Okay, so please provide us with your own intertwined recollection of theory and practice here. In the manner in which I provided you mine in my signature thread.
Let’s try this…
Given what you construe philosophy does, what are the limitations imposed on serious philosophers in regard to assessing and then evaluating what an individual believes about the morality of abortion; and what can be disclosed here using the tools that are available to philosophers. With religion of course it all comes down to Scripture.
We clearly have a different take on philosophy here. If philosophy, as many construe it, is the search for wisdom, what constitutes wise behavior when confronting moral conflicts? What can we know here? And how can what we think we know be expressed to others logically, rationally, objectively?
You will either take your own “technical” understanding of philosophy here there or you won’t. That’s entirely up to you. Assuming that 1] we are in possession of free will and 2] you take into account the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here.
You say…
“No, thats not how my world works. I see different interests, not ‘wrong’ or ‘right’”.
How then are your own perceived self-interests in regard to the morality of abortion not in turn but the embodiment of “I” as an existential contraption rooted in your own rendition of dasein derived from the life that you lived? Or is all of that existential stuff simply dismissed as beyond the reach [or concern] of the serious philosopher?
Okay, if that works for you, fine. And if this is how you insist serious philosophers should approach conflicting goods in the is/ought world, we can just agree to disagree regarding both the relevance and applicability of philosophy down in the “for all practical purposes” realm of actual human interactions.
Suppose a serious philosopher does become involved in a context in which an abortion is involved. How would he or she go about acquiring the necessary experiences to adequately judge the character of the woman choosing an abortion; and how would he or she go about assessing her short and long term interests? Or does he or she go up to the woman and say, “I’m a serious philosopher, so there’s not much I can tell you.”
That, in turn, the arguments of folks like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant etc. are of limited value to her? Depending entirely on how many personal experiences they themselves had with abortion?
Before we get to God, please respond to the point I raised about moral laws being used to regulate our behaviors.
Is there an actual set of objective criteria able to establish if one speaks of God seriously? Or does that more or less come down to others speaking of Him as you do?
If God is invoked in a discussion of the morality of abortion, how does the serious philosopher go about assessing the worth of the arguments?
Let’s bring that down to a particular context.
You raised Creation here. You will either connect the dots between what you mean by it, how you construe the meaning of philosophy, and your own personal assessment of the morality of abortion or you won’t.
In other words, I would be most interested in witnessing someone making the point you do here to folks outside an abortion clinic. Explaining to those both for and against abortion the philosophical implications of “morality always being tyrannical.” Making certain they are familiar with exactly what philosophers can and cannot tell them about killing the unborn.
What does any of this have to do with what I am asking of you above? And these experiences do pertain to the manner in which you construe objective truth, right?
How would you explain value ontology to those who are in fact interested in connecting the dots between philosophy and the morality of abortion?