Abortion is morally wrong

[rexbeccarox]

My question has to do with your stance on the subject of abortion. You started this thread about abortion. My question is valid. I think you're afraid your answer will poke holes in your stance.

Please answer the question: who decides what's objectively (im)moral?

He doesn't think it will. He fucking knows it. Just like he knows his morality argument goes out the window with crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome and violent parents.

In repeating his assertion ad nauseum he's trying to evade every tough question asked of him.

Arthur, it's not a good opinion if you have to ignore nuances to have it.

[GrandizerII]

Arthur, it's not a good opinion if you have to ignore nuances to have it.

Touche.

[The Grand Nudger]

Societies are subject to descent with modification in the same way that organisms we generally view as such do. Essentially, societies in which everyone goes around killing on a whim are not as likely to succeed as those which develop a taboo against the practice. They are replaced by the less violent ones. Those are the ones we observe.

If we have to add the qualifier "on a whim" we're probably already sounding the retreat from the claim. What we have is a justification for accepting that murder on a whim might best be considered "morally wrong" intra/society. We also have to turn the lamplight inward to make that one work at all, because societies that -did- go around killing -other societies- are precisely the ones that -did- succeed and that we -do- observe. To borrow your turn of phrase.

If we try to argue the utilitarian position (that it "works" the best for yidda yadda) for some overarching comment about murder we'll fall flat on our faces at worst, and at best end up with a situation in which it's sometimes okay, sometimes not - which is right where we are anyway (not that I wouldn;t argue a utilitarian position..but what "works best" may not be "right" - after all).

To put it more bluntly, if I roll with your claim about the morality of murder, and I roll with your justification for behavior based on societal success - and you are in my societies way...........

That's what I never understood about that "less violent/more likely to succeed" line. Slim chance that many on this board are from a society that doesn't have a history of violence that reads like a demons resume. We did succeed, that was how we succeeded. I think that people take it too far, not realizing that the possible advantage of being tranquil only extends within ones society - any benefit conferred via selective processes would exclude (and possibly be to the detriment of) those outside of the selective pool.

[JuliaL]

If we have to add the qualifier "on a whim" we're probably already sounding the retreat from the claim. What we have is a justification for accepting that murder on a whim might best be considered "morally wrong" intra/society. We also have to turn the lamplight inward to make that one work at all, because societies that -did- go around killing -other societies- are precisely the ones that -did- succeed and that we -do- observe. To borrow your turn of phrase.

...

To put it more bluntly, if I roll with your claim about the morality of murder, and I roll with your justification for behavior based on societal success - and you are in my societies way...........

May I back up from the phrase 'on a whim' to 'with less yet sufficient justification in that society?'
Agreed, societies' evolution is not one of uniform progress (I hate the term as I believe it is totally subjective.) Evolution of societies yields lots of different solutions to ethical questions. All you can say is that the successful ones survive. This is a tautology just like 'survival of the fittest' because survival is the definition of success or fitness. As it is not always the best strategy to be big and strong with big teeth and claws it appears to be a better strategy in general for humans to tone down the violence. In societies you may have greater or lesser amounts of endemic violence. But in order to expand into all corners of the earth, humanity has learned to be less violent (Steven Pinker: Better Angels of Our Nature)
I'm happy with that as I'm not likely to win in an armed conflict. (Therefore the state of affairs is "GOOD.")

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, but now that we've expanded, now that all those wonderful resources are snatched up (the situation that makes peacefulness pay, after all -excepting the natives)? Granted that we've been sitting pretty for awhile, but with the destructive power that modern violence has under it's thumb, what would it really take to make our current happy situation seem like a very temporary hiccup in the data? Pinkers book leans heavily on accumulated historical data, but should it surprise us to find a decline in violence over recorded history? Keep in mind, that by "recorded history" we were -already- all over the globe (so it makes little sense to claim that we learned to be peaceful in doing so, or that doing so helped with the same..givin that expansion is likely to be the most violent aspect of any history...we're putting the cart before the horse imo). One could just as easily assume the reading that our decline in violence has been due to our decline in potential victims. The environment is no longer target rich, especially after having eradicated so many "others".

[JuliaL]

Ah, but now that we've expanded, now that all those wonderful resources are snatched up (the situation that makes peacefulness pay, after all -excepting the natives)? Granted that we've been sitting pretty for awhile, but with the destructive power that modern violence has under it's thumb, what would it really take to make our current happy situation seem like a very temporary hiccup in the data? Pinkers book leans heavily on accumulated historical data, but should it surprise us to find a decline in violence over recorded history? Keep in mind, that by "recorded history" we were -already- all over the globe (so it makes little sense to claim that we learned to be peaceful in doing so, or that doing so helped with the same..givin that expansion is likely to be the most violent aspect of any history...we're putting the cart before the horse imo). One could just as easily assume the reading that our decline in violence has been due to our decline in potential victims. The environment is no longer target rich, especially after having eradicated so many "others".

I am not contending that the decrease in violence in societies is permanent or some sort of absolute good though it is good for me. It just is. During the European expansion into the rest of the globe, there was effective dehumanization of the indigenous populations with resulting genocides. In my youth, there were holdovers from the American western expansion and the phrase 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian.' was still in use. We have toned that back but it could be temporary no matter the sincerity of its current adherents. What I'd like to see is some control over the sociopaths who become world leaders. Unfortunately, you have to have a nastier sociopath to throw the other sociopath out of office. (No, Mr. Locke, elections won't do. See: Egypt, N.Korea, Iraq, Syria) You just get the sociopaths gaming the electoral system.
I was part of the 'duck and cover' generation where we thought we were going to be nuked at any time. It wasn't until the '70s when the 'superpowers' figured out, with the help of their respective boffins, that nuclear winter wasn't a good idea for anybody. There are still plenty nuclear devices out there waiting for someone, perhaps who we would consider demented, but who considers himself a patriot or devout (fill in your favorite apocalyptic cult here) willing to throw the first megaton.

What I wanted to point out was that the common, not universal, proscriptions against murder are a result of societal evolution in response to current conditions. Eyes can be grown or lost to an organism depending on their current requirements. The 'goodness' of murder is specifically dependent on the requirements of the society in question at the place and time in question. Your lack of targets point simply is one of the factors involved in the current conditions. As murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human by a human, we can always call it illegal or even bad (If unlawful things are generally defined as bad.) But the envelope which restricts the unlawful killing is particularly elastic and quite dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Although I do contend that crossing the streams is BAD in an absolute sense.
.

[Bibliofagus]

Once again, Im moving from the assumption that objective morality exists. If we don't assume that, than genital mutilation, murder, ect. is morally permissible. Your question has nothing to do with the discussion. Im sorry..

Fuck you are one sick dick,

[pocaracas]

My motus ponens is as follows:
1. It is morally impermissible to kill an innocent human being

Is it?
Always?
Are you sure?
Ever heard of the trolley problem? And others like that...

Reality is a bitch. Never say always! (Never say never, too, but oh well! )

Under some circumstances, it is morally permissible to kill an innocent human being.

2. A fetus is an innocent human being

I've got no beef with that....
Others seem to have, though...
I guess there's the mix up of personhood with human being.
A human being is a person only after birth. That's when you get a name and ID number. That's when you are a legal independent entity.
Before birth, you're still a human being, but not a person.

3. Ergo, it is morally impermissible to kill a fetus.

Faulty premise 1., leads to faulty conclusion.

Premise 2., although I consider it correct, leads you to a barrage of legal details, if you are willing to ever pass this notion into a law, thus making it mandatory for pregnant women to keep their fetuses until their birth (and then take care of them or give them up for adoption, according to the laws already in place).


If I have failed to address your argument, please let me know... being ignored isn't a very nice feeling.... there should be a moral imperative where you're obliged to reply to everyone on an online forum, even if just to say "No."

[GrandizerII]

If I have failed to address your argument, please let me know... being ignored isn't a very nice feeling.... there should be a moral imperative where you're obliged to reply to everyone on an online forum, even if just to say "No."

He doesn't have to address every single post. At least respond to all the arguments in general rather than ignore some arguments and focus on only others.

[LastPoet]

Oh wait, motus ponens? Is that a new ligic thing?