No, the medical science used by a doctor to perform an abortion is either correct or it is not. In other words, the abortion is performed successfully of it it not.
But how does science [or philosophy] establish the one objective truth regarding when, at or after conception, the unborn becomes a human being? What criteria can be said to encompass the indisputable truth?
But how is this demonstrated beyond all doubt other than by way of you insisting that you believe this to be the case “in your head”?
All this is [again] is you insisting that your science link is right and my science link is wrong. The fact that actual scientists differ about this is moot therefore because only the science that corresponds to your own moral convictions is correct. That part I do get.
Okay, is your God being detached when particular women choose to abort their babies? Is your God being objective?
There either is or there is not a Judgment Day pertaining to your God. And you either are or not in accordance with the will of God here when you maintain that women who abort their babies before the 22nd week, are acting in a completely moral manner.
Does or does not this opinion of yours matter to God?
You’re the one who keeps writing that science and mathematics are objective - that they are different from morality. Therefore, there is a way to objectively decide the scientific truth. One can decide when an unborn is a human being based on science. Or are you changing your mind and saying that even science is not objective?
This is already being done when comatose patients are unplugged. Why not the unborn?
You have the objective scientific fact and you apply it. Are you saying that the science cannot be demonstrated beyond all doubt? Beyond reasonable doubt?
There would be an objective way to decide whether my link is correct or yours is correct. I might be wrong. But there would be a reasonable way to approach the problem. And that way wouldn’t be negotiation or political economy , would it?
There you go again. You are unable to break up the problem and look at the smaller parts. You keep sticking Judgement Day in there .
That will always be a judgment call, I suppose. It was an episode from the past [real, not hypothetical] that had a truly profound impact on my thinking about these things. There is just no way I was not going to incorporate it [as I did] into discussions of this sort because the experience was so clearly relevant.
Yes, but that is my point. It is “you” in the sense that all of the historical, cultural and experiential variables came together in the course of living your own particular life in your own particular way in your own particular world, such that you were predisposed to think and feel and behave as you do with regard to abortion. Had all of those variables been very different you might easily have been predisposed to think, feel and behave in a very different way.
Thus a philosopher [an ethicist] needs to ask herself this: Given all of that is there still a way logically, epistemologically, ontologically, etc. to determine what the moral obligation of all rational men and women is?
And there may well be. But I have yet to come accross it. Not of late.
We all have our own unique lives that put us into contact our own unique constellation of existential factors.
What moral objectivists do to obviate “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty” is to subsume it in one or another theory of everything. For some this goes back to God, while for others it goes back to Reason.
In order for the brain to consider the possibility of an act, it must already be predisposed towards it. Otherwise, the brain disintegrates.
The modern retard has no self-respect.
He thinks and acts in ways which completely ruin his brain.
This is what happens when a brain is not strong enough to endure pain that comes from without: it starts inflicting pain on itself in order to avoid external pain.
This then grows into a habit and people start thinking they can become anything.
So what if moral obligation is to eat shit three times a day for the rest of your life?
No problem, dude.
And what if moral obligation is to strip your skin to the bone?
No problem, dude, we’ll do it, anything that is objectively true, we will do it.
…and not an easy judgment call at that since we have no idea of the consequences or how someone/thing will be affected.
Profound impact in which way? Just in your thinking or also in your way of future responding to an event since we can have no idea of an outcome for the most part.
True, but that’s a given - which many of us do not understand. We judge that all perspectives have to come from “our” perspective, the way in which “we” see things. I don’t think that it’s such an easy thing to judge what is morally/ethically right because of our own unique psychology. I feel hardput to look at this in an amoral way (not immoral - amoral) since I value human life (which has quality) greatly - so for me abortion is not only cruel it is also such a waste of human potential. It’s a thief sneaking into the night and robbing and destroying something precious or which could be precious. And let’s face it, oftentimes abortion has only to do with an inconvenience, an unexpected accident which was not wanted.
But despite this, the real question is: Do we human beings, considering our own life which has been afforded to us - do we have the inalienable right to decide which human beings will be allowed life - or not? When we consider that at one time abortion was unlawful and that now for the most part it is lawful, it seems that the question will always be an open one, also in part because there will always be the conflict of reason vs. heart. Harmony is not that easy to achieve. Where do we go from there?
I’m not sure how to answer that except for what I wrote above.
The only thing that comes to me is what Jung said - that truth needs the concert of many voices but even there we can get into trouble since there it would depend on who those many voices belong to.
I still think that it is not so much a moral issue as it is one which does the greatest good (that may sound like a moral issue but I don’t mean it to) after all is considered, including the consequences. Every human being has the right to life as long as it can be a life worth living as seen logically, rationally and with heart. That just goes up against human beings who also feel that they have the right to their own kind of life - but they’re already alive and living it. I don’t think there will ever be an end to it.
I agree. It’s like the capital punishment debate. I’ve also come to change my perspective on that but we’ll forget about that.
…and that IS the crux of it but in a way, isn’t that wonderful. It’s a double-edged sword.
I still think that there has to be a harmony of reason with heart. God does not have to enter into it. Even there, people will lie to their selves.
People think that making the right decision about things is an easy one which might be partly because for them their decision is the only right one, the way in whch they see things.
To you it’s wrong, to others it’s right. And that’s because historically, culturally and experientially, any particular individual will have access to a set of experiences, a set of relationships and a set of ideas/ideals that will predispose him or her to think one way rather than another.
But is there a way [philosophically] to determine if women ought to cover their hair? No, not in my view. Instead, any particular individual will think what he or she does as it pertains to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Unless, of course, someone can persuade me that this is not the case at all.
How can we live in a world where the unborn are always brought to term and a world in which women are not forced to give birth?
There would appear to be three options:
1] a world where might makes right prevails
2] a world where moderation, negotiation and compromise prevail
3] a world where philosopher-kings are able to ascertain the one true objective moral obligation applicable to all rational men and women.
As was once suggested, “in the absense of God all things are permitted”. And they are permitted because virtually any human behavior imaginable can be rationalized. You simply have to be willing to accept the consequences of living in a world where others may not share your own point of view. They may punish you instead for doing what they construe to be immoral.
As for an “end-game”, that too will be rooted in dasein. My own is now more or less embedded in distractions. I am living as comfortably and rewardingly as possible waiting for the inevitable abyss. Some call it “waiting for godot”. That works for me. But what can this possibly mean to others who have no possible clue regarding the life that I’ve lived…or who live their own life in a set of circumstances far, far removed from mine?
And yet I still spend a lot of time in places like this looking for arguments that might allow me to extricate myself from my own “dasein dilemma”.
That you would even ask this question speaks volumes regarding the gap between my understanding of human identity and yours.
Of course I know who I am with respect to all the material, phonomenal, demographic etc., factors that everyone uses to situate themselves out in a particular world.
But I recognize the manner in which I come to have particular moral and political values as being largely existential constructions, deconstructions and reconstructions. I don’t believe there is a “real me”. I don’t believe that a “real me” has access to a deontological moral or political agenda. And, again, that is what the OP above focuses in on: the psychology of moral and political objectivism.
Lyssa aside, sure, you can flip a coin or you can try to invent/discover a philosophical argument that enables you to know for certain what your moral obligation is.
Now, in almost all cases most of us will save the drowning child. But is that the same thing as saying that we are morally obligated to save the child? I don’t think so. But I also don’t think that I can know so. Not objectively.
It always depends on the particular context and how any particular individual views it. One obvious example is a situation in which saving the drowning child puts your own life at risk.
You might change that word “obliged” to self-aware and a person may at that point want to become self-actualized or evolve.
This kind of reminds me of when an alcoholic or drug addict reaches rock bottom and recognizes his own inferiority OR better stated, his own inability to cope and to change his life. So he does at some point wake up even more and feel an obligation toward himself to do something about that…not to become superior but to become “real” and “sane” again. Superior may simply be one more perspective based on the desire to over-inflate one’s self to the one who thinks in terms of being superior. That could be construed as over compensating.
Someone who is/was self-aware would not speak in terms of superiority, would they? Would they compare their self to others or would they simply work at becoming what they could in an ongoing way?
But wanting to become “real” at first needs to be seen then I rather think it does become a choice, a willingness to become.
Overcompensation is a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees, of acting from unconscious need, like trying to fill a cup which has a hole in it.
Why would anyone want to accept their self as such when they could move forward? And if someone were so inferior, could they be blamed for that? But it would take others to help them along
One can’t know that til the end. But evolution also does move forward from error. We’re all a bunch of mutants who have adapted some more than others.
I don’t think that that is his point. I had the impression that his point was just the opposite of what you said above. We are not the herd or the Borg.
But that’s just the beginning of the discussion. That’s looking at the shell but that shell has to be cracked open to see what’s inside.
But didn’t you just say different strokes for different folks, different predisposiitons, different moralities.
When you say “moralities” are you speaking in terms of self responding to “real” though subjective human values which might include “to do no harm as much as possible” or simply that one’s OWN way of being moral is naturally higher than that of others? In other words “How could it possibly be any other way”?! That’s just narcissism I feel.
Can you define stupid as you mean it here? Can it simply mean a different perspective, looking at things from a different lens perhaps, remaining open without feeling a need to have answers to all the questions?
Medical science enables us to grasp objectively why women become pregnant. And it enables doctors to perform abortions based on an objective knowledge of human biology as it pertains to terminating a pregnancy.
But when it comes to pinning down precisely when, after conception, the unborn becomes a “human being”, science seems unable to determine beyond all doubt when this is. And they certainly seem unable to determine if abortion either is or is not moral.
Of course there are folks like Sam Harris who insist that science is able to determine this. But I don’t share his point of view. As I have noted on other threads.
No, what we have is you insisting that the “scientific facts” from your link, in being in alignment with your own moral convictions, have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. What we don’t have is you demonstrating that the “scientific facts” from my link are necessarily wrong.
There you go again, avoiding the need to actually answer my questions by insisting that only you get to say if I am entitled to even raise them.
From my point of view, once one has committed himself to a particular denominational God, it is absurd to imagine that He can be excised from a discussion that revolves around the extent to which our moral agendas are said to be either true objectively or merely rooted subjectively in dasein.
Across town was an exaggeration. As I wrote in a previous post, the more distance you walk, then more differences you find.
I also would probably never stab someone on my front porch, im case you’re wondering
There is no objective morality. Not even one that you can anchor on organic causes… I want to believe that every mother loves her children, but alas.
I do think that you can attempt an appeal to a common sense toward any human being based on the fact that he is a human being. Our physical bodies are, after all made of all the same stuff. I can’t call that objectivity, though, as darling anfang pointed out once. That’s an inter-subjectivity. This is what we work with in order to make laws.
One can only convince oneself is what I said.
The whole point of the socratic method is to cause one to be convinced by one’s own reasoning.
I’m quite certain that you would stab someone on your porch. And depending on the context, it would be judged moral or immoral - objectively. If the mailman was trying to strangle you, then it would be moral to stab him. If the mailman was late with the mail, then it would be immoral to stab him.
Is that just my subjective opinion?
You guys are really stuck on that word ‘EVERY’.
What is the basis of inter-subjectivity if everyone is so unique and different? What would a group of people want to share these laws? Why are laws against murder, theft, incest, so common?
That’s why you are answering Socrates’ questions. But why is Socrates talking to you in the first place? What’s his motivation if not to convince you of some truth?
Sounds like what you call objective knowledge in science is narrowing. You seem to be saying that if there is some uncertainty or alternative interpretation then it qualifies as subjective. Even when the underlying mechanisms are objective.
Actually I did not insist on anything… I presented a way to approach a problem. An approach based on objective research.
You did not show that the research wrong but you instead linked to an alternative concept when a human being ‘begins existing’.
Let’s say that I accept your link as being correct. What are the consequences?
Clearly we still think that it is moral to end the existence of human beings under certain circumstances. It is done for comatose patients. So there have to other factors which play a role in determining the morality of the acts. My link, which shows that a fetus less than 22 weeks old cannot survive outside the womb, is such a factor. And it is not incompatible with the definition of humanness.
BTW, if a fetus is a human being at fertilization and that is the only factor to consider, then what should we do about spontaneous abortion? Spontaneous abortion happens to 30 to 40% of fetuses. Should not the women, who spontaneously abort, be charged with murder, manslaughter, assault or child abuse?
How are you going to solve any problem if you are unable or ‘unallowed’ to step out of your shoes and put on another person’s shoes?
The idea that one cannot drop a certain set of assumptions and look from an alternative POV is absurd.
Why do I refuse to bring God into it? Because I want you to drop your assumptions long enough to consider where objectivity of morality might be in the abortion problem. And that means getting down to bare minimums at least temporarily.
I still don’t think that you grasp what I am saying about objectivity. I’m probably not being clear but my only hope of becoming clear is to remove as much muddy water as possible.
The mentally stunted abortion of a child-fagot has been on this website since 2010. Has he been doing anything but tirelessly reasserting his didactic assertions?
Yes, but that would contradict your absurd and insulting statement that; “The retard wants me to accept his premises as true.”.
If that were the case, he’d hardly be ignoring you.
[b]With respect to moral and political value judgments [about which the OP is aimed], my argument [here and now] revolves around this:
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.
What I am curious about are arguments from others able to poke enough holes in it so that I might be able to reconsider it as perhaps a less than reasonable manner in which to construe the “human condition” sans God.
Instead, I tend to bump into the abstractionists like you and Lyssa and Satyr – scholastic sorts who spew out intellectual contraptions that have almost nothing whatsoever to do with the lives that we live.
All I am trying to do here is to actually engage your words down here. Why in the world is that something you always avoid?
Again, [size=200]you[/size] can pick the topic.[/b]
Even Lyssa [over at KTS] is now willing to scratch the surface in this regard.
There must be a God who will tell him “listen kid, do this, and you go to heaven, or do that, and you go to hell”.
Or if there is no God, then all is permissible.
Moral obligation, he calls it.
He does not understand that when I say that he’s an utter imbecile that does not mean that he is morally obliged to become an intelligent person.
He’s so stupid, for fuck’s sake!
The retard can’t stand social judgment!
He will even listen to me! if I were only convincing enough!
But I am not . . . And why am I not convincing enough?
Because people disagree . . .
He will do what I tell him to do and I’ll go like “good doggy!”
That would make happy.
But then, he will come across this other group of people who will make fun of him for doing what I told him to do . . .
So, in order to be convincing enough, I’d have to take him as my personal slave, lock him in one of my basements, so that he has no contact with other people, and so that the only judge on whether he is a good doggy or not would be ME.
But as an emancipated slave, out in the world of conflicting goods, freed from any kind of singular human authority, he does not find me convincing enough.
I must become popular first.
I must be aired on his big plasma TV.
Songs must be sang about me.
Girls must be crazy about me.
That kind of shit.
Since that’s not the case, I am just an objectivist who’s pretending to be an “alpha male” . . .
