, in fact, having that discussion right now, despite the fact that you seem intent on sprinkling that discussion with exclamations of disbelief and accusations of illogic.
I get the impression that you feel that unjustified murder is unethical. In turn, I feel the same way. Thus, our ethical systems overlap. We share a common ground, a common perception. Others, I daresay, also share this point of view. Hence, our ethical systems are all similar in this fashion. As we would prefer living in a society where this principle is respected and enforced, we find ourselves here in a country where laws have been passed in favor of protecting life.
But at no time in this process was it identified that it is *absolutely* unethical to commit an unjustified act of murder. Indeed: far from this, it is instead acknowledged that there are individuals who *disagree* with this principle. There exist people, anarchists, individuals who respect strength and nothing else, who would hold that no, such an act is not unethical, that people should be free to kill whoever they so choose, for any reason they so choose. That doing so is in fact in our nature; that to establish a rule or a law or a society in contraction of this, in contradiction of our nature, would be the truly unethical act.
Are they *wrong*? No. That's what they believe. And they're entitled to believe it. Even as they commit the act; even as they're arrested, hauled off to jail, tried and convicted; they're still entitled to retain that belief, that system of ethics, that code. We can control their actions, through force. But we cannot control their will.
You seem to find all this surprising, even horrifying. Whereas, I find it rather invigorating. We disagree on many matters of ethics, I'm sure. All people do. Some people think some things to be right, others think them to be wrong. Fine. People even can and will *change their minds* about the ethics of an issue. Great. And no one person's ethics are better, or more correct, or more useful or important or worthy than anyone else's. Better still.
But surely you see: even your privatized utilitarianism begs the questions of, "What is 'well-being'?" (a race of well-fed slaves enjoys "well-being" in one sense, but not in the sense of liberty), "What does it mean to be 'useful' rather than harmful?" (killing a cancerous tumour can be said to be "helpful" to a patient who wants to live, but it could be seen as "harmful" to one who wants to die--as well as harmful to the poor tumour, which is only obeying its nature!), and the like.
Again demonstrating that these terms are all relative, and thus are only meaningful within a particular frame of reference. Lacking an absolute frame of reference, as always, I instead simply substitute my own.
Thus, when I say something is 'useful', for example, I mean that it is useful within the confines of how I personally define usefulness. You might disagree. That's hardly surprising. It is in fact expected. Thus we then have a hearty discussion about how our usefulness frameworks function, and attempt to identify where each of our mutual spectrums lie and how they compare and contrast. And so forth.
Here, I'm using the term 'useful' to speak toward raw functionality. A government wants to function. It wants to be stable. It wants to remain in control, provide stability. It wants to avoid rebellion and collapse. This, to me, speaks toward logistics: how to most efficiently and effectively accomplish its task. Thus, when I speak about utility as pertains to governments, I'm speaking about logistics. You might use the term differently. Knock yourself out.
But do remember that Paul was starting an ethical discussion, yes? (See his original argument's references to "right" and "wrong".) I'm not at all trying to chase you away, mind you! But there's something to be said for bringing a gun (ethics) to a gunfight (a debate of an ethical question), rather than a squeegee...
I happen to wield squeegees with ruthless efficiency, thank you very much. And it was Paul, not I, who introduced the topic of governmental imperative.
Robert wrote:
I see no contradiction in simultaneously maintaining that ethics are relative and discussing those very ethics
Not so long as you are content to deviate almost completely from the dictionary definition of "ethics", no... but that approach really doesn't lend itself to effective communication, to say nothing of concord or a reasoned discourse (i.e. a search for truth). If I were to redefine any and all words to my liking (and, as you would assert: who is in any position, or who has any general right, to stop me? And by the very fact of my ability, I can hereby declare it to be morally acceptable...), then you would be facing a conversation partner who might privately define "life" as "that which is blue", "good" as "the extent to which something doesn't contain parsnips", and other such raw surrealism which renders any meaningful communication rather more difficult than not.
Question: do you mean to say that you disagree with the idea that "ethics" is the "study of rightness and wrongness of human actions, decisions, etc."? Perhaps I should have asked that, at the outset...
Indeed: we are, in fact, having that discussion right now, despite the fact that you seem intent on sprinkling that discussion with exclamations of disbelief and accusations of illogic.
:) Cute. But I don't think you've understood my point, yet.
If you embrace absolute moral relativism (as you seem to be doing), and if you then merely discuss your thoughts on the matter, then yes... it's quite possible to talk with some coherence about those thoughts--as one might discuss a fondness for peanuts, or an aversion to tripe--and no one would be in a strong position to object to the truth of your statements about yourself. But the problem arises when you presume to say anything--at ALL--about ethics, above and beyond your raw, whimsical preferences. The problem arises even when you invoke the very word, "ethics"; most reasonable people really WILL think you mean something at least approximating the canonical definition (i.e. the study of rightness or wrongness of human choices, actions, etc.), rather than using the word as a pet name for your private collection of affective fancies. *Everyone* has *that*--and yes, you can discuss the similarities and differences of pet worldviews (perhaps even with some amusement and/or enjoyment), much like you could compare the colouring of your respective tabby cats; but in conversations about ethics in general, the only effective response to a declaration of absolute relativism is, "Well! Um. I see! Quite! Well... pleasant talking with you, and have a good day (whatever that means to you)!" There really is no hope of persuasion, or of mutual exchange of understanding, or of finding one's views to be mistaken and in need of revision (try relativism in a math class, sometime--it doesn't do wonders for one's GPA, I'd wager), or of anything else which normally constitutes a philosophical discussion/debate.
In other words: for you to say, "I define ethical behaviour as that which strikes my fancy at the moment" is really to introduce a word ("ethics") uselessly. It adds nothing of substance beyond any raw (and more authentic) statement of, "I care not about ethics; I will do as I please." (Brother William of Ockham wouldn't be pleased with you, in multiplying explanations and definitions beyond necessity!) Thus: to say that you're speaking "of ethics", when you're really dismissing the whole lot of it, is rather (perhaps unintentionally) disingenuous.
Now, if this upsets you, and you think I've wronged you in a sort of "mis-portrayal", I will politely ask you to be consistent, and remember that my definition of "portrayal" is just as valid as yours, thank you. :)
More in a bit...
Not so long as you are content to deviate almost completely from the dictionary definition of "ethics", no... but that approach really doesn't lend itself to effective communication, to say nothing of concord or a reasoned discourse (i.e. a search for truth). If I were to redefine any and all words to my liking (and, as you would assert: who is in any position, or who has any general right, to stop me? And by the very fact of my ability, I can hereby declare it to be morally acceptable...), then you would be facing a conversation partner who might privately define "life" as "that which is blue", "good" as "the extent to which something doesn't contain parsnips", and other such raw surrealism which renders any meaningful communication rather more difficult than not.
Rather more difficult, but not impossible, so long as we're both willing and able to explain what we mean by the terms that we use. Since you mentioned the dictionary, let's start there:
eth⋅ics
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
A system of morals. Rules of conduct. Moral principles. Values relating to human conduct. These all seem synonymous with "ethics", to me. Any one of these would serve well as a definition, to me.
But nowhere in this collection definition is there made reference to absolutism, to any sort of authoritarian source of ethical definition. Indeed: definition #3 *explicitly refers* to the concept of individual morals. HIS ethics forbade him. Personal. Specific. Distinct; unique.
If there is only one set of ethics, to which we're all supposed to refer; how, then, is it meaningful to talk about "his" ethics? Shouldn't his ethics also be my ethics? The dictionary, it seems, would disagree.
Question: do you mean to say that you disagree with the idea that "ethics" is the "study of rightness and wrongness of human actions, decisions, etc."? Perhaps I should have asked that, at the outset...
That, too, seems like a perfectly plausible definition of ethics, and philosophy thereof. But note again, that you merely mention rightness and wrongness. This can include, arguably, both *absolute* rightness and wrongness, and *relative* rightness and wrongness. If Jim thinks his actions are right; and Jane thinks that Jim's actions are wrong; then we're discussing relative ethics.
If you embrace absolute moral relativism (as you seem to be doing), and if you then merely discuss your thoughts on the matter, then yes... it's quite possible to talk with some coherence about those thoughts--as one might discuss a fondness for peanuts, or an aversion to tripe--and no one would be in a strong position to object to the truth of your statements about yourself. But the problem arises when you presume to say anything--at ALL--about ethics, above and beyond your raw, whimsical preferences. The problem arises even when you invoke the very word, "ethics"; most reasonable people really WILL think you mean something at least approximating the canonical definition (i.e. the study of rightness or wrongness of human choices, actions, etc.), rather than using the word as a pet name for your private collection of affective fancies. *Everyone* has *that*--and yes, you can discuss the similarities and differences of pet worldviews (perhaps even with some amusement and/or enjoyment), much like you could compare the colouring of your respective tabby cats; but in conversations about ethics in general, the only effective response to a declaration of absolute relativism is, "Well! Um. I see! Quite! Well... pleasant talking with you, and have a good day (whatever that means to you)!" There really is no hope of persuasion, or of mutual exchange of understanding, or of finding one's views to be mistaken and in need of revision (try relativism in a math class, sometime--it doesn't do wonders for one's GPA, I'd wager), or of anything else which normally constitutes a philosophical discussion/debate.
I could, of course, accuse you of the same: that operating under the pretext that anyone who discusses ethics is going to be discussing absolute ethics unless distinguishing otherwise is also a self-defeating tactic. And that embracing absolute moral absolutism, as it were, renders any discussions to the contrary moot. But that wouldn't be any fun.
Instead I'll note that we're discussing two things at once here and should probably pick one or the other, or at least maintain a distinction if we swap back and forth. The first topic at hand is ethics itself, absolute vs. relative. And we could have a lively debate regarding that if you'd like. I'm all for it.
The other topic, of course, is the original one. I'm willing to discuss this as well, but only in a manner that permits me, Robert, to explain my own, personal ethical system and how it distinguishes -- sharply -- from yours. If you are asserting somehow that I'm unable to do this, as it's supposedly logically contradictory or ridiculous, then we really won't be able to discuss the topic further. Which is a shame, really, as I find the topic interesting and the discussion itself enlightening.
Now, if this upsets you, and you think I've wronged you in a sort of "mis-portrayal", I will politely ask you to be consistent, and remember that my definition of "portrayal" is just as valid as yours, thank you. :)
I'll in turn politely suggest that you try to avoid confusing your misunderstanding of my stance with an inconsistency in that stance. You don't have to understand my argument in order for my argument to be cohesive. Furthermore, I am extremely patient and willing to explore -- repeatedly -- any aspect of my stance that you'd care to.
@Schwartz
force her to become a factory for producing offspring. She becomes a slave to the state; she becomes the state's chattle. She loses then her humanity, her citizenship, her rights
Your position might have force if the stae impregnated her. But that is not the case in most situations. When her own action leads to this situation, she has put herself in the position. It is more like the person who pushes someone into a pool, knowing they cannot swim, and refuses to prevent the drowning.
I will say one thing - your ethics are certainly consistent. Under your system, there is no right or wrong, only will and power. A consistent system, if nothing else. But it only works if the vast majority of people don't follow it.
s/b "state impregnated her"
In fact, I would agree your system is the correct one if there is no God, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense. Why any self-respecting atheist is not a complete self-centered lying bastard is completely beyond me. If there is no God, the only rule of ethics is "don't get caught." It is the only thing that would make sense. I suppose most atheists just don't have the guts to completely follow there own professed belief (or non-belief).
Sorry... this one is going to be fast and brief! Must dash...
Robert wrote:
I could, of course, accuse you of the same: that operating under the pretext that anyone who discusses ethics is going to be discussing absolute ethics unless distinguishing otherwise is also a self-defeating tactic. And that embracing absolute moral absolutism, as it were, renders any discussions to the contrary moot. But that wouldn't be any fun.
See, here's where you lose me again. I do not, nor have I ever, assumed (or suggested in the least) that every last possible situation entails an absolute moral imperative (and you seem to be implying that I believe just that); I'm quite free to believe that SOME situations invoke moral absolutes, while others do not (and only invoke relative morality), while still others (far more commonly) invoke a mixture of the two. It is you who cannot possibly admit of *any* case of objective morality... and that is rather more stifling a position than mine! It's also far more of a "conversation-killer" (see above) than is my willingness to accept moral absolutes as existing (though not all-inclusive) dynamics, while also admitting of some morally relative situations; true?
I'll in turn politely suggest that you try to avoid confusing your misunderstanding of my stance with an inconsistency in that stance.
:) Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, sir! I think you've misunderstood my position, yet again.
c matt wrote, in reply to Robert:
I will say one thing - your ethics are certainly consistent. Under your system, there is no right or wrong, only will and power. A consistent system, if nothing else. But it only works if the vast majority of people don't follow it.
Immanuel Kant: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law." Translated: if a moral maxim only works by allowing an exception for you, then it cannot be morally licit.
Good catch! Although I could imagine Robert (or any other absolute relativist) could live (and sleep well with) with letting the majority of the world be shafted, if only he gets what he likes...
If that doesn't accurately reflect your position, Robert, feel free to offer an amendment; but your comment of:
"I can very readily, and very easily, assess any situation and decide, for myself, whether an action is "right" or "wrong". Whether I use one word or the other is subject only to my own, personal whim. I am correct, always, insofar as that I'm simply using my own ruler for measurement.
...certainly seems to clear the way for unbridled selfishness, on your part. If you're always morally right "by definition", then no transgression against anyone else (save against those who could fight back, or otherwise inconvenience you) will trouble you. You wear the ring of Gyges proudly, it seems.
Your position might have force if the stae impregnated her. But that is not the case in most situations. When her own action leads to this situation, she has put herself in the position. It is more like the person who pushes someone into a pool, knowing they cannot swim, and refuses to prevent the drowning.
I fail to see how the circumstances under which the mother became pregnant are at all relevant to the discussion at hand. Are we to base our decision on whether or not to permit the mother to have an abortion on *how* she supposedly became pregnant?
In fact, I would agree your system is the correct one if there is no God, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense. Why any self-respecting atheist is not a complete self-centered lying bastard is completely beyond me. If there is no God, the only rule of ethics is "don't get caught." It is the only thing that would make sense. I suppose most atheists just don't have the guts to completely follow there own professed belief (or non-belief).
I have chosen, of my own volition, not to be a completely self-centered, lying bastard. I have free will; on that much, at least, I dare say we can agree. I elect, as often as I can, as best I can, to exercise that free will in an attempt to follow the ethical code of conduct that I have established for myself.
Mind you, I falter from time to time. I've been known to act in anger and in haste. I've performed many actions I've later regretted. When this happens I make amends as best I can, and move on, keeping the lesson of life that I've learned in mind, to try to avoid the same mistakes in the future.
One does not need a god to have ethics.
See, here's where you lose me again. I do not, nor have I ever, assumed (or suggested in the least) that every last possible situation entails an absolute moral imperative (and you seem to be implying that I believe just that); I'm quite free to believe that SOME situations invoke moral absolutes, while others do not (and only invoke relative morality), while still others (far more commonly) invoke a mixture of the two. It is you who cannot possibly admit of *any* case of objective morality... and that is rather more stifling a position than mine!
Then you are even more confusing, insofar as that it cannot be known from the onset whether your references to ethics are absolute, relative, or a "mixture", whatever that might be.
It's also far more of a "conversation-killer" (see above) than is my willingness to accept moral absolutes as existing (though not all-inclusive) dynamics, while also admitting of some morally relative situations; true?
False. Now, regarding each and every issue, we must additionally identify which category of ethics you're applying, as that can and will change from topic to topic. Worse than killing the conversation, we seem to be going backwards. Do you have a standard, a rule, to decide which situations call for absolute ethics, and which for relative? And can you explain to me please what sorts of situations call for the invocation of both (when, as far as I can tell, the two are mutually exclusive)?
Good catch! Although I could imagine Robert (or any other absolute relativist) could live (and sleep well with) with letting the majority of the world be shafted, if only he gets what he likes...
Then your imagination has run wild. My ethics do not work that way. Rather than imagining, and insulting me, I strongly urge you to do the simpler, more sensible thing, and just ask me.
If that doesn't accurately reflect your position, Robert, feel free to offer an amendment; but your comment of:
"I can very readily, and very easily, assess any situation and decide, for myself, whether an action is "right" or "wrong". Whether I use one word or the other is subject only to my own, personal whim. I am correct, always, insofar as that I'm simply using my own ruler for measurement.
...certainly seems to clear the way for unbridled selfishness, on your part. If you're always morally right "by definition", then no transgression against anyone else (save against those who could fight back, or otherwise inconvenience you) will trouble you. You wear the ring of Gyges proudly, it seems.
Far from permitting the power of free will to corrupt me, I instead have chosen to temper myself with compassion, with empathy, and with respect for my fellow human beings. I have earned the trust and love of others, and treasure them. I have earned, in time, a sense of honor, of honesty, of integrity, in my words and in my deeds. I have crafted myself; and I am proud of my own crafting.
I am, of course, not perfect. I err often -- daily in fact. I attempt always to learn from my mistakes, to better myself. I strive constantly to be a better person each day than I was the day before. This is my quest, my purpose, the path I have set before myself.
Now mind you, I would never claim complete objectivity. But I very much like to think that the depiction I've just presented to you is a far cry from the troglodyte you might otherwise imagine me to be. Hence I would greatly appreciate it if you would grant me the benefit of the doubt, and consider the possibility, however seemingly remote to you, that I'm not the monster you would otherwise presume of me.
Robert wrote:
Then you are even more confusing, insofar as that it cannot be known from the onset whether your references to ethics are absolute, relative, or a "mixture", whatever that might be.
I don't see how that need be true; see below.
Do you have a standard, a rule, to decide which situations call for absolute ethics, and which for relative?
I can certainly try to explain... though I'm starting to suspect that we're using somewhat different definitions in our terms. Here is what I use:
"objective morality" = the standard, independent of any given subject, by which acts of the human will are judged to be good or evil
"situational morality" = the cases where the moral content of a human act of the will, while still defined objectively, is dependent on circumstances (e.g. driving at 90 mph is immoral in a populated school zone, but not necessarily immoral on the salt flats of Utah)
"relative morality" = the cases where the moral gradient of a human act of the will is based at least primarily on the subject (e.g. if I willfully fail to pray my daily rosary, I fail morally, thereby)--but even then, it cannot ever be a *total* case of relativity. See below.
And can you explain to me please what sorts of situations call for the invocation of both (when, as far as I can tell, the two are mutually exclusive)?
In my view, the problem isn't in having too *few* cases where both are invoked... but in having too MANY! Now that I think of it, I can't come up with a single valid case where, no matter how subjective and me-specific a case is, it does not also depend on objective standards.
Consider a case in which I fail to pray my daily rosary. Praying the rosary is decidedly a good thing, but no one (Catholic or otherwise) is obliged, under pain of sin (i.e. willful violation of right morality), to take up the practice. But since I've already taken a private vow to do so, it is now sinful for me to refuse that daily responsibility willfully (e.g. not deferring it because of an emergency, etc.)... but note: that's because of the BROKEN VOW, not because of any change in the non-obligatory nature of the rosary. As such, I've run up against an *objective* moral law: "One may not freely choose to violate one's given word, without guilt." Note that this has nothing specifically to do with specific prayers of *any* type.
That's what I'm trying to show you: that every possible moral failing ultimately relies on a definition or standard *outside* of itself. No matter how much you might protest that "you are a standard unto yourself", you'd be uttering nonsense--since even a few moments' solid thought will reveal an objective standard in *any* moral determination, no matter how "relativistic".
More in the next post. Your last comment was particularly revealing, and I want to address that separately--especially since it may finally flesh out the crux of our disagreement.
I can certainly try to explain... though I'm starting to suspect that we're using somewhat different definitions in our terms. Here is what I use:[snip]
Yep! We're definitely defining our terms differently. This is how I've been using the terms:
Absolute morality: the philosophy that there exists a single set of ethical guidelines by which all actions are weighed.
Relative morality: the philosophy that each person possesses the capacity to construct separate, distinct ethical guidelines to follow.
So yes, we've been butting heads over definitions, as we both eventually came to surmise. To avoid this conflict of definition, I will instead start expressing the distinction I've defined above with the terms "absolute standard" and "relative standard". And going forward, when I speak of relative morality, I'll be referencing your definition.
To that end, I'll reiterate some of my earlier points, using the new language.
In accordance with my own, personal ethical standard, the right to life of an unborn child is superseded by the right to personal liberty of the mother.
I acknowledge, with full awareness and humility, that my personal ethical standard is not the same as everyone else's -- indeed, not the same as anyone else's. Nevertheless, it is mine, and I will attempt to obey it as best I can. Conversely, I expect others to respect the existence (if not the content) of my personal ethical standard, no matter how it might differ from theirs.
Ethical standards can and must contain the capacity for relativity. An action that is defined by an ethical standard as moral in one circumstance can be defined immoral in another. So too can some actions simply be flat-out immoral in all circumstances, according to someone's ethical standard. Thus, ethical standards contain the capacity for both relative and absolute moral assessments.
When my actions conflict with the ethical standard of someone else, then that person could accuse me of being immoral, in accordance with their own standard. When my actions conflict with my OWN supposed ethical standard (and I refuse to acknowledge or admit the mistake), then I could be accused of being inconsistent, illogical, even irrational. These concepts are distinct.
Paramount to all of this is my firm, confident belief in the notion that there does not, cannot, exist an absolute ethical standard. All human beings have their own standard, relative to one another. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they conflict. Qualifying whether or not an action is ethical is meaningful only within any given set or sets of ethical standards.
I've been following this discussion with growing interest.
But I just saw something stopped me dead:
Conversely, I expect others to respect the existence (if not the content) of my personal ethical standard, no matter how it might differ from theirs.
Why? Why should I?
If you deny the existence of an absolute binding ethical standard, why should I be bound by your personal standard to respect even the existence, much less the content, of that personal standard?
Why? Why should I?
If you deny the existence of an absolute binding ethical standard, why should I be bound by your personal standard to respect even the existence, much less the content, of that personal standard?
Mainly for the same reason I'd expect anyone to respect the existence of something: because I have demonstrable, sufficiently conclusive evidence of said thing's existence. My evidence is simple, direct, and irrefutable, easily demonstrated as such:
"I, Robert, believe that abortions are not unethical."
That I am capable of holding that concept in my mind and in my heart is all the evidence that is necessary to disprove the notion that there exists only one ethical standard. Wherein two people disagree on any ethical principle: therefore there must exist two standards. Where there are two, there cannot be only one.
Now, I suppose you could attempt to discount my evidence. You could accuse me of lying, or of dementia, or of not actually possessing the capacity, mental, spiritual or what-have-you, to form my own ethical standard. You could indeed refuse to respect the existence of my ethical standard. You have that power; you have that right.
But to do so denies me of free will. That is to say: if you refuse to admit that I am capable of forming my own ethical standard, then you are simultaneously refusing to admit that I possess the free will to form it. Thus, as I expect that you do indeed believe that I possess free will, so too then do I expect that you acknowledge the existence of my ethical standard.
Note carefully: I'm not asking you to respect *the standard itself*. Merely its existence; merely my capacity to invent it, to maintain it, and to attempt to adhere to it. Indeed, I expect you to be highly critical of my standard, as I'm sure it greatly deviates from yours in several important ways.
Ah, but Robert, if you have the "free will" to deny the existence of the absolute moral standard, why have I not the free will to deny the existence of your personal moral standard?
Why may I not simply assert that you are deeply mistaken on the whole subject, that your ethics are only ethical insofar as they are consistent with the absolute standard, and that just as a stopped clock may be right twice a day, any congruence between your personal standard and the absolute standard may be no more than a pleasing coincidence?
As C.S. Lewis wrote, it's the man who denies the absolute standard who will be the first to appeal to that standard when he feels he has been wronged.
Ah, but Robert, if you have the "free will" to deny the existence of the absolute moral standard, why have I not the free will to deny the existence of your personal moral standard?
You have that power. I just said that. You would be ignoring the evidence, though.
Why may I not simply assert that you are deeply mistaken on the whole subject, that your ethics are only ethical insofar as they are consistent with the absolute standard, and that just as a stopped clock may be right twice a day, any congruence between your personal standard and the absolute standard may be no more than a pleasing coincidence?
Because I have evidence of the existence of multiple personal standards, and you have no evidence of the existence an absolute standard. Thus, the evidence weighs in my favor. Again, you may ignore that evidence if you wish. But ignoring evidence in favor of an alternate theory is not sound reasoning.
As C.S. Lewis wrote, it's the man who denies the absolute standard who will be the first to appeal to that standard when he feels he has been wronged.
As Edward Ericson wrote: "The cosmos is neither moral or immoral; only people are. He who would move the world must first move himself."
So? Who says I need evidence of anything?
To you, there is no absolute standard, and what I call and absolute standard is simply my own personal standard.
But isn't the need for evidence, then, merely a part of your own personal standard.
Really, the only meaningful thing you can say to me is, "I disagree."
So? Who says I need evidence of anything?
No one. As I've said repeatedly, and will continue to repeat: you can do whatever you wish. But if you want to present a sound, rational argument in order to convince someone of the validity of your stance, evidence helps.
To you, there is no absolute standard, and what I call and absolute standard is simply my own personal standard.
I respect the existence of your personal standard. I do not acknowledge it to be an absolute standard, however, as you cannot provide evidence that it is such.
But isn't the need for evidence, then, merely a part of your own personal standard.
My need for evidence stems from my adherence to reason, to rationality. Just as easily as you can lay claim that your standard is the absolute one, so too could I just as easily claim that no, *my* standard is the absolute one. Or Jim's over there. Or no one's. Or that the absolute standard hops from person to person on alternate Thursdays.
And none of these theories can be said to be any more or less valid than any other. Unless, of course, we note that none of these theories have any supporting evidence whatsoever, thus discrediting them in lieu of the only theory that does have evidence in support of it.
Really, the only meaningful thing you can say to me is, "I disagree."
That I am capable of disagreeing is my point entirely.
Sorry again... "real life" overwhelms my time, at the moment, but one quick question for you, Robert:
Given two people: one of whom is red/green colour-blind, and one of whom is not, which one has the better-functioning eyes?
Given two people: one of whom is red/green colour-blind, and one of whom is not, which one has the better-functioning eyes?
An excellent question, as it provides an opportunity to illustrate one of the topics at hand: the applicability of relativity. From time to time, I've even used this particular example myself!
Obviously, the first impulse is to assert that the individual capable of discerning between red and green has the superior eyesight, simply by merit of the fact that he possesses an ability the other does not. However, there are, arguably, circumstances in which the individual who cannot make this discernment has the advantage.
Consider, for example, a mural painted using red and green colors in such a manner that to the typical human eye, all that appears is a mish-mosh of these colors. Whereas, to someone who cannot make this distinction, the pattern embedded by the artist becomes clear. (Basically, the opposite effect of those color-blindness tests you may have taken as a child.) Thus, in this particular circumstance, arguably the individual who is unable to distinguish between the two colors has the advantage.
Furthermore, I'll note that there are in fact individuals who lack some particular, common human trait yet do not consider themselves handicapped. Among the deaf, for example, there exists a philosophy wherein many such individuals actually consider themselves advantaged; that being a hearing person is disadvantageous, and being deaf is superior and preferable. I'm not sure if this qualifies under the umbrella of "better-functioning", but I felt it relevant to mention nevertheless.
"Yet this murder, this sanctioned ending of human life, MUST be permitted. It must be permitted because the alternative is unconscionable, worse even than murder. The alternative is allowing the state to impose its will upon the mother, to force her to become a factory for producing offspring. She becomes a slave to the state; she becomes the state's chattle. She loses then her humanity, her citizenship, her rights."
This is, to use the words of the author, "crap." Any woman has the choice to not engage in sexual activity, and to use birth control if she chooses to engage in sexual activity. Slave to the state? That's pure BS.
This is, to use the words of the author, "crap." Any woman has the choice to not engage in sexual activity, and to use birth control if she chooses to engage in sexual activity. Slave to the state? That's pure BS.
Not every woman or girl has that choice. Rape is the more obvious example. Forced marriage, paramount to rape, is similar. And not every woman or girl can afford birth control, or has access to birth control, or possesses sufficient education to properly use birth control. Some girls are even forbidden to use birth control as a result of religious upbringing, and/or taught, erroneously, that it doesn't work.
Indeed: there are girls who are old enough to become pregnant, but have not yet even been taught where babies come from. Will you hold them accountable as well?
Re: god/bad effects of colour-bindness:
Hm. I see your point... but there's a danger in taking the "cloud's silver lining" and using it to try to define the cloud out of existence! I, for example, am a cancer survivor (currently in remission from Leukemia); I also readily admit that the experience has given me insights--and invaluable personal growth--which (I think) I could never have gained otherwise. But I can still draw a very clear distinction between the physical evil of the event (i.e. cancer) and its incidental good effects (e.g. personal growth, etc.). I need not "redefine" cancer as "healthy" or "good", in order to admit that its secondary effects can be good. (You may note that this view is a Christian one: the idea that God is capable of drawing good out of even the most profound evil... but without any danger of confusing the subsequent good from the precedent evil.)
Does that clarify?
(I'll try to reply to your earlier points, in a moment... duty calls!)
Hm. I see your point... but there's a danger in taking the "cloud's silver lining" and using it to try to define the cloud out of existence! I, for example, am a cancer survivor (currently in remission from Leukemia); I also readily admit that the experience has given me insights--and invaluable personal growth--which (I think) I could never have gained otherwise. But I can still draw a very clear distinction between the physical evil of the event (i.e. cancer) and its incidental good effects (e.g. personal growth, etc.). I need not "redefine" cancer as "healthy" or "good", in order to admit that its secondary effects can be good.
Agreed. Relativity would hold that the suffering you endured was detrimental (when considered from the perspective of the physical, emotional, and other discomforts endured) in one perspective, yet could be considered beneficial from another perspective as far as the insights and personal growth you mention as a result of the experience.
I suppose I could rephrase my assessment of abortion similarly: it is a tragedy, insofar as that a human life is lost; but it is also a benefit, insofar as that the mother's personal liberty is restored.
(You may note that this view is a Christian one: the idea that God is capable of drawing good out of even the most profound evil... but without any danger of confusing the subsequent good from the precedent evil.)
In turn I'll note that while this view may be a Christian one, it is not exclusively Christian, as many other philosophies, both religious and secular, profess and maintain a similar duality of perspective.
Robert wrote:
Rather than imagining, and insulting me, I strongly urge you to do the simpler, more sensible thing, and just ask me.
I have to say, you surprised me greatly when you wrote this! And I certainly do apologize if I gave offense... but I sincerely expected you (given what you said up to that point) to say something like, "yes, you can try to impose your value system on me if you like, but what you choose to call evil, I am free to call good", and so on... and this decrial brought me up short!
This is where--forgive me--I think you're not nearly so free of objective morality as you suppose. You wrote, earlier, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
If you're always morally right "by definition", then no transgression against anyone else (save against those who could fight back, or otherwise inconvenience you) will trouble you. You wear the ring of Gyges proudly, it seems.
[Robert]
Far from permitting the power of free will to corrupt me, I instead have chosen to temper myself with compassion, with empathy, and with respect for my fellow human beings. I have earned the trust and love of others, and treasure them. I have earned, in time, a sense of honor, of honesty, of integrity, in my words and in my deeds. I have crafted myself; and I am proud of my own crafting.
For what it's worth, I agree that your described behaviours are (so far as they go) indicative of a "good" and morally sound life. But let me be pedantic for a moment, with definitions:
1) You use the word "corrupt". This word denotes a deviation from a given standard--a falling-short of some type of perfection; and--although I know you're using the word as in common parleyance--I really fail to see how you can use it coherently, if you reject objective moral standards. If you think that utter, self-centered hedonism (or even direct malice) is "corrupt", how do you come to that conclusion... save that you have a sense (perhaps implicitly) of an objective moral law? In the wild, the lion is no more "corrupt" for playing with its tormented prey (and causing great and prolonged agony and fear) than it is corrupt in dispatching it quickly; how, then, can you say that a human is any more "corrupt" by "serving number one alone", as opposed to being altruistic?
2) The same objection holds for many of your other words: compassion, empathy, respect, honour, honesty, integrity (in the moral/behavioural sense). In a perfectly utilitarian world, what value do these have, above and beyond their opposites?
3) You mentioned, earlier, that some of the attributes popularly called "good and noble" have usefulness to the extent that they promote the continuation and/or "health" (whatever that means) of society, persons, etc. But part of the whole *point* of philosophy is to question the very axioms that you are assuming, apparently without a second thought: why is the continuation of a man's life or a society "better" than its destruction or "decay" (whatever that means)? For Sartre and Schopenhauer, etc., anything which shortened a man's life was a *good*, since life was "nasty, brutish, and short", and otherwise pointless--so what favour do you do by promoting its prolongation?
Do you see my point? You've certainly rejected some Judeo-Christian axioms... but there are others which you still use, perhaps unawares...
I am, of course, not perfect. I err often -- daily in fact.
Here, again: to my mind, absolute moral relativism makes this sentence meaningless... because without an objective standard by which you can define "perfection" (i.e. the ideal) or "imperfect/erring" (i.e. deviant from the ideal) in any given case, "not perfect" is void of meaning.
Relativity would hold that the suffering you endured was detrimental (when considered from the perspective of the physical, emotional, and other discomforts endured) in one perspective, yet could be considered beneficial from another perspective as far as the insights and personal growth you mention as a result of the experience.
But doesn't this confuse causes and effects? To say that "good effects came from [x]" is not at all the same as saying "[x] is good because of this"...
Ack! Must dash...
1) You use the word "corrupt". This word denotes a deviation from a given standard--a falling-short of some type of perfection; and--although I know you're using the word as in common parleyance--I really fail to see how you can use it coherently, if you reject objective moral standards. If you think that utter, self-centered hedonism (or even direct malice) is "corrupt", how do you come to that conclusion... save that you have a sense (perhaps implicitly) of an objective moral law? In the wild, the lion is no more "corrupt" for playing with its tormented prey (and causing great and prolonged agony and fear) than it is corrupt in dispatching it quickly; how, then, can you say that a human is any more "corrupt" by "serving number one alone", as opposed to being altruistic?
As with all such terms within the confines of ethics, everything's relative. Some people consider greed and gluttony acts of corruption. Others see them as perfectly moral, and would even question the ethics of anyone who would deign otherwise.
Hence, whenever I might assert that "action X is corrupt", what I really mean -- indeed, what I can only mean -- is that action X is corrupt within the scope of my own, personal ethical system. I fully acknowledge that within the scope of others' ethics, that action may or may not be a corrupt act, an immoral act. It's up to them to decide.
2) The same objection holds for many of your other words: compassion, empathy, respect, honour, honesty, integrity (in the moral/behavioural sense). In a perfectly utilitarian world, what value do these have, above and beyond their opposites?
Intrinsically? None whatsoever. They are, however, useful *to me*, insofar as how much utility I lend to them. And they are useful to others, as these others indicate within the scope of their own ethics. Consequently, as I'm someone who has elected to construct a personal ethical system in which honesty and integrity are important, I'll in turn seek out like-minded individuals, people who appreciate these qualities within their own systems.
I'm really enjoying the debate guys.
Are we to base our decision on whether or not to permit the mother to have an abortion on *how* she supposedly became pregnant?
No - but it is relevant because you claim she would become a slave to the state as a breeding machine should she lose her right to abortion - she would only be a slave to the state as a breeding machine if the state, not her, began the breeding process.
It is swell that you personally choose not to be a complete sob. But, given your perception of reality (that there is no objective truth) you have no reason to be. Your choice to be "ethical" has no more import than choosing chocolate over vanilla. It is not really a choice - it is simply a preference with no moral consequence.
3) You mentioned, earlier, that some of the attributes popularly called "good and noble" have usefulness to the extent that they promote the continuation and/or "health" (whatever that means) of society, persons, etc. But part of the whole *point* of philosophy is to question the very axioms that you are assuming, apparently without a second thought: why is the continuation of a man's life or a society "better" than its destruction or "decay" (whatever that means)? For Sartre and Schopenhauer, etc., anything which shortened a man's life was a *good*, since life was "nasty, brutish, and short", and otherwise pointless--so what favour do you do by promoting its prolongation?
I don't recall mentioning "good and noble" attributes, nor referring to the "health" of society. Please either quote me directly, or refrain from using quotation marks when paraphrasing.
I've never asserted whether I felt any given society was deserving of its continuation. I was merely observing the actuality of society: its purpose, and the means by which that purpose is propagated. While I did assert that a fascist government could be efficient and effective, for example, at no time did I indicate my approval of such a society.
I am, of course, not perfect. I err often -- daily in fact.
Here, again: to my mind, absolute moral relativism makes this sentence meaningless... because without an objective standard by which you can define "perfection" (i.e. the ideal) or "imperfect/erring" (i.e. deviant from the ideal) in any given case, "not perfect" is void of meaning.
I don't need a universal, objective standard to define perfection. I define perfection by my own, personal standard. Anything that adheres to that standard is perfect. Anything that does not adhere to that standard is imperfect.
As I myself, mere human, am unable to adhere 100% of the time to my own standard, I am imperfect. I strive as best I can to live up to my own standard, and seriously address any situation in which I falter. And I see no inherent contradiction in knowingly constructing a standard to which I am ultimately unable to always adhere.
No - but it is relevant because you claim she would become a slave to the state as a breeding machine should she lose her right to abortion - she would only be a slave to the state as a breeding machine if the state, not her, began the breeding process.
I still fail to see the relevance of how she became pregnant. Not every woman or girl chooses to become pregnant. Rape is the simplest and most obvious example, so let's start there. A woman is raped. She became pregnant as a direct result of the rape. She now wants an abortion. Should the state allow it, in your opinion?
It is swell that you personally choose not to be a complete sob.
Thanks!
But, given your perception of reality (that there is no objective truth) you have no reason to be. Your choice to be "ethical" has no more import than choosing chocolate over vanilla. It is not really a choice - it is simply a preference with no moral consequence.
It is a choice. But yes, it is a choice with no intrinsic ramifications. I chose to establish an ethical system for myself, and attempt to adhere to it, of my own volition, out of my own, personal preference -- and no other reason.
I still fail to see the relevance of how she became pregnant. Not every woman or girl chooses to become pregnant. Rape is the simplest and most obvious example, so let's start there.
If the question of how she became pregnant lacks relevance in your opinion, why do you mention rape? Why not take the opposite extreme: a woman intentionally becomes pregnant with the intent to abort. Should the state allow it, in your opinion?
Robert: Relativity would hold that the suffering you endured was detrimental (when considered from the perspective of the physical, emotional, and other discomforts endured) in one perspective, yet could be considered beneficial from another perspective as far as the insights and personal growth you mention as a result of the experience.
paladin: But doesn't this confuse causes and effects? To say that "good effects came from [x]" is not at all the same as saying "[x] is good because of this"...
Semantics. Red and green are different colors; yet objects can be both red and green simultaneously. If an object is both red and green, then it can be said to be red, and it can be said to be green. We could even say it's mostly red, or barely green. Or both.
Suffering is bad because it's painful and hurts. Suffering is good because it builds character, gives us perspective, lends us wisdom. What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger. When life gives you lemons. Etc.
I hope not to sound as if I'm trivializing what you've endured. But you established, and I agree, that good things can come from bad events (and the reverse as well, I suppose). I too have endured some hardships. I too have learned to find the good in those experiences, to use it to better myself and the world around me.
If the question of how she became pregnant lacks relevance in your opinion, why do you mention rape? Why not take the opposite extreme: a woman intentionally becomes pregnant with the intent to abort. Should the state allow it, in your opinion?
I think my own stance has been consistent and clear: the state should always allow abortion, irrespective of how the mother became pregnant. How the mother became pregnant is, in my view, completely irrelevant.
I'm attempting instead to identify c matt's stance, which evidently differs in this matter.
That I am capable of holding that concept in my mind and in my heart is all the evidence that is necessary to disprove the notion that there exists only one ethical standard. Wherein two people disagree on any ethical principle: therefore there must exist two standards.
But to do so denies me of free will. That is to say: if you refuse to admit that I am capable of forming my own ethical standard, then you are simultaneously refusing to admit that I possess the free will to form it.
OK. I think we are discussing different things. Certainly you have the free will to determine your own ethical standards, just as I have the free will to decide the moon is made of green cheese. Frankly, it simply does not interest me what your personal standard is. What does interest me is whether act X comports with the reality that X is ethical. Whether X is ethical according to Rob (or me, for that matter) is trivial. Evidence that I hold the belief that gravity does not exist is no proof that gravity does not exist, it is only proof that I don't believe it. Gravity's existence, and the consequences of its existence, go on with or without my belief in it. Or, to put it in context of the abortion example, the reality that abortion kills an innocent person, and the reality that we ought not go around killing innocent persons, is true, regardless of my "personal" belief or disbelief of either reality.
Of course there does not exist only one ethical standard. The non-trivial question is which, if any, of these ethical standards comport with reality.
One of your bases for claiming the state should not restrict abortion is because otherwise she would be a breeding slave to the state. I am simply refuting that basis (breeding slave of the state) b/c she, not the state, instigated her breeding procees. It has nothing to do with whether I believe any abortion should be allowed - it was only and strictly in response to your argument that by denying her an abortion (in those situations where she began the breeding process of her own volition) she becomes a "breeding slave" of the state. That is the relevance.
OK. I think we are discussing different things. Certainly you have the free will to determine your own ethical standards, just as I have the free will to decide the moon is made of green cheese. Frankly, it simply does not interest me what your personal standard is. What does interest me is whether act X comports with the reality that X is ethical. Whether X is ethical according to Rob (or me, for that matter) is trivial. Evidence that I hold the belief that gravity does not exist is no proof that gravity does not exist, it is only proof that I don't believe it. Gravity's existence, and the consequences of its existence, go on with or without my belief in it. Or, to put it in context of the abortion example, the reality that abortion kills an innocent person, and the reality that we ought not go around killing innocent persons, is true, regardless of my "personal" belief or disbelief of either reality.
Of course there does not exist only one ethical standard. The non-trivial question is which, if any, of these ethical standards comport with reality.
What is the "reality" of ethics? Ethics is not like gravity. Gravity is demonstrable. Gravity is a characteristic of the universe around us. Ethics are not demonstrable in this fashion. Ethics exist only in the mind.
The supposed "reality" that we ought not to go around killing innocent persons is nonexistent. There is no such "reality". There are people who will assert, positively, that they wield the ethical justification to go around killing anybody they want, whenever they want. They hold no compunction about this; indeed, they adhere very purposefully to this ideal, and question the ethics of anyone who would argue otherwise (probably via violence, I reckon).
I disagree with their ethic. So, I suspect, do you. But that's where it ends. There's no final decision, no ultimate judgment, as to which ethical system is correct, or real, or right, or just, or better, or superior, or special. They're simply different. Period. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate otherwise.
One of your bases for claiming the state should not restrict abortion is because otherwise she would be a breeding slave to the state. I am simply refuting that basis (breeding slave of the state) b/c she, not the state, instigated her breeding procees. It has nothing to do with whether I believe any abortion should be allowed - it was only and strictly in response to your argument that by denying her an abortion (in those situations where she began the breeding process of her own volition) she becomes a "breeding slave" of the state. That is the relevance.
She becomes a breeding slave whether she chose to became pregnant or not. If she chose to become pregnant; and later changes her mind and seeks an abortion; and the state then denies her of her right to acquire the abortion; then she instantly transforms, at that very moment, from free citizen into a breeding machine. The state has now claimed her; the state has now shackled her; the state has now enslaved her.
The state has now claimed her; the state has now shackled her; the state has now enslaved her.
But that's only a Bad Thing in your view. You've made it clear that your preference for the liberty of the mother over the life of the child is only that, an arbitrary preference. You could as easily decide that the right to liberty of the mother doesn't override the child's right to life.
So what you're giving us here isn't an argument, but a conclusion.
Why have you come to this conclusion?
There's no final decision, no ultimate judgment, as to which ethical system is correct, or real, or right, or just, or better, or superior, or special. They're simply different. Period. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate otherwise.
You probably do not accept the proofs of St. Thomas. Which, like gravity, show existence of God, and therefore an ultimate judgment, regardless of the acceptance of such proof. So I won't bother going through it.
But, even if you do not acccept those proofs, you simply cannot say that there is no ultimate judgment. You simply do not know. And that is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. You only know the following irrefutable truths:
1 - you will die
2 - either there is a final judgment, or there is nothing
3 - One of us is wrong
4 - if you are wrong, really sucks for you
5 - if I am wrong, we end up the same (nothing).
(apologies to Blaise)
Any reasonable person would therefore seek the ethical system that is correct, not just their own system. In fact, you implicitly are seeking one that is universally correct or true by simply claiming that it is universally true that there is no universal system.
* But on this we do seem to agree - there can be no objective ethical system without God. Where we seem to differ is whether a subjective/relative ethical system is meaningful. You have not produced any evidence that it is, or even can be.
But that's only a Bad Thing in your view. You've made it clear that your preference for the liberty of the mother over the life of the child is only that, an arbitrary preference. You could as easily decide that the right to liberty of the mother doesn't override the child's right to life.
That's true. Now we're getting somewhere!
So what you're giving us here isn't an argument, but a conclusion.
Why have you come to this conclusion?
Ethics don't always require a logical argument. They often stem from emotions. I like helping people, for example. There's no logical reason for me to help them: there's no direct benefit to me, other than the satisfaction I experience when doing so. I simply like it; so, I've incorporated that into my ethical system.
So, I suppose I can cobble together what would be my thought process on the issue. Ultimately, though, you're going to be able to point some premise of mine, and ask me, "Why?" My response will be to shrug my shoulders and say, "Because that's how I feel." You will feel differently; and thus we will have identified the distinction between our ethical systems. And that will be that.
In any event...
1) In accordance with my personal, ethical system, all human beings are deserving of free will. To strip a human being of free will is a fate worse than death, in my eyes.
2) Hence, if forced to choose, a situation where a human life is lost is preferable to a situation where a human life is enslaved, in my perspective. Give me liberty, or give me death, as it were.
3) Abortion, in my view, is such a circumstance.
Note the constant qualification: in my view, in my perspective. These are my thoughts and feelings on the matter, intrinsic to my own, personal ethical system. I am fully aware, and fully acknowledge, that any or all of these principles can and will differ with the ethics of others.
If she chose to become pregnant; and later changes her mind and seeks an abortion; and the state then denies her of her right to acquire the abortion; then she instantly transforms, at that very moment, from free citizen into a breeding machine.
An interesting ethic. So if I and a seller choose to enter a contract for a house, and later the seller changes his mind and seeks to back out, adn the state forces him to sell to me, he also becomes a "house selling slave" of the state?
First, Robert, I have to compliment you on your run here. You've been prompt, consistent, and polite in all your responses. I hope you feel free to let a question go until it's convenient to answer it.
1) In accordance with my personal, ethical system, all human beings are deserving of free will. To strip a human being of free will is a fate worse than death, in my eyes.
But, does not taking a human life also entail stripping that person of their free will?
In making this judgment, aren't you really saying that it's better to deny one person both their life and their freedom than it is to temporarily constrain someone to live with the consequences of their own actions?
De gustibus non disputatum, I suppose.
c matt:
You probably do not accept the proofs of St. Thomas. Which, like gravity, show existence of God, and therefore an ultimate judgment, regardless of the acceptance of such proof. So I won't bother going through it.
Then I won't bother refuting it, or demonstrating proofs of the opposite. :)
But, even if you do not acccept those proofs, you simply cannot say that there is no ultimate judgment. You simply do not know. And that is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak.
Hey now, let's not play semantics. I was speaking *explicitly* about judging which ethical system is supposedly correct and incorrect. Therein, no, there is no judgment other than my own. I can demonstrate this, in fact, simply by asserting that I possess free will and, consequently, elect to only respect my own opinion of my ethics.
Any other sort of "final judgment" could indeed occur. When I die, for example, I could find myself placed before some super-powerful being who will assess my actions based on that being's ethical system. And I could be found wanting. That is a possibility. I cannot and will not deny that.
I simply don't care, is all. I wouldn't acknowledge that being's ethical system as being superior to mine. I would not recognize that being's authority to assess my ethical character. My ethics are my own. Period.
You only know the following irrefutable truths:
Heh! Methinks he does not know me very well...
1 - you will die
Modern medicine has been extending life by leaps and bounds. If the trend continues, we may indeed reach biological immortality. Mind you, that wouldn't stop a safe from falling on my head. But the principle is sound.
2 - either there is a final judgment, or there is nothing
Oh, come now, there's *plenty* of other possibilities! What about reincarnation? What about an afterlife with no "final judgment" at all, but a free pass for everyone to the happy place? Or -- my favorite -- what about an afterlife where everyone is sent to the not-so-happy place?
3 - One of us is wrong
Or we're both wrong!
4 - if you are wrong, really sucks for you
Perhaps. It could actually turn out better than what I'm expecting.
5 - if I am wrong, we end up the same (nothing).
You could in fact end up far worse off than me! I hope not, though. You seem a decent fellow.
Any reasonable person would therefore seek the ethical system that is correct, not just their own system. In fact, you implicitly are seeking one that is universally correct or true by simply claiming that it is universally true that there is no universal system.
I seek the ethical system that I personally feel is correct. What ramifications that decision holds for me are irrelevant to me. Even if I end up in the deepest, darkest bowels of the Judeo-Christian Hell, I will still stick to my own ethics. To do otherwise would be to betray my own conscience, to perpetrate a level of intellectual and ethical dishonesty that would be beyond my fathoming.
* But on this we do seem to agree - there can be no objective ethical system without God. Where we seem to differ is whether a subjective/relative ethical system is meaningful. You have not produced any evidence that it is, or even can be.
It is meaningful to me. That is only as far as I could ever demonstrate. Luckily, that is only as far as need concern me.
An interesting ethic. So if I and a seller choose to enter a contract for a house, and later the seller changes his mind and seeks to back out, adn the state forces him to sell to me, he also becomes a "house selling slave" of the state?
He's not a slave. He hasn't lost any personal liberties. What he's lost is property. There are plenty of examples of the government taking property away from people.
And he lost the property because the government established that it was your house, and not his, as a result of the contract that he voluntarily signed. One of you was going to lose a house; the government merely chose who.
If in fact he was trying to snooker you out of your money and keep the house; and the government convicted him of a crime; then he would probably go to jail. Consequently, he *would* lose personal liberty; he would be confined by the state. But as he knowingly perpetrated a crime, he is the instigator of his own demise.
Paul: First, Robert, I have to compliment you on your run here. You've been prompt, consistent, and polite in all your responses. I hope you feel free to let a question go until it's convenient to answer it.
Thanks. (Un)fortunately, I have quite a bit of free time at work this week. So I've been trying to keep pace. Discussing such a volatile topic with several people at once ain't easy, tho! But I enjoy a challenge, as well as a lively debate.
1) In accordance with my personal, ethical system, all human beings are deserving of free will. To strip a human being of free will is a fate worse than death, in my eyes.
But, does not taking a human life also entail stripping that person of their free will?
Taking a human life strips that person of being a person anymore. That person no longer exists; only a corpse remains.
Or, to put it less delicately, I assess the existence of only three states:
1) Alive, with free will
2) Alive, without free will
3) Dead
In my eyes, status (2) is strictly worse than status (3).
In making this judgment, aren't you really saying that it's better to deny one person both their life and their freedom than it is to temporarily constrain someone to live with the consequences of their own actions?
Dead people aren't terribly concerned with their lack of free will. I suppose the concept I'm alluding to is that of suffering. A person living in slavery suffers under a yoke, an oppression, a constant state of torture. The dead suffer not.
N.B. to Robert: when I use quotation marks, I sometimes use them as direct quotes (though I'll usually preface that by "you/he/she said"); at other times, I use them to indicate a popular usage of a term to which I don't necessarily subscribe... and I also use them to set off terms whose definitions are still in dispute (i.e. I'm trying to qualify my answers carefully, as time and concentration level allow). In short: you needn't take them too seriously!
Robert wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
But doesn't this confuse causes and effects? To say that "good effects came from [x]" is not at all the same as saying "[x] is good because of this"...
[Robert]
Semantics.
Well... yes, but not "merely" semantics. When we deal with definitions--especially such fundamental ones as these--specific wording is critical, not optional. As G.K. Chesterton once discussed: the fact that someone can say that the deceased Mr. X is showing "increased vitality" by having his corpse infested with live worms does not imply that Mr. X, as a person, has enjoyed a resurrection! Words (usually) mean things, after all...
Red and green are different colors; yet objects can be both red and green simultaneously.
Yes, but not exactly in the same place, at the same time, and in the same manner. The Law of non-contradiction still holds, you know...
If an object is both red and green, then it can be said to be red, and it can be said to be green.
That's the result of casual (or possibly "sloppy") use of language, not the result of any ambiguity in the definitions of "red" or "green". Conversational usage of "red" can certainly include "that which is, to my eyes, predominantly red", since exacting terminological precision (sometimes called "pedantry") isn't very popular in casual social circles. :) But a given patch of arbitrarily small area (x) of that object is still either red, or green, or neither; it cannot be both simultaneously.
Suffering is bad because it's painful and hurts.
Shouldn't that read, "I personally *think/feel* that suffering is bad, because it hurts?" A masochist might disagree... but note that you and the masochist still have an intuitive understanding of the word "bad". It's my main point that this intuitive awareness rests upon an objective standard, outside of the people themselves; they didn't just invent "goodness" and "badness" as concepts, willy-nilly and from whole cloth, as if they'd been perfectly free to define them some other way!
Suffering is good because it builds character, gives us perspective, lends us wisdom.
Well... aren't you presuming that building character, gaining perspective, and gaining wisdom are all "good"?
I hope not to sound as if I'm trivializing what you've endured.
Oh, no worries there. I introduced my situation for illustrative purposes, and to attempt to give you a basis for gaining am empathic intuition for the ideas I describe; you needn't worry about me being protective or pity-seeking. Thank you, though...
But you established, and I agree, that good things can come from bad events (and the reverse as well, I suppose).
Yes... and the very fact that we can talk about "good" and "bad" coherently (i.e. they don't simply change definitions every [x] seconds) implies that we both refer to an unchanging standard outside of ourselves--even if only a standard intuition of what "good" and "evil" mean. I understand that I refer to external standards far more than you do; but I wanted to convince you that your own position is not--nay it cannot be--completely devoid of objective standards... or else you and I would have no more experience of any coherent idea of "good" and "evil" than we do of the smell of purple, or the flavour of an isosceles triangle.
Then I won't bother refuting [St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs for God's existence], or demonstrating proofs of the opposite. :)
I admit, you have me very curious...
On that line (and yes, it's not as if you have nothing else to do but pound out answers to innumerable and interminable questions!), perhaps you could take a peek at this "proof" for God's existence, and offer a response? I don't at all pretend that it's foolproof--or even particularly good--but you've asserted your assumption that God does not exist (or that His existence is irrelevant/unknowable), and I'd like to test that.
P.S. I happily join my compliments to Paul's: your ability, your patience, and your clarity are all admirable! (Forgive the objectively framed adjective! :) )
Well... yes, but not "merely" semantics. When we deal with definitions--especially such fundamental ones as these--specific wording is critical, not optional. As G.K. Chesterton once discussed: the fact that someone can say that the deceased Mr. X is showing "increased vitality" by having his corpse infested with live worms does not imply that Mr. X, as a person, has enjoyed a resurrection! Words (usually) mean things, after all...
Granted. And if pressed, we can once again delve down into each word we use in each circumstance we use them, in order to discern meaning. I'm more than happy to do so, whenever you'd like. It'll slow things down; but since our ultimate goal is mutual understanding, the time is well spent.
If there is a red and green ball; and there is a blue and green ball; and you instruct me, "Pick up the red ball"; then I will know instantly which ball you mean. I would not feel tempted to assert, "Oh, there aren't any red balls; please clarify further."
Whereas, if there were three balls, one red and green, one blue and green, and one pure red; and you said, "Pick up the red ball"; then I really wouldn't know which one you meant, and would probably question you. Perhaps someone else would pick up the pure red one. I couldn't say. But different terms mean different things to different people at different times.
Thus, the further you press, the more I assert: *everything* is relative. When I say that something is "good", I mean -- indeed, I can ONLY mean -- that it is good in my eyes, in my judgment, in my perception. Now, I suppose that implicit in that statement might be the assumption, or the presumption, or the flat-out guess, that you also perceive that thing as a good. But I acknowledge that you might not, and would not at all be flabbergasted if you whirled around and said so. My mistake, then. Going forward, I would then qualify such references: "This seems like a good thing to me."
Beets. I absolutely hate them. They nauseate me; the scent of them disgusts me. You might enjoy a spoonful and, unaware of my vegetative prejudice, might feel tempted to exclaim: "Mmm... these beets taste GOOD!" "Blech", I'd reply, even without having to taste them myself. Thusly, I have communicated to you that no, what you consider good as pertains to beets, I do not.
But I certainly wouldn't feel obliged to rub the point in and be all, "Listen pal, you don't know how I might feel about vegetables. Don't go around assuming that what tastes good to you tastes good to me!" This is because it's pretty self-evident that not everyone enjoys the same tastes. Just as not everyone enjoys the same movies, the same sports, the same lawn care equipment.
So too is it with ethics. What you call good, I might call evil. Good, within your ethical framework; evil, within mine. And we needn't clarify further. Indeed: we *can't* clarify further, since good and evil within my ethics have no direct correlation to good and evil within yours. They are entirely different measurement systems, with no meaningful or recognizable pattern with which to compare and contrast them.
My ethical system is completely devoid of objective standards. I have absolutely no objective standard whatsoever. Every single aspect -- every single one -- of my ethical principles can and must be purely and wholly subjective, based solely on my own perceptions, my own beliefs, my own experiences. They can even *change* over time, as my own understanding of the world changes.
If you wish to discount this assertion, please then provide a single aspect of my ethical system that must necessarily be based on an objective standard.
On that line (and yes, it's not as if you have nothing else to do but pound out answers to innumerable and interminable questions!), perhaps you could take a peek at this "proof" for God's existence, and offer a response? I don't at all pretend that it's foolproof--or even particularly good--but you've asserted your assumption that God does not exist (or that His existence is irrelevant/unknowable), and I'd like to test that.
I took a brief gander at it. There's some interesting points in there. I have some observations and some topics we could discuss. However, I dare say such a discussion would extend well beyond the scope of this thread. And we're already well off-topic already. Perhaps another environment would be better suited for such?
P.S. I happily join my compliments to Paul's: your ability, your patience, and your clarity are all admirable! (Forgive the objectively framed adjective! :) )
Thank you. I figured some folks in this thread might be interested in my perspectives, and I'm glad to have had this opportunity to express them.
Perhaps another environment would be better suited for such?
You could use the comment box on that thread, if you like. It's not as if my blog (which I've neglected almost unforgivably) will be overwhelmed by the traffic, or anything... :)
"Why any self-respecting atheist is not a complete self-centered lying bastard is completely beyond me. If there is no God, the only rule of ethics is "don't get caught." It is the only thing that would make sense. I suppose most atheists just don't have the guts to completely follow there own professed belief (or non-belief)."
c matt,
I think you're living in the crowded prison of your own mind here.
At even the most basic and practical level, being a self-centered lying bastard is no way to get on in the world.(1) You may get the girl, but you won't keep her. Other people won't like you, won't respect you, and won't help you when you need it. You'll become isolated and lonely. Every self-centered lying bastard I know has a miserable life, and is profoundly unhappy.
That's why modern science considers some degrees of being a self-centered lying bastard symptomatic of pathology. In short, it's extremely self-defeating. The atheists who know this are healthy and rational, not cowardly.
(Personally, I think altruism and compassion are in some ways remnants of our evolutionary history, but that's another matter.)
In any event, imagine you could be a country. Which one would you rather be in 1940, Nazi Germany or Switzerland?
(1) There are exceptions, of course, scumbaggery, like most things, being a meritocracy of sorts. But the odds of the average self-centered lying bastard getting elected to Congress or running a Texas-based energy trading company/Ponzi scheme are bleak.
Here's a couple questions for those of you who would deny a woman pregnant due to rape or incest access to an abortion.
Imagine that science developed such serious mojo that we could transplant a fetus from one woman to another so simply and efficiently that it just doesn't matter what woman takes the fetus to term.
Assume a woman pregnant due to rape or incest desires an abortion. Do you insist she take the fetus to term, or do you support a motherhood draft or lottery (registration mandatory for all woman of childbearing age) in which another "qualified" woman is picked at random to take the fetus to term?
John, let me reply to your ridiculous question with two others:
If a woman were to conceive as a result of rape, carry the baby to term, and only upon delivery discover that looking at her child reminds her of the ordeal, would you support her decision to take a knife and stab the baby repeatedly and then dash that baby's brains out against the room of the wall?
Do you support the death penalty for the children of other types of criminals, too?
John, how can you not understand by now that the objection to abortion is based on the right to life?
Just admit it, you don't believe that there is a right to life; you believe that might makes right.
At least Robert has the courage to admit that he doesn't believe in morality, things are only right or wrong as he decides, and his decisions can be as arbitrary as he chooses to be. I wouldn't make a contract with him, he might arbitrarily decide that it's ethically permissible to violate contracts pro-lifers whenever he thinks he can get away with it, but at least he's honest about his position.
But you, John, you want to claim the moral high ground and sanction killing babies, for any reason or no reason, and by the cruelest means imaginable. You can't have it both ways.
At least Robert has the courage to admit that he doesn't believe in morality, things are only right or wrong as he decides, and his decisions can be as arbitrary as he chooses to be. I wouldn't make a contract with him, he might arbitrarily decide that it's ethically permissible to violate contracts pro-lifers whenever he thinks he can get away with it, but at least he's honest about his position.
I do indeed "believe in morality." I simply don't believe in a universal standard. I believe instead in the existence of multiple standards. And I can provide evidence in support of this belief.
Indeed: I find it mildly amusing that in a single breath you confess reluctance to strike up a contract with me due to your supposition that I am untrustworthy, yet simultaneously assert that I'm honest about my position!
Whereas, I for one observe that all human beings are possessed of free will. As such, each such person is capable of making an ethical decision based on any belief or conception as that person might deem worthy, at any time. Thus, I in turn have no inherent reason to trust you on anything that you say or do, since you, too, could decide arbitrary to change your mind, or may indeed have been lying to me all the while.
Can you claim any differently? Can you assert, positively, regarding any single other human being, that such a person absolutely will never betray your trust, will never change his or her mind? Can you provide evidence for this supposition?
"John, how can you not understand by now that the objection to abortion is based on the right to life?"
What exactly makes you think I don't understand that? Answering my question would not require you abandon or suspend your belief in the right to life. In either instance, the fetus is being taken to term, consistent with your belief in its right to life.
"But you, John, you want to claim the moral high ground and sanction killing babies, for any reason or no reason, and by the cruelest means imaginable. You can't have it both ways."
Do have even a shred of evidence I sanction killing babies, fetuses, or blastocysts for any reason?
In the comments to the following post, I make the only remarks I've made here on my personal thoughts on abortion. I think their context proves your comment in error.
http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/01/words-mean-things.html
Although not as thorough and eloquent as Robert's comments, you'll notice a certain thematic similarity, although I come to different conclusions.
John... with all due respect, I think you're being a bit disingenuous, here. By very virtue of the fact that you offer a challenge to "those of YOU who would deny a woman pregnant due to rape or incest access to an abortion" (emphasis added), you indicate that you are not of "their" (i.e. our) number, on this point... and that you (by implication) would NOT deny a woman an abortion in those circumstances--an abortion which is specifically designed and intended to kill the baby (whether the baby is currently a fetus, a blastocyst, or any other stage of development). Thus, you've supplied ample evidence for Paul (or anyone else) to point to your sanction of such killings... yes? If not, then you'll need to explain how your rather clear syntax and wording doesn't indicate the obvious meaning...
John wrote, in reply to c matt:
At even the most basic and practical level, being a self-centered lying bastard is no way to get on in the world.(1)
...unless you have enough power, money, or prestige. Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Mao Tse Tung, and the like come to mind...
You may get the girl, but you won't keep her.
...unless she's under threat of force/death, or a golddigger who'll tolerate the "jerk-dom" for the sake of the gold...
Other people won't like you, won't respect you, and won't help you when you need it.
Perez Hilton gets by fairly well on that count, according to the number of "friends" he has on Facebook...
You'll become isolated and lonely.
...unless you have enough of a following of sycophants who overlook your flaws because you stimulate them in some way (e.g. amusement, star-worship, sexual allure, etc.), unless your "friends" are all jerks of equal caliber (and your jerk-dom helps them feel not-so-abnormal)...
Every self-centered lying bastard I know has a miserable life, and is profoundly unhappy.
You apparently don't live in Hollywood, New York, DC., or other havens of rich, media-worshipped jerks...
But after all: is it really to an amoral person's moral credit that he "behaves" simply because he's denied the opportunity to be a jerk... but given the chance (magically), he'd "jerk-ify" in a heartbeat?
Robert:
I'm not sure if this will help... but there are two different types of "certainty" that we can attain:
1) 100% "mathematical" certainty, which only applies to a priori (i.e. sense-data-independent) matters (and certain well-defined a posteriori matters, but always in a sort of "mathematical sense"), such as proving the Pythagorean Theorem, being certain that 2 + 2 = 4, and so on.
2) certainty "beyond reasonable doubt"--i.e. where to reject the idea would entail a violation of sane reason. This applies to most a posteriori (i.e. sense-data-dependent) matters whose domains of observation (i.e. collections of all possible contributing elements) are infinite or undefined.
Example for #1 (a priori): any two even whole numbers will have an even sum. (100% certain, independent of sense-data)
Example for #1 (a posteriori): there are no penguins visible to me in this room. (100% certain, dependent on observation data)
Example for #2: when (God willing) I wake up tomorrow, and attempt to get out of bed, the floor will actually hold me up (rather than dissolving into mist and letting me plummet to a fiery doom at the earth's core).
You seem to take the fact that "example #2 instances" cannot be proven with 100% certainty, and proceed to say that this makes such instances "relative". That's true... but only in a very rarefied, pedantic sense which usually has (in my eyes) no significant application to life. It's quite permissible to say (with some colloquialism and per se inaccuracy) "I'm sure that, when I lift the spoon to my mouth, it won't turn into a viper and bite my lip!" The fact that I can't prove this fact in the way that I prove how a quadratic always has two complex roots, is noted... but practically irrelevant; if I avoided all spoons on that basis, my fellows would be quite justified in referring me to a mental health specialist.
In short: standard logic recognizes two different types of "proofs" by which certainty can be attained: intrinsic (100% certain) proofs, and extrinsic (beyond all reasonable doubt) proofs.
Now: you claim that morality falls into the second category, I think... and it is thus that you claim it to be "relative". (Is that correct?) But I think you go rather farther, and you say that the only possible reason to recognize/impose) such moral standards (as laws/policies) is for personal taste (e.g. I happen to approve of prohibiting rape), and for "collective" taste (e.g. the country happens to approve of surviving, etc.). There--if I've represented you correctly--is where we differ, I think. I assert that it's quite possible to make a coherent case for morality which MUST be accepted, regardless of whether any given subset of its denizens like it or not, vote for it or not, or even know about it or not.
Paladin,
"the fact that you offer a challenge"
I offered no challenge. I asked questions. It would have made no sense to address them to someone who fully supports abortion rights, such as Robert.
"Thus, you've supplied ample evidence for Paul (or anyone else) to point to your sanction of such killings..."
I don't think so, but maybe I misread his comment.
He wrote, "But you, John, you... sanction killing babies, for ANY [my emphasis] reason or no reason..."
I took his "for any reason" to mean... well, for any reason one could think of. That's not true. You're justified in concluding based on what I wrote above that I support abortion in cases of rape and incest. You're not justified in concluding that I support abortion for "any" reason, "any" meaning any reason one could think of.
I also offered a link that offers evidence that contradicts Paul's statement. That should have helped alleviate any concerns about me being disingenuous.
Besides, as I pointed out, my questions assumed that no abortion was even going to happen. So I don't even understand the relevance of Paul's statement. Answer it or don't.
And I must say, you have a strange definition of baby. I think you're playing fast and loose with the language and with logic when you call a blastocyst a baby.
Example for #1 (a priori): any two even whole numbers will have an even sum. (100% certain, independent of sense-data)
Agreed; a sufficient example of an a priori scenario.
Example for #1 (a posteriori): there are no penguins visible to me in this room. (100% certain, dependent on observation data)
Truth be told, I'd be tempted to lump this in with #2. Just because you don't *believe* you don't see any penguins doesn't mean it's true. You could be mistaken, for example, in your capacity to identify members of the penguin species. A sneaky, stealthy penguin could be in your room but excellently camouflaged, such that you are seeing it but aren't aware of the fact. And so forth. Silly propositions, to be sure. But possible nevertheless.
Thus, as per your example for #2: you can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that there aren't any penguins. I'll certainly grant that. But you cannot prove it, in a raw, boring, logical sense.
A better example, in my opinion, would be something a tad simpler. You exist. The universe exists. Basic stuff, stuff that does technically require some minimal amount of observation, but is trivially simple to demonstrate, and irrefutable in its conclusion.
You seem to take the fact that "example #2 instances" cannot be proven with 100% certainty, and proceed to say that this makes such instances "relative". That's true... but only in a very rarefied, pedantic sense which usually has (in my eyes) no significant application to life. It's quite permissible to say (with some colloquialism and per se inaccuracy) "I'm sure that, when I lift the spoon to my mouth, it won't turn into a viper and bite my lip!" The fact that I can't prove this fact in the way that I prove how a quadratic always has two complex roots, is noted... but practically irrelevant; if I avoided all spoons on that basis, my fellows would be quite justified in referring me to a mental health specialist.
Agreed. My technical objection is merely just that: technical. It's rarely of any particular utility. When politely informed that the sun will rise tomorrow, or there are no penguins in your room, I generally refrain from manifesting my technical objection, and simply smile and nod.
My objection does, however, become extremely important to me whenever an exception scenario arises. One such exception is whenever someone purposefully and explicitly attempts to make an absolute, global, universal statement, with bold confidence and unrestrained gall, about some characteristic of the world that cannot, in fact, be so readily categorized.
Now: you claim that morality falls into the second category, I think... and it is thus that you claim it to be "relative". (Is that correct?)
No. Logic and proofs have no applicability to ethics as an overall concept (though some ethical standards might use logic and reasoning as components in their structures). Ethics are a matter of opinion, as per your next supposition:
But I think you go rather farther, and you say that the only possible reason to recognize/impose) such moral standards (as laws/policies) is for personal taste (e.g. I happen to approve of prohibiting rape), and for "collective" taste (e.g. the country happens to approve of surviving, etc.).
Yes. Ethics are a matter of opinion, of preference, of taste, either personal or collective. Note, interestingly, that I didn't qualify this statement. Ethics ARE a matter of opinion. I state this with certainty, as I have demonstrable, sufficiently conclusive a posteriori evidence indicative of it:
1) I have a system of ethics.
2) My system of ethics is not the same today as it was previously.
3) That there have existed two different systems of ethics proves that there does not only exist one system of ethics.
There--if I've represented you correctly--is where we differ, I think. I assert that it's quite possible to make a coherent case for morality which MUST be accepted, regardless of whether any given subset of its denizens like it or not, vote for it or not, or even know about it or not.
I am not aware of any ethical principle that must necessarily be accepted by all persons. Thinking about it, I suppose I cannot demonstrate that no such principle could exist. While I feel I have demonstrated that multiple *systems* can and must exist, that does not in turn imply that all components of ethical systems must be mutable or malleable.
Consequently, my interest is piqued. Please identify for me one such ethical principle (or, I suppose, please demonstrate that at least one such principle must necessarily exist.)
c matt,
I think you're living in the crowded prison of your own mind here.
At least I'm not alone.
self-centered lying bastard getting elected to Congress or running a Texas-based energy trading company/Ponzi scheme are bleak.
Where the hell do you get that??? It can't be from observed data. I think you misunderstand - a self-centered lying bastard is not going to go around adverstising the fact (hence, the "lying" part), and frankly, if you don't get too greedy, a SCLB can get pretty far in life (even President - check the last three occupants).
Consequently, my interest is piqued. Please identify for me one such ethical principle (or, I suppose, please demonstrate that at least one such principle must necessarily exist.)
The pressure is on... :)
How about this: "Even good ends never justify evil means; though it is sometimes (for grave and proportionate reasons) allowable to tolerate unintended/unwanted *effects* of an otherwise chosen good, it is never morally licit to *choose* a moral evil."
Illustration: It is morally licit to shoot an attacker, if there are no other means available by which one can reasonably defend one's life (or the life of another)... but even that liceity is forfeit, if the shooter *intends* the death of the attacker. Intending to *stop* the attacker (while regretfully and unwillingly using deadly force if necessary, through lack of alternatives) is licit, but *aiming* to kill the attacker is a free choice to seek an evil end, and it is not morally licit.
If I approach an attacker with the mindset of: "I don't want him dead; I want to protect myself, and his death is an unfortunate side-effect of my self-defense... that I'd avoid if I possibly could", then I avoid culpability on that count.
If I approach an attacker with the mindset of: "I'm glad that I can hide behind the principle of double-effect, because I want to see this potential attacker dead at my feet!", then I'm guilty of murder.
I am not aware of any ethical principle that must necessarily be accepted by all persons.
You are correct. No person needs to accept any particular ethical principle. This is why we will never agree or convince each other - because we mean different things by "need to accept". You do not believe any eternal consequences attach to any ethical system or choice, hence, there is no necessity to adhere to any particular one other than to the extent it suits your fancy. And (as I tried to explain above by my SCLB example) this is perfectly reasonable. If you are correct about the lack of eternal consequences, I would agree with you - there is no objective system of ethics.
Similarly, if I am correct that there are eternal consequences with choice of ethical system, then you STILL don't have to choose a particular one. You could, after all, choose to damn yourself. Free will is therefore not destroyed by the fact there may be eternal consequences. If, however, you choose not to damn yourself, then it is incumbent upon you to find and adhere to that ethical system that will not damn you, and what you may "fancy" has no bearing (other than the fact you fancy not being damned). I may personally prefer a system that allows me to commit adultery, but I cannot adhere to it if I do not wish to be damned. In this sense, it is objective (you may still call it relative or subjective b/c it is merely incorporating my uber-fancy of not being damned over my lesser fancy of committing adultery; I will not bicker obout such distinction).
Thus, by "need to accept" I mean one that must be adhered to in order to avoid eternal damnation.
In short, what we are really saying (both of us) is that if there is no God, then "ethics" is completely arbitrary, which is another way of saying it is meaningless.
How about this: "Even good ends never justify evil means; though it is sometimes (for grave and proportionate reasons) allowable to tolerate unintended/unwanted *effects* of an otherwise chosen good, it is never morally licit to *choose* a moral evil."
Admittedly, this principle seems more like a generally tautology about the definition of ethical systems. "It is never morally licit to choose a moral evil" is a seemingly redundant statement. Evil is evil; immoral is immoral; illicit is illicit.
But even this I can discredit. There exist individuals whose ethics do not define any evil actions. They are ethical anarchists; they do what they want, when they want, without compunction or conscience, serving only themselves or whatever motivates them from one happenstance to the next.
When assessing their ethical systems and their overall behavior and composure, I would evaluate such individuals as being thoroughly evil, wholly corrupt. I tend to suspect that you might feel similarly. But within the confines of their own ethical systems, no such categorization is present. To themselves, they are not evil; they do not even have a scale of good and evil. They simply aren't concerned with such notions.
Thus, within the ethical systems of such individuals, the principle "it is never morally licit to choose a moral evil" is meaningless and, thus, not present.
You are correct. No person needs to accept any particular ethical principle. This is why we will never agree or convince each other - because we mean different things by "need to accept". You do not believe any eternal consequences attach to any ethical system or choice, hence, there is no necessity to adhere to any particular one other than to the extent it suits your fancy. And (as I tried to explain above by my SCLB example) this is perfectly reasonable. If you are correct about the lack of eternal consequences, I would agree with you - there is no objective system of ethics.
The lack of external pressure to make changes to my ethical system does not in turn imply that my system will remain unchanged. I tweak my ethics all of the time. One of the reasons I'm here is to hear how other people think and feel and compare those perceptions to my own. Conversely, I'm hopeful that others will hear what I have to say and ponder similarly.
Similarly, if I am correct that there are eternal consequences with choice of ethical system, then you STILL don't have to choose a particular one. You could, after all, choose to damn yourself. Free will is therefore not destroyed by the fact there may be eternal consequences. If, however, you choose not to damn yourself, then it is incumbent upon you to find and adhere to that ethical system that will not damn you, and what you may "fancy" has no bearing (other than the fact you fancy not being damned). I may personally prefer a system that allows me to commit adultery, but I cannot adhere to it if I do not wish to be damned. In this sense, it is objective (you may still call it relative or subjective b/c it is merely incorporating my uber-fancy of not being damned over my lesser fancy of committing adultery; I will not bicker obout such distinction).
It is of course still subjective. Identifying something as one's highest ideal does not in turn render it an objective ideal. That you would rather not risk damnation than commit adultery is a choice you have made. That does not in turn impart the notion that not wanting to be damned is an objective goal. It's simply the goal that's most important to you.
Similarly, my own highest ideal is intellectual honesty. That I must always be true to myself, to my own thoughts, motives and perceptions. That I cannot allow outside influences to force my hand. Again, this is not an objective stance. Indeed: I admit that I may at some future date *change that stance*. It is possible. But here and now, in my ethical system, that is my highest subjective ideal.
Thus, by "need to accept" I mean one that must be adhered to in order to avoid eternal damnation.
So noted. By "need to accept", I tend to refer to those notions that I discover through exploration and observation, conclusions that I derive through analysis and from evidence. Notions that I cannot deny, lest I sacrifice intellectual honesty, my highest ideal. To thine own self be true, as I would put it.
In short, what we are really saying (both of us) is that if there is no God, then "ethics" is completely arbitrary, which is another way of saying it is meaningless.
Ethics are completely arbitrary whether gods exist or not. Irrespective of the fact that ethics are arbitrary, ethics are NOT meaningless to me. I grant them meaning, through my own free will.
But your granting meaning to yours is meaningless to me. It only has meaning to you, like a secret language that no one else understands. Thus, in an objective (outside of yourself) sense, they are meaningless.
But your granting meaning to yours is meaningless to me. It only has meaning to you, like a secret language that no one else understands.
Agreed. Mind you, however, I for one am nevertheless interested in your ethical system, even though I am not compelled to be interested in it, let alone obey it.
Thus, in an objective (outside of yourself) sense, they are meaningless.
Correct. They have no objective significance whatsoever.
Abortions, by definition, involve the termination of human life. That's the simple fact of the matter. Any pro-choice advocate who claims otherwise is, quite simply, full of crap.
Nice Post Thanky
They have no objective significance whatsoever.
Which is true if there is no "final judgment." If there is final judgment, then a given ethical system would have objective meaning at least to the extent such final judge would judge one better than the other. To some extent, it can be said the favored ethical system would be somewhat arbitrary from the final judge's point of view, but from our point of view, there would be an objective standard by which to measure our respective ethical systems.
Thus, the systems would not be arbitrary with respect to us mortals if there is a God (it may be arbitrary from God's perspective why He chose system X over Y, but that is irrelevant to us).
Which is true if there is no "final judgment." If there is final judgment, then a given ethical system would have objective meaning at least to the extent such final judge would judge one better than the other.
I fail to see the relevance of who might evaluate my ethical system, when that being might evaluate it, and what that being might do after evaluating it. None of these factor at all into my ability to form my own ethical system and stick to it.
To some extent, it can be said the favored ethical system would be somewhat arbitrary from the final judge's point of view, but from our point of view, there would be an objective standard by which to measure our respective ethical systems.
I neither recognize nor acknowledge said being's ethical system as being the objective one or the favored one. I consider it a subjective one, comparable to my own, but not somehow superior. The entire concept that some other being's ethical system is intrinsically better than mine or more important than mine or more valid than mine is meaningless to me. I consider and respect *only* my own ethical system; I do not respect any other being's ethical system, ultimately, no matter what the consequences of my lack of consideration. I might, of my own free will, alter my own ethical system to conform to features I find in others' systems. But that is the extent of my interaction with them.
Thus, the systems would not be arbitrary with respect to us mortals if there is a God (it may be arbitrary from God's perspective why He chose system X over Y, but that is irrelevant to us).
I perceive nothing intrinsically special about such a being's ethical system. I might indeed be interested in how that ethical system was constructed and why. But that some god (an entity we have yet to define) made the system does not in turn imply to me that the system is superior, or that I should feel obliged to set aside mine in exchange for the god's.
Sorry, y'all... real life overwhelms. I'll try to get some comments on here, when I can!
Robert, I have not read all the comments. That admitted....
I like most of what you said in your first comment. The government is not in the position to protect non citizens. Moral does not equal legal.
Where you lost me is where you called the woman a slave of the state. The problem I have with that analogy is that the state did no inpregnate her. Therefore, she is not being forced to do anything. The state is merely taking away an option. (One that is not a natural right in the first place.)
Everything she had done up to that point was a choice, and she continues to have choices.
Ironically, abortion does just that. It makes a woman a slave. For example the government pays for millions of abortions. When it comes to the government, dependent=slave.
Post a Comment