RE: What would be the harm?
December 8, 2018 at 12:55 am
(This post was last modified: December 8, 2018 at 1:13 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(December 7, 2018 at 7:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You can refer to objective facts, like "Human zygotes are human" or "Zygotes do not have a nervous system capable of experiential suffering." You can then make an assertion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Do you consider these moral facts, or do you not?Both can be, certainly, yes.
Quote:Do you believe (without stating WHICH you believe) that only one of "abortion is okay" or "abortion is wrong" can be correct?No, both statements are deplorably simple. I believe that abortion is wrong because and if (fill in the blanks) - and if not, or because not,...than not. -That's- moral realism.
Quote:First, you have to establish that there IS a right answer, or even that there can be one.No.....I don't .....actually...just like I don't have to establish that there is a correct answer to the question of what one plus one is. That's assumed in theories wholly unrelated to moral theory and either stands or falls with them. If there is any true thing, there could be a morally true thing. End of. Either you think there are true things or you don't.
(you obviously think there are true things, or you wouldn't be arguing with me)
Quote:I've given the example of abortion, and two positions: it's morally okay, or it's morally wrong. Please tell me which of these has "a greater command of the fullest set of relevant facts and can string that set in a valid inference to reach a sound conclusion."It would be impossible to say without explicit demonstration of those specific facts in some hypothetical case. The trouble, here..is that you simply didn't include enough information to decide one way or the other.
AKA, an information problem, not a value problem.
(i can save you a whole lot of time....btw, looking for things like veganism and abortion..none of this searching will yield what you intend for it.)
I hate to say it this way...but since I (presumably) add too much to my comments.... You are as wrong as you could possibly be, while simultaneously incapable of being right....in addition to not earnestly relaying even your own moral schema.
In short...you're an asshole arguing like an asshole, to no effect. Is confusion in that case really any wonder?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
