Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:13 pm

Biggie wrote
Which is just another way of speculating that, using the tools of philosophy, there does not appear -- appear to me -- to be a way in which, either rationally or empirically or naturally, to encompass anything in the vicinity of a moral obligation to behave as either a good/rational person would or as a bad/irrational person would. In a No God world, in my view, these are basically social constructs rooted out in a particular world seen from a particular point of view.


They are not social constructs and that is in part our debate. Don't give up so easily Biggie, we both might learn something.

So a woman's first choice is deciding if she wants to become pregnant.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7478
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:43 pm

phyllo wrote:How does this work with respect to abortion? :
Though I certainly agree that to the extent any human community eschews moral and political objectivism [God or No God] there is a greater likelihood that interactions will revolve more democratically around the rule of law...revolving in turn around moderation, negotiation and compromise.


What's the difference if abortion is made illegal(or legal) by a dictatorship or a democracy?

The people who want the illegal option are screwed either way.


Well, in a dictatorship rooted to one or another political ideology, or in a theocracy rooted to one or another God, right makes might. Certain behaviors are deemed to be necessarily good or evil. Necessarily rational or irrational. Necessarily legal or illegal.

In a democracy, where different objectivist factions compete for power, there is always the possibility that your side can prevail and the laws changed.

Or you can eschew objectivism altogether and embrace one or another more pragmatic approach to the law. Laws that revolve around the assumption that since there is no objective morality in regard to things like abortion, "moderation, negotiation and compromrise" come to be seen as "the best of all possible worlds."

Or, sure, there is always the possibility that the "law of the jungle" may prevail.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:10 pm

WendyDarling wrote: Biggie wrote
Which is just another way of speculating that, using the tools of philosophy, there does not appear -- appear to me -- to be a way in which, either rationally or empirically or naturally, to encompass anything in the vicinity of a moral obligation to behave as either a good/rational person would or as a bad/irrational person would. In a No God world, in my view, these are basically social constructs rooted out in a particular world seen from a particular point of view.


They are not social constructs and that is in part our debate. Don't give up so easily Biggie, we both might learn something.


Unbelievable. How are the views regarding abortion in any particular human community not constructed in large part out of the historical, cultural and experiential factors that revolve around their own unique set of social, political and economic interactions?

Unless of course there is a God or a philosophy-king able to note the vast and varied moral narratives and political agenda down through the ages and is able to pronounce the optimal or the only manner in which all men and women who wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous are obligated to behave in regard to abortion.

And then this part:

My point is not what either one of us believes about the morality of abortion. Instead, it revolves around the manner in which I construe points of view like this -- yours, mine, ours, theirs -- as rooted existentially, subjectively, subjunctively in the lives that we live.

Again, in the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382


I'm still waiting to assess your own existential trajectory in regard to abortion. The manner in which your experiences and your thinking became intertwined over the years.

WendyDarling wrote: So a woman's first choice is deciding if she wants to become pregnant.


My argument here is that you would have to examine the particular reasons that a particular woman chose in regard to pregnancy. How is her choice rooted more in the manner in which I construe human identity as the embodiment of dasein...or more in the manner in which others have come to understand "I" as, instead, the embodiment of the "real me" able to be in sync with "the right thing to do".
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:29 am

Biggie wrote
Unless of course there is a God or a philosophy-king able to note the vast and varied moral narratives and political agenda down through the ages and is able to pronounce the optimal or the only manner in which all men and women who wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous are obligated to behave in regard to abortion.

Let's go with a philosopher.

Biggie wrote
My argument here is that you would have to examine the particular reasons that a particular woman chose in regard to pregnancy. How is her choice rooted more in the manner in which I construe human identity as the embodiment of dasein...or more in the manner in which others have come to understand "I" as, instead, the embodiment of the "real me" able to be in sync with "the right thing to do".

You're moving the goal post. You believe that abortion is murder but also that a woman should be able to abort up until birth with impunity, correct? I am against abortion.

I think there are two major aspects to our disagreement...the pregnancy and the abortion of the pregnancy.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7478
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:18 am

iambiguous wrote:
how might philosophers go about articulating definitions here that would enable both the pro life and pro choice camps to finally pin down the optimal frame of mind

The problem is not in defining abortion as such - for everyone knows what it means - but in determining to what extent it can be described as moral
There is no optimal frame of mind that can do that because anti and pro abortionists cannot fundamentally agree about it from a moral perspective

Abortion actually exists on a moral spectrum ranging from those who think all abortion is immoral to those who think it is perfectly justified at any time
and for any reason and all points of view in between . There is no optimal frame of mind that will find universal consensus across such a diverse spectrum
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:21 pm

My argument here is that you would have to examine the particular reasons that a particular woman chose in regard to pregnancy. How is her choice rooted more in the manner in which I construe human identity as the embodiment of dasein...or more in the manner in which others have come to understand "I" as, instead, the embodiment of the "real me" able to be in sync with "the right thing to do".


WendyDarling wrote: You're moving the goal post. You believe that abortion is murder but also that a woman should be able to abort up until birth with impunity, correct?

I am against abortion.


What I believe is that what I believe about abortion is embodied existentially in this particular sequence in this particular life:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


What I then suggest is that this is applicable to you in turn. But you won't go there.

Unless you can provide me with an argument able to demonstrate that in being against abortion your points are not merely embedded in political prejudices but, instead, in thinking that makes all the points raised by those who are in favor of abortion go away, I just chalk it up to you not getting me more than I'm not getting you.

In being against abortion, what would you do, force all pregnant women to give birth [regardless of the circumstances]? And if they abort the baby instead, arrest them for premeditated first degree murder which if convicted may send them to prison...to death row?

I now recognize the reasoning behind the arguments raised by both sides. I then take my own existential leap to "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in regard to laws that will either reward or punish particular behaviors in particular contexts. But only in recognizing that this part....

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.


...doesn't go away. I am no less "fractured and fragmented".

WendyDarling wrote: I think there are two major aspects to our disagreement...the pregnancy and the abortion of the pregnancy.


No, from my frame of mind, there is still only one. Your objectivist belief that in regard to aborting the unborn, one can reconfigure one's political prejudices into just another manifestation of the either/or world; and my belief [no less an existential contraption] that "I" here is the subjective/subjunctive embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And, then, historically, culturally and experientially, the intersubjective/intersubjunctive embodiment of dasein out in a particular world.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby Carleas » Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:03 pm

There are plenty of contexts in which homicide is morally justifiable, so just calling abortion homicide doesn't close the entailment: why is it the kind of homicide that we should punish?

A similar argument goes for the "life begins at conception" framing. Tadpoles are alive. Skin cells are alive. Why is a fertilized egg the kind of life we care about such that we should that we should treat its destruction as morally significant?


Do all agree that there is no god and no souls? I'd be curious to know the life-begins-at-conception argument against abortion if you don't believe in an immortal soul and a omniscient god who values souls above all else.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6012
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:52 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
how might philosophers go about articulating definitions here that would enable both the pro life and pro choice camps to finally pin down the optimal frame of mind

The problem is not in defining abortion as such - for everyone knows what it means - but in determining to what extent it can be described as moral
There is no optimal frame of mind that can do that because anti and pro abortionists cannot fundamentally agree about it from a moral perspective


Yes, but most of those on either side of this conflagration are able to convince themselves there is a moral perspective to be had. Their own in particular. They might argue with those who hold an opposite point of view, but they are both of the conviction that they embody one or another rendition of the real me in sync with one or another rendition of the right thing to do.

That's the part I no longer have access to myself. Instead "I" am fractured and fragmented given the manner in which I have thought myself into believing that value judgments of this sort are derived existentially from daseins confronting conflicting goods out in a No God world where what ultimately counts is who has the actual political power to enforce one rather than another set of behaviors.

surreptitious75 wrote: Abortion actually exists on a moral spectrum ranging from those who think all abortion is immoral to those who think it is perfectly justified at any time
and for any reason and all points of view in between . There is no optimal frame of mind that will find universal consensus across such a diverse spectrum


Yes, I think the same thing. But I believe this because of how I view human interactions [in the is/ought world] based on my signature thread arguments.

I come here looking for those who think other than I do.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:16 pm

Carleas wrote: There are plenty of contexts in which homicide is morally justifiable, so just calling abortion homicide doesn't close the entailment: why is it the kind of homicide that we should punish?


Homicide: "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder."

And, in any particular human community, down through the ages historically and culturally, the circumstances around which folks deemed specific situations involving the killing of another unlawful varied considerably. But it would seem that one way or another something was made illegal because it was thought to be the wrong thing to do. And, in particular, by those with the economic and political clout to sustain what they perceived to be in their best-interests.

Abortion as murder or abortion as a woman's right to choose gets all tangled up in any number of vast and varied sets of circumstances viewed in conflicting ways out in a particular world.

Of course my own rendition of this is well known by many here. And, thus, with respect to my own reaction to abortion [either morally or legally] "I" am "fractured and fragmented" in a way that others are not. All I can do is react to the arguments of those who are not nearly as drawn and quartered as I am.

Carleas wrote: A similar argument goes for the "life begins at conception" framing. Tadpoles are alive. Skin cells are alive. Why is a fertilized egg the kind of life we care about such that we should that we should treat its destruction as morally significant?


Exactly. One set of assumptions yields one set of conclusions, another set yields a different set. I merely include in turn such imponderables as a universe either wholly determined or not going back to the comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

And then this part:

Carleas wrote: Do all agree that there is no god and no souls? I'd be curious to know the life-begins-at-conception argument against abortion if you don't believe in an immortal soul and a omniscient god who values souls above all else.


A God world or a No God world. And, in a No God world, what of the arguments of narcissists, sociopaths and, yes, particular moral nihilists, who view abortion as they do everything else: what's in it for me?
Last edited by iambiguous on Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby Antithesis » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:41 pm

Or, you could ask someone in the pro-life camp, "if forcing women to give birth gives men an inherent and distinct advantage in social, political and economic interactions, why are you still anti-choice?

This is precisely what being fractured and fragmented entails in a No God world for the moral nihilist. This one [me] in particular. He wants to believe the answer is either this or that, but both sides are able to make arguments that the other side are not able to make go away.

It's reasonable [to him] to think that allowing women to abort their babies means killing them. But it is also reasonable [to him] that forcing women to give birth undermines their capacity to be treated equally in the political arena.

Or the arguments of the narcissists and sociopaths: what's in it for me?

But: All I can do is to raise the points that I do. To note the reasons here and now they make sense to me. I am no more able to demonstrate that what I think, others are obligated to think as well. And I recognize that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I may we'll change my mind.

It's just that when I suggest in turn that all of this is applicable to the objectivists too, that some refuse to accept that this is possible at all. After all, look at what they have to lose if it is.

I agree, life is full of hard choices, moral dilemmas, trade-offs, ambiguity.
If it weren't, there'd be no need for philosophy, nor religion, in their differing ways, to attempt to make sense out of what appears to be senseless, or at least beyond our present collective capacity to comprehend, everything would be simple, self-evident, and easy.
User avatar
Antithesis
Thinker
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:21 am

Re: Wendy, iambiguous and [for now] abortion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:16 pm

Antithesis wrote:I agree, life is full of hard choices, moral dilemmas, trade-offs, ambiguity.
If it weren't, there'd be no need for philosophy, nor religion, in their differing ways, to attempt to make sense out of what appears to be senseless, or at least beyond our present collective capacity to comprehend, everything would be simple, self-evident, and easy.


Which, from my frame of mind, can only be explored, examined and judged realistically when the philosophical or scientific or theological insights of any particular one of us are embedded in actual situations we experience given the lives that we live.

And, here, what is of interest to me is not that which we can all seem to agree upon in regard to an issue like abortion, but those things that we can't.

Is this because the most rational manner in which to think about it has not yet pinned down, even though it does exist? Maybe through God, maybe through something else. Or, in a No God world, is it possible that the philosophical and scientific insights of mere mortals are only able to be articulated up to a point. Beyond which none of us can go?
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 34189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]