It means that if you choose to interact with others in a particular human community, there must be rules of behavior [local, state, federal] pertaining to conflicts like abortion. As such, some will insist it is moral while others will insist it is not.
And I root this in dasein. What do you root it in? Philosophy? God?
Then what?
In other words, out in the real world the words that we exchange in places like this must somehow be translated into legal and political contraptions. Right?
So, how then do we go about making a determination as to what that legal and political agenda ought to be? Can we go to the philosophers/ethicists to pin this down? Can we know what to do such that it can be said to be a moral obligation to behave in such and such a way?
What does this have to do with the point I just made? We simply do not know what our fate will be when we die. But if someone tells me that they do in fact know this, I am going to ask them what it is. And then once they tell me, I am going ask them to demonstrate why I should believe it too. I simply make the distinction here between someone demonstrating to me that Mary had an abortion – she either did or she did not – and demonstrating to me that the abortion either is or is not moral.
And this means either God or some philosophical argument that establishes an objective moral font when mere mortals disagree. You seem to to be inclined to go in both directions. But I’ll be damned if I can get you to explain how the two are linked. Even just in your head. Indeed, in this respect, you are basically as unintelligible as James. At least to me.
Okay, what is that argument? What are those words? Basically all you do is insist that abortions are moral if they occur before a certain week in the pregnancy because the science you link us to says so. End of discussion.
Yeah, we can say or believe anything. But others will say and believe the opposite. Then it comes down to either might makes right or moderation, negotiation and compromise. Or some consensus in a particular community whereby the majority come to agree that one philosophical/scientific argument is the optimal, most rational one.
As though that makes the argurments of those who don’t agree just go away.
Back again to “What God?” The one that you say that you believe in?
Come on, if God makes a distinction between right and wrong behavior He must be right. Why? Because God [most of them] is said to be omniscient. And once you know everything that pretty much gives you an advantage over folks like us that don’t. And with God there is never any question of not being judged, right?
And since God is omnipotent, there is never any question of not being punished, is there? So, sure, you can think God is a fascist asshole if you wish. All the way to Hell as it were.
On the other hand, if God is omniscient how in the world can any of us have free will anyway? We think He is a fascist asshole but He knew all along that we were going to think it.