back to the beginning: morality

Ethics Without Morals by Joel Marks
Bill Meacham finds Ethics Without Morals easy enough to live with.

So, is this what morality means to you? Technically? Epistemologically? Does an assessment of this sort pin it down? Or is that just with respect to “common language”…the way in which many think about right and wrong behavior. In other words, without really thinking about it much at all.

Or maybe in terms of “common sense” this is the case. After all, if we can’t differentiate moral from immoral behavior universally, objectively, essentially, then it would seem to come down to different people concluding it means different things in different places and at different times.

Which is why I have come to conclude that the whole point of morality revolves more around a psychological agenda. It’s not who is behaving morally or immorally but that it has to be either one or the other.

Morality embodied by the objectivists in one or another subjective/subjunctive rendition of this:

[b]Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the “psychology of objectivism”. Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/b]

Ethics Without Morals by Joel Marks
Bill Meacham finds Ethics Without Morals easy enough to live with.

I’ve never understood this frame of mind. Of course morality exists. It is simply a word that the human species has invented in order to encompass the fundamental human need for rules of behavior. With other species that revolves almost entirely around biological imperatives: genes, instincts, drives. With us comes the reality of memes. Social, political and economic constructs that flow from the objective fact that over the course of human evolution wants and needs come into conflict. In regard to both means and ends.

Some things we all want, must have. Other things are more subjective, elective, individual. But clearly conflicts break out over and over and over again in regard to who gets what, when and where. And how. The stuff that folks like Marx and Freud and Reich and Jung delved into. The stuff we encounter on the news day in and day out.

Here, you know me. I am considerably less interested in the particular font that any particular individual embraces/embodies, and more intrigued by how, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here, “I” comes to choose one rather than another. And then their capacity to demonstrate why the path that they have chosen is the one that all rational men and women are then obligated to choose in turn.

Given a particular context revolving around particular behaviors revolving around particular sets of conflicting goods. God or No God.

Yes, that makes the most sense to me too. Here and now. For reasons we do not fully understand going all the way back to what we do not fully understand about existence itself, “humanity” on planet Earth is part of the evolution of biological life. The “culmination” of it so far apparently. But unlike all other lifeforms, the theory and practice of “morality” exists for us. Based on the assumption that human autonomy exists in turn.

I merely suggest that there does not appear to be a philosophical assessment that allows us to grasp either the optimal human behaviors in any particular context or, deontologically, the only possible rational behaviors. And that the objectivists among us who claim otherwise – God or No God – are acting out what I construe to be the “psychology of objectivism”.

But I am no more able demonstrate this myself. Instead it reflects the culmination of all the variables in my life – nature/nurture – that, existentially, predispose me “here and now” to think like this.

I then extrapolate from this the assumption that it is true for you as well.

Ethics Without Morals by Joel Marks
Bill Meacham finds Ethics Without Morals easy enough to live with.

Sure, that’s one way to approach it in a No God/No Good world. But then we are likely to come face to face with those who choose to embody it by embracing a “might makes right” world. The brute facticity of power itself prevails and that’s that.

And, given those who now own and operate the global economy, isn’t that basically how it all does unfold. It’s not a question of the deep state existing but of acknowledging there are now three of them competing to divide up the world: the United States, Russia and China. Still, in America things tends to become more convoluted. Political economy prevails here but there is more opportunity for those on various sides of the social, political and economic divides to actually have at least some measure of input in sustaining one rather than another public policy. This is especially the case when you include most European nations as well in pursuing “moderation, negotiation and compromise” within their various communities.

So, Mr. Moral and Political Objectivist, defend yourself against these allegations. Aren’t each and every one of them applicable to any number of contexts most here are familiar with? And might the reason many are willing to put up with them be that the manner in which I construe the “psychology of objectivism” is the main focus anyway?

On the other hand, it all comes down to how, “for all practical purposes”, any particular individual construes the meaning of “amoral” given his or her own chosen behaviors. It will either be closer to “might makes right” or to “democracy and the rule of law”.

Then made applicable to an endless string of new and ever evolving contexts day in and day out.

Okay, but let’s put this to the test too. Choose to be an amoralist and go about the business of interacting with others week in and week out. How does being “free of guilt, tolerant, interesting, explanatory and compassionate” work for you when others still confront your behaviors with the behaviors that they choose as a moral objectivist?

Ethics Without Morals by Joel Marks
Bill Meacham finds Ethics Without Morals easy enough to live with.

Again, discussions of this sort can go on and on and on as long as the distinctions being made are encompassed only in “world of words” “intellectual contraptions”.

But what of making this distinction in regard to actual human interactions in which the “Right thing to do” precipitates consequences which may be perceived as Good by some and Bad by others?

In fact, if you can convince yourself that you are obligated to do the Right thing, that becomes a way in which to rationalize away any consequences perceived to be Bad. For you or for others. You did the Right thing. That’s all that matters. Of course for these deontological philosophers down through the ages, doing the Right thing was invariably intertwined with one or another transcending font: God.

You did the Right thing and it resulted in consequences that were anything but Good for yourself or others, but it was all squared with God. The Bad things would eventually dissolve into immortality and salvation.

Back again to religion in a nutshell.

But what of those who make a secular distinction being Right and Wrong? They can think themselves into believing they did the Right thing as a Communist or a Nazi or a Humanist, but when it results in Bad things for themselves and others, there is no immortality and salvation awaiting them on the other side.

In other words, here these distinctions would seem to become considerably more problematic.

i never did understood the written philosophies of a forum however i do love reading and writing it to the utmost of my experiences

Is an Existentialist Ethics Possible?
Does Sartre’s philosophy give us any clues about how we should live? Yes, says Jonathan Crowe – he showed us that we can’t avoid choosing.

First of all, the French existentialists formulated their moral and political philosophies at a historical juncture that included the French Resistance to Hitler and the Nazis, as well as a world in which the Soviet Union and Communism were still construed by many as ascending historically around the globe. Back then to speak of living “authentically” was on a different level of magnitude than the circumstances we face today.

On the other hand, the components of my own moral philosophy are argued [by me] to be ever and always present in every and all historical and cultural context. In all human communities. I merely assume a No God universe.

So, is the world of human interactions at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political power able to be grappled with and grasped objectively – ontologically? teleologically? I don’t believe so. And no one of late has managed to demonstrate to me that what they believe here, all reasonable men and women are in turn obligated to believe.

More to the point, it’s not just a matter of how the world around us is described, but how and why different individuals come to describe it in so many conflicted ways…and precisely when value judgments come into conflict. Facts about the world can be established, but not how, morally and politically, reality necessarily constrains our reaction to them.

This part:

Here of course my own interest revolves not around the conclusions philosophers come to in exchanges of “general description intellectual contraptions”, but how their “technical” conclusions are relevant in regard to sets of circumstances in which even advocates for philosophers like Kant can come to opposite moral convictions given any particular issue “in the news”.

Is an Existentialist Ethics Possible?
Does Sartre’s philosophy give us any clues about how we should live? Yes, says Jonathan Crowe – he showed us that we can’t avoid choosing.

Once again, we can attempt to pin down “technically” as “serious philosophers” the extent to which this is in fact what being a “moral subjectivist” encompasses. Defining both words with just enough precision to make them practically useless in regard to particular subjects as individuals discussing their own moral values as existentialists.

Me, I acknowledge right from the start that there may well be an objective, universal, essential morality. Be it derived from 1] God 2] being “at one” with the universe 3] one or another deontological assessment [re Kant] or 4] by way of attaching political economy itself [as Ayn Rand did] to a “metaphysical” embrace of capitalism.

Or as some insist 5] from nature itself.

My point, instead, is to take whatever moral narrative/political agenda that any particular individual subscribes to [philosophically, spiritually or otherwise] and explore/assess it in regard to a specific set of circumstances.

You call yourself an existentialist? Okay, what do you believe that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated – or most obligated – to pursue in the way of behaviors when confronted by others who share in the conviction that reason must prevail here, but come to conflicting conclusions regarding which behaviors actually are the most rational. And thus most virtuous.

However existentialism might be portrayed in this manner a more sophisticated understanding of it in my view revolves around the idea of “authenticity”. Living one’s life in a more or less “authentic” or “inauthentic” manner.

In other words, to the extent that you attempt to objectify either yourself or others, you are being inauthentic. Why? Because you are basing your behaviors less on the existential trajectory of your own life and more on the “received wisdom” of others. Hell becomes other people to the extent that they objectify you and see you only in relationship to their own authoritarian dictums.

Where I then part company from existentialists of this sort is in the manner in which I include that my own self – “I” – is “fractured and fragmented” to the point that making a distinction between behaving authentically or inauthentically is in turn just another “existential contraption” rooted in dasein.

Is an Existentialist Ethics Possible?
Does Sartre’s philosophy give us any clues about how we should live? Yes, says Jonathan Crowe – he showed us that we can’t avoid choosing.

Yes, valuing other people’s freedom in an intellectual cloud like this is easy enough. But what happens when what they wish to pursue freely collides with that which you wish to pursue freely instead. Joe wants to own and operate automatic weapons. Jim wants to live in a world where owning them is against the law. Bob loves his steaks. Jane insists that eating the flesh of animals is immoral. Tom wants his unborn baby to live. Mary wants to abort it.

And on and on in context after context where actual conflicting goods renders “maintaining strict consistency” anything but…possible? Thus deciding whether it is justified or not can be seen as, well, moot. In my view, embracing it as either one or the other is no less rooted in “I”.

In other words, neither Sartre nor others of his philosophical ilk ever really confront the arguments that I make about “I” coming to embody freedom as an existential fabrication derived from living a life in one particular way rather than another.

Instead, it is back up into the clouds:

Pick a set of circumstances involving conflicting goods. Then reconfigure this point into that which you believe the author is trying say about Sartre’s existential freedom. As that engenders an existentialist ethics.

Okay, assume that the “worth of freedom is self-evident”. So: Whose freedom to do what coming into conflict with someone else’s freedom to do something entirely the opposite? And even when the discussions encompass “serious philosophy” in an epistemological debate over [technically] that which actually can or cannot be known, or whether words should be defined this way instead of that, such exchanges can go on and on and on with neither side [any side] budging an inch. And even here assuming some measure of autonomy is involved.

Is an Existentialist Ethics Possible?
Does Sartre’s philosophy give us any clues about how we should live? Yes, says Jonathan Crowe – he showed us that we can’t avoid choosing.

The value of freedom is self-evident if you wish to argue that in a world where free will is assumed to exist, we can hold others to be morality responsible for anything they do as long as they were not forced to do it by events beyond their control. Instead, once again, things become problematic when those who believe that they are exercising their own free will embody “moral values” that deny you the possibility of acting out your own free will. Or precipitate consequences that result in pain and suffering for others.

Then all these highfalutin intellectual contraptions bent on pinning down the meaning of “moral values” philosophically, just go around and around in circles. The internal logic embedded in the assumption that the way you define the words “moral” and “values” reconfigured into the meaning of “moral values” together becomes just one more example of “definitional logic”.

No, at this stage this reader is wondering when “worlds of words” of this sort are actually going to be about something that triggers all manner of conflicting moral and political agendas. And, from my frame of mind, that which is deemed to be “self-evident” in regard to moral values is more a reflection of “I” derived from dasein than from any theoretical assessment of this kind.

This is something I like to come back to in regard to pedantic intellectuals of his ilk. Call it, say, the Ayn Rand Syndrome

It’s the manner in which he fails to recognize the extent to which he has come to tend his own flock of sheep. The sheer irony of it all!

Ayn Rand had hers, and, on a much, much smaller scale, σάτυρο’s has his over at KT. Only a considerably more truncated rendition of it now. Remember the days when σάτυρο and lyssa [invented by him or not] had a rather fierce following of many, many more clique/claquers.

Anyway, the irony here revolves around “the leader” pontificating about any and all human interactions such that if you don’t think exactly like he does about them you are being irrational. And, for them, this is tantamount to being immoral.

They are their own herd and they completely fail to recognize it!

Go ahead, become a part of the KT community and dare to challenge their own herd mentality/morality.

See how fast you’re dumped into the dungeon.

Is an Existentialist Ethics Possible?
Does Sartre’s philosophy give us any clues about how we should live? Yes, says Jonathan Crowe – he showed us that we can’t avoid choosing.

First of course the inevitable assumption that human beings are in fact free to choose behaviors they know are going to be judged by others. And here I suggest that we make these judgments based not on what can be known about moral obligations here but on what we think we know about any particular set of circumstances in which the question of moral obligations might be raised.

Thus, to assert that “you are free, so choose”, in not taking that into account, is basically giving the student carte blanche. In other words, it would seem to matter less what he does and more that the choice is derived merely from the fact that he is fee to make it.

In other words, in accepting that no “theory of morality” is around to advise him it then comes down to how extreme one wants to be in regard to what does advise him.

As extreme as my own assessment? This extreme:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Subjectivism is one thing, a fractured and fragmented subjectivism another thing altogether.

You know, if I do say so myself.

Is an Existentialist Ethics Possible?
Does Sartre’s philosophy give us any clues about how we should live? Yes, says Jonathan Crowe – he showed us that we can’t avoid choosing.

Or, as someone once noted [probably me], “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”. So, by all means, create one or another deontological scaffolding, worship one or another God, pledge allegiance to one or another ideological calling, render unto nature the final word, and subsume all that agony in the one true path.

As for different types of moral values, that’s what different types of rationalizations are for. No need for one size to fit all if you need a little wiggle room in some new situation.

Which brings us back to the assumption – and that is apparently all it can be as of now – that Sartre and the rest of us possess at least some capacity to choose freely. After that, it would seem to come down to the complex interacting of genes and memes intertwined in all of us out in any particular world at any particular time. Then the components of my own frame of mind in the world of conflicting goods derived from dasein and embedded historically in political economy.

Thus the part about “genuine ethical reflection” is no less problematic than the behaviors we choose as a result of what that comes to mean to us at any particular time and place.

So, when someone [like me] insists that we must be “practical” about this, we are immediately bombarded with all of social, political and economic variables that went into, go into and will go into our understanding of the world around us. I merely point out that any number of them may well be beyond both our understanding and our control.

Then what? Well, for me it’s a fractured and fragmented personality more or less impaled on “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”.

Though not for you? Okay, given a set of circumstances in which others might contend with your behaviors, how is it for you?

Is an Existentialist Ethics Possible?
Does Sartre’s philosophy give us any clues about how we should live? Yes, says Jonathan Crowe – he showed us that we can’t avoid choosing.

Conclusion

In other words, imagine that you are a castaway on an island in which you are the only inhabitant. What of ethics then? Unless you believe in God, right and wrong comes to revolve solely around you and nature. If you survive another day then you have done the right things. If you don’t then, well, obviously.

It is only if another castaway arrives on the island, that ethics becomes “for all practical purposes” a part of your life. Suddenly your behaviors in your own little universe might be challenged by this newcomer. You do this, he thinks you should do something else instead. Then you become acquainted with the means employed to resolve such “conflicting goods”: might makes right, right makes might, moderation, negotiation and compromise.

The modern world of human interactions is just this basic reality writ large. It is merely reconfigured above into what for some will be construed as an obtuse intellectual contraption that certain philosophers like to employ. To sound like philosophers perhaps?

The idea of freedom. Theoretically as it were. You say this about it, others say that. Then you both go after the meaning that is imparted to the words given the definitions that you may or may not be able to agree on.

And, sure, sometimes the intellectual contraptions come to revolve around the interpretation of freedom as construed by moral nihilists or sociopaths: Do what you want when you want and where you want to do it. Period. What’s in it for me?

But my point is that there does not appear to be either a theoretical or practical argument from ethicists able to rebut this. Given the assumption [mine] that we live in a No God world. No God and all is permitted.

Then back up into the clouds:

Well, there was once a time in his life when this “conception of human self-realization” revolved around resisting the Nazis in Vichy France. So, given your own moral and political prejudices was he doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

Period?

Thought I’d include my examination into the controversy surrounding the film Cuties: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 4&t=196000

This part in particular:

It is to avoid a disintegrating “self” here that, in my view, sustains most objectivists. If only on a subconscious level. On the other hand, what psychological factors might be sustaining my own narrative here? If only on a subconscious level.

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

This is the part that takes us to the moral philosophy that some embed in naturalism:

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

Now, in regard to the individual in the is/ought world, this can be derived from determinism such that morality is, like everything else, merely the consequence of natural laws unfolding only as they must. Thus producing only the psychological illusion in mere mortals of “resolving” conflicting goods when in fact even this is unfolding only as it every could have.

And then there are those like Satyr over at KT who assume the existence of free will and then, of their own alleged volition, argue that human ethics is far more in sync with biological imperatives than in MacIntyre’s “insight into morality’s connections with social life”.

The ghastly “memes” to Satyr.

Thus if you wish to understand rational human behaviors in terms of such things as race or gender or sexual orientation, you’ll agree to accept whatever Satyr and his ilk insist is “natural”. And it is from grasping nature as it really is that one reconfigures what is deemed rational into what is deemed moral.

And then around and around they go:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the objective truth
3] I have access to the objective truth because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

In other words, ever and always the part where biological imperatives meet the minds of the only species on earth able to reconfigure their behaviors in any number of conflicting moral and political directions given an endless evolution of historical and cultural and circumstantial contexts. Yes, the genes play a fundamental role in providing a scaffold that is applicable to all of us. But over and over and over again nature becomes entangled in those nurturing memes that have resulted in any number of diverse “rules of behaviors” in any number of communities.

Ah, but the author has already spilled the beans. Philosophers here are to “rethink morality along naturalistic lines”. But, apparently, only in order to enrich the concept of moral intelligence.

Just for the sake argument, this being posted by Satyr 15 minutes ago at KT, let’s suppose he read my post above and this reflects his reaction to it.

My point of course is that when it comes to human interactions, we evaluate our selves through a profoundly complex and problematic entanglement of genes and memes. And only a fool, in my view, would argue that he and he alone knows how to untangle them definitively such that, given a set of circumstances in which behaviors come into conflict over value judgments, he is able to explain precisely where the genes end and the memes begins.

Of course this almost never becomes a factor for him. Why? Because he almost never brings his own intellectual contraptions down to earth. The messy entanglements embedded in individual daseins confronting conflicting goods in one or another rendition of political economy is simply avoided altogether by sustaining arguments contained wholly in a “world of words”. Like the one above.

The closest he’ll come to actual existential interactions is when he goes here:

“But a canine has no self-coisnciuosnes to suffer from the prospect - it is why it defecates and fornicates shamelessly - a fact the nihilist secretly - often openly - emulates.”

Okay, so what does this tell him about human beings shitting and fucking? The fact that, unlike dogs, we are considerably more self-conscious when we do shit and fuck. The dog’s behavior is entirely natural.

And what we “moderns” demand of people when they are shitting and fucking? How much of that is out of sync with nature?

For example, is it nature’s way that men dominate women? Is, say, rape merely a manifestation of nature? Are feminists who protest it vehemently bucking the natural world by attempting to foist their own memetic narratives on men. To make them soft and “effeminate”?

Perhaps he is reading this. And “over there” he will address the points I raise.

How are the nihilists different from others when it comes to shitting and fucking? And what constitutes a “natural morality” for him when he shits and fucks?

Again, assuming Satyr is reading my posts here [and the chimp video certainly seems to confirm it] here is what I noted for him above:

And here is his latest exercise in pedantry:

Okay, let him connect the dots between this intellectual contraption, nihilism, gender relationships, and rape.

And, in particular, how he himself connects the dots existentially here between nature, rationality and value judgments. The part where genes necessarily trump memes.

Again, in regard to fucking, his point below is as close as he is willing and/or able to go in making a distinction between natural chimp behaviors and a far more complex intertwining of genes and memes embedded in human behaviors. Both over time historically and across the globe culturally. Not to mention all of the vast and varied experiences that any one particular individual might come to accumulate over the years in regard to his or her own sexual mores.

To wit:

youtu.be/azGmZrsqJGo

Now, note the sheer enormity of all the conflicting assessments of human sexuality that exist precisely as a result of the fact that the evolution of life on earth has produced a species fully capable of thinking up and then acting on all of the countless memetic permutations that have been passed down through the ages. And not just in regard to heterosexual relationships but homosexual relationships as well.

It is because the human species, unlike chimps, can and do invent conflicting Gods and religious denominations and conflicting philosophical moral contraptions and conflicting political ideologies and conflicting assessments of nature, that the relationship is far more complex within our own species than other here on planet Earth.

Right on cue, I post here and over at KT Satyr “responds”. In fact, I suspect that he responds more because he is hoping that I will copy and paste one of his intellectual contraptions here. That way his pedantic “message” actually goes beyond the confines of what is left of KT itself: him and only him.

So, in regard to my points here…

…we get this:

Culminating in this…

On the other hand, maybe there is an actual gene that compels some to ever remain up in the abstract clouds when discussing human interactions involving moral and political value judgments in conflict.

He has it, I don’t.

Or, if he is really lucky, both ends of this exchange are wholly compelled by nature.

Note to phoneutria:

Help him out.

Way back when I thought like this about abortion:

nytimes.com/2020/09/21/opin … e=Homepage

[b]'In a floor speech in July, Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, issued an ultimatum on future Supreme Court fights.

'“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided,” Hawley said. He would require on-the-record evidence that the next Republican nominee “understands Roe to be the travesty that it is.” Absent that, he said, “I will not support the nomination.”

‘The day after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Hawley reiterated this commitment, and called on his fellow Republican senators to do the same.’[/b]

This is conservative/rightist objectivism. The unborn are human babies. So, aborting them must be deemed murdering them.

Liberal/leftist objectivism: the political right of women to choose abortion transcends the alleged “natural right” of the unborn to come to term. To be born.

Many/most on both sides adamant that morality is on their side. Sometimes through God sometimes not.

And, many, on the left, rationalize abortion by insisting that up to a point the unborn is just a “clump of cells”. And that, even after that point, the physical and psychological health of the pregnant women must take precedence.

The crucial thing here being that not even medical science can demonstrate beyond all doubt when the unborn [starting at conception] does in fact become a “human being”.

Today, of course, having rejected moral objectivism as beyond the reach of scientists and philosophers and ethicists, I find myself “fractured and fragmented” such that both sides make compelling arguments given one set of assumptions rather than another.

And it is this very disintegrated “I” that the objectivists fear most of all. Not to know for sure that their “real self” is in fact in sync with the right thing – the only thing – to do when someone is confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.

So, here I am on this thread hoping either to be convinced that my thinking is wrong, or, if right, I am able to find others who share my own frame of mind.