(December 7, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wanted to apologize real quick for calling y'all idiots. Abortion is a very personal issue for me and my family for several reasons. I have little patience with this issue and so can't talk about it civilly when there are downright bad arguments being made in favor of it.

CL, out.

The best argument for having legal abortion is what happens when they are illegal.
It isn't all cuddly pink new babies on a bed of roses.
It is women dying in horrible ways, babies being born damaged by incompetent attempts to get rid, it is families burdened beyond their means to cope, rape victims forced to carry a rapists child it is women carrying babies when it is dangerous to do so.
Those were just a few of the top of my head.

(December 7, 2017 at 1:34 pm)wallym Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 1:32 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Yes harm based morality is Objective no matter how much you assert otherwise. And no being some beings cogs does not make people objectively valuable .

Grandizer, this is absurd.  Do you agree with this?

I don't understand Tizheruk's second sentence, but as for the first sentence, I don't see it as absurd. I don't necessarily fully agree with harm-based morality, but it is objective in the sense that if there is harm involved, then it's not a good thing. Harm, bad. No harm, not bad. Objective morality need not be grounded in a person, it can be grounded in concepts such as pain or harm. But I think harm-based system does pose a problem in that the perception of harm itself is subjective to the person upon which the supposed harmful action is being inflicted on. Some people may not be harmed by the stuff other people say, but the same stuff could harm others. So is it bad for the latter group of people, but not the former? I don't know. I'm clearly not a moral philosopher, so I don't wish to speak with authority on this matter, but what would be absurd is to attribute morality to God when God has no clear say in the matter ... because he's not out there telling us what is morally right and what is morally wrong, no moral system given from him to us.

(December 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I don't understand Tizheruk's second sentence, but as for the first sentence, I don't see it as absurd. I don't necessarily fully agree with harm-based morality, but it is objective in the sense that if there is harm involved, then it's not a good thing. Harm, bad. No harm, not bad. Objective morality need not be grounded in a person, it can be grounded in concepts such as pain or harm. But I think harm-based system does pose a problem in that the perception of harm itself is subjective to the person upon which the supposed harmful action is being inflicted on.

A misapprehension of harm based moralities.  Harm based moral realism accepts that there are people who either fail to recognize that they are doing harm or do not think of what they are doing -as- harm.  Their perception thereof is not what a harm based moral realism derives from.  That -would- be a subjective morality. It works the other way as well...there are people who think that some x is harmful (homosex, lol)...but this perception is -also- not what a harm based moral realism derives from.

Quote:Some people may not be harmed by the stuff other people say, but the same stuff could harm others. So is it bad for the latter group of people, but not the former? I don't know.

Easy, if it doesn't cause harm to the person it's not immoral..but if that comment reasonably would cause harm to others it's best to keep it to ones self.  We understand this perfectly well..and it expresses itself as how we talk to our best friends in private vs how we talk to strangers in public.

Quote:I'm clearly not a moral philosopher, so I don't wish to speak with authority on this matter, but what would be absurd is to attribute morality to God when God has no clear say in the matter ... because he's not out there telling us what is morally right and what is morally wrong, no moral system given from him to us.

That would simply be a system of divine command.  Not necessarily an objective system,...but if it did conform to an objective moral framework it's authority would derive from it's objectivity rather than it's divinity - in the opinion of a moral realist.

(December 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 1:34 pm)wallym Wrote: Grandizer, this is absurd.  Do you agree with this?

I don't understand Tizheruk's second sentence, but as for the first sentence, I don't see it as absurd. I don't necessarily fully agree with harm-based morality, but it is objective in the sense that if there is harm involved, then it's not a good thing. Harm, bad. No harm, not bad. Objective morality need not be grounded in a person, it can be grounded in concepts such as pain or harm. But I think harm-based system does pose a problem in that the perception of harm itself is subjective to the person upon which the supposed harmful action is being inflicted on. Some people may not be harmed by the stuff other people say, but the same stuff could harm others. So is it bad for the latter group of people, but not the former? I don't know. I'm clearly not a moral philosopher, so I don't wish to speak with authority on this matter, but what would be absurd is to attribute morality to God when God has no clear say in the matter ... because he's not out there telling us what is morally right and what is morally wrong, no moral system given from him to us.

To the second sentence .I was saying that simply being in somethings plan does not grant value .(thou i accept Khem's correction on intrinsic rather then object value) Thou i stand by the idea harm based morality is objective.

(December 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 1:34 pm)wallym Wrote: Grandizer, this is absurd.  Do you agree with this?

I don't understand Tizheruk's second sentence, but as for the first sentence, I don't see it as absurd. I don't necessarily fully agree with harm-based morality, but it is objective in the sense that if there is harm involved, then it's not a good thing. Harm, bad. No harm, not bad. Objective morality need not be grounded in a person, it can be grounded in concepts such as pain or harm. But I think harm-based system does pose a problem in that the perception of harm itself is subjective to the person upon which the supposed harmful action is being inflicted on. Some people may not be harmed by the stuff other people say, but the same stuff could harm others. So is it bad for the latter group of people, but not the former? I don't know. I'm clearly not a moral philosopher, so I don't wish to speak with authority on this matter.

Do you think sharing a species designation is enough to objectively invest me in the well-being of 8 billion other humans?  Isn't that arbitrary.  Oh you're a human?  I'm a human too!  I guess that means we have overarching objective behavioral guidelines linking us and the other few billion animals sort of like us.  How could we not, we have some genetic similarities!

Doesn't that seem silly?  It seems silly to me.  But you need that premise for harm being objectively bad.  You need me to view you and all other humans being harmed as objectively bad, or it doesn't work.  If I'm indifferent to you being harmed, then you being harmed being bad is subjective, no?  Super easy example is ants.  I genocided the shit out of a bunch of ants this year.  Wiped out a couple colonies.  Some serious harm was doled out.  I did not receive any calls from Geneva about facing war crimes.  There were no Ants-rights people picketing the pesticide section of the Home Depot.

I get it.  It'd be nice.  It'd be cool if everyone agreed harming each other was bad.  It could be a practical solution.  We could make it a social law.  Create some sort of social contract that people agree to.  But that's not really morality.  That's an agreement you can opt into (and out of).   And isn't that enough?  Why pretend there's more when there's not?

You're expressing rational self interest.  This is one of the inducements to moral behavior contained in moral realism, and no..the premise that you be interested is not required for harm to be objectively bad, or for there to be an objective morality by any other metric, for that matter. You are allowed to disagree, moral disagreement exists...but if your disagreement reduces to subjectivity and the claimants proposition can be shown to be objective.........well, begin again at the beginning.

That you may have a compelling reason to do harm, such as the "genocide" of ants doesn't mean that harm isn't objectively bad. We often have reasons to do the wrong thing, or harmful things..and if killing ants is a wrong or harmful thing then so be it?

Practical solutions and social contracts are -also- contained in many variants of moral realism, and I'd like tpo see you "opt out" of the social contract here in the US. It wouldn;t be in your rational self interest. Moral realists -don't- pretend that theres "more to it than that"...they are defined by their adherence to describing morality for what it is, by objective metrics. This is why the commands of a fairy are a mismatch with moral realism from the word go.



What seems silly, is so many people expressing common precepts of moral realism as contrafactuals to moral realism while arguing that moral realism is a silly idea.

(Just as a baller ass factoid, as far as we can tell...ants don't feel pain or fear. They don't express the behaviors associated with either in other organisms, and they don;t seem to have a "word" for either in their chemical language..so if they did, not only can we not perceive it, they can't communicate it effectively to each other. They're hardcore like that)

(December 7, 2017 at 12:16 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wanted to apologize real quick for calling y'all idiots. Abortion is a very personal issue for me and my family for several reasons. I have little patience with this issue and so can't talk about it civilly when there are downright bad arguments being made in favor of it.

CL, out.

It's fine CL

As long as she does not return to her role as forum comologist.

(December 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I don't necessarily fully agree with harm-based morality, but it is objective in the sense that if there is harm involved, then it's not a good thing. Harm, bad. No harm, not bad. Objective morality need not be grounded in a person, it can be grounded in concepts such as pain or harm.

Mmmmm, no. You must ground the notions of pain and harm in some larger principle defining what constitutes harm and the circumstances that determine if pain is desirable (e.g. warning of injurious danger) or undesirable as unnecessary suffering.

Sure, and that's commonly done.  Harm is generally used as an outline of a unifying theory of moral pluralism, but if we wanted to dive into and needle over specifics about harm that can be done, objectively, and without any reference to a god. You can make your own moral case for whatever without need of reference to the god you believe in as well, I presume? Or, put another way... a person doesn't have to believe in your god to recognize when you've made a compelling case for a moral fact, do they?

What type of harm is moral harm, when might it be worthwhile to do a little harm to achieve a greater good (or avoid a greater harm), are there any things that modify desert in harm, etc.

(December 7, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wanted to apologize real quick for calling y'all idiots. Abortion is a very personal issue for me and my family for several reasons. I have little patience with this issue and so can't talk about it civilly when there are downright bad arguments being made in favor of it.

CL, out.

OK.  Now suppose you had been kidnapped and kept confined for years and forced to give birth to a dozen kids.  Would you still be against abortion?  and to throw another wrinkle in it suppose you had been forced to eat each one of the babies?    In the Bible the God character forced people to engage in cannibalism and they liked it.

---

(December 7, 2017 at 2:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 7, 2017 at 12:16 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: It's fine CL

As long as she does not return to her role as forum comologist.

What the heck is a "comologist"?