So are we pro choicers here now collectively saying that there is no objective morality?

I'm shocked here to see Esq waving that, when previously he's argued with me that it's always without exception wrong to kill babies (God > flood).

Arthur has said repeatedly that his idea has nothing to do with religion... at first I thought he was an atheist. We have morals as human beings and have a consensus we call the law. It's nitpicking to decry objective morality.

...

Ugh

...

I've been reading some Peter Stringer. I like his ideas a lot. He thinks people who lose mental capacity should also have no right to life. I agree with that one too.

---

(June 24, 2014 at 5:13 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(June 23, 2014 at 8:51 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: 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.

No it isn't.

In that example you're choosing between two immoral acts, one worse than the other. You can choose to make only one person die instead of five.

Morality is standard-based rather than based on some concrete factual source that determines what is right and what is wrong. So it varies in standard with culture, individual, and time.

What may be right for one person may be wrong for another. What may have been right in the past is no longer right in the present. What is accepted as right in one society or culture is unacceptable in another.

Arthur's overall argument fails because he is trying to make morality a logic thing when it is more about what standards one is following when it could be drastically different from Arthur's standards.

Many people here, for example, respect a human being's right to make decisions concerning their own body and that it's immoral to deprive them of that right. Arthur, on the other hand, may not have that empathy to appreciate why many people find it morally permissible to allow abortion (at least in earlier stages of pregnancy). But that is his problem and he has no compelling argument as to why any of us should consider his view as the more reasonable one.

I think you're right irrational in that morality has degrees.

To kill an innocent person I think we could agree would be morally wrong. Unless it's for food I guess.

Pre person/ birth, the weight of the moral decision is lessened.

(June 24, 2014 at 6:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 24, 2014 at 5:13 am)pocaracas Wrote: 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.

No it isn't.

In that example you're choosing between two immoral acts, one worse than the other. You can choose to make only one person die instead of five.

It seems to me that, of both actions, at least one is inevitable. How can an inevitability be immoral?
Morality lies with the conscious decision making process by someone, does it not?

The way I see it (and I may be wrong, of course), the action here is to act and doom one person (previously safe) to die... or not to act and allow more than one person to die.
It is comparable to some abortions that are made.

For others (most) it would be stretching the analogy a bit too much, I admit. Another analogy would be required.
But the point is that premise 1. is faulty, thus the whole argument falls.

So if I saw a large weight plummeting down onto you, I could choose to push you out of the way or let you die. Neither would be immoral because it's not me killing you.

In the case of the trolley then, none of the acts are immoral, because it's not me that's killing you.

(June 24, 2014 at 6:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: We have morals as human beings and have a consensus we call the law. It's nitpicking to decry objective morality.

Law is not consensus, and it's nowhere near an objective morality. Nitpicking would be arguing over what shade of blue the sky is, this is more like arguing over whether or not there is a sky.

(June 24, 2014 at 6:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you're right irrational in that morality has degrees.

To kill an innocent person I think we could agree would be morally wrong. Unless it's for food I guess.

Pre person/ birth, the weight of the moral decision is lessened.

What is an "innocent person"? Again, depends on perspective and standards.

(June 24, 2014 at 7:19 am)Irrational Wrote: What is an "innocent person"? Again, depends on perspective and standards.

So do we think that the legal system is wholly subjective? There's no moral consensus to be had?

It is possible to have a morality consensus without it being objective.

Legal rules are still based on some human standard.

(June 24, 2014 at 7:26 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So do we think that the legal system is wholly subjective? There's no moral consensus to be had?

This is starting to hurt, moral consensus and law are not the same. Legal systems (ours, yours) are largely subjective -by design. This makes them robust, capable of handling all the permutations of strange shit that might come up before a judge and jury. We can't simply flip back and forth between our legals systems and morality as though they are the same things. It's bound to lead to shitty conclusions.