There is a dispute over whether or not a zygote is a human being. You can’t resolve that dispute by merely stating what you think is the case.
[/quote]
Ok. So is it or it not and why. I already said why it is; because it is the first stage when your own DNA is found encoded in an independent organism that is on its course to develop according to it. You have the genetic code individual to yourself, within which you are encoded as an individual being, and you have a driving life force expressing it, ie. you are a human being. There is no such thing in a sperm nor an egg independently. An egg wont grow out into a human nor a sperm will.
I never said who should do what so I am not going to explain any of these things.
Yes, a proposition such as, I find Mozart beautiful has an objective, independently decidable truth value…People act the way they want and feel like, they sometimes dont act in the ways they want because of the consequences independent of their preferences.
Then we agree.
Consequences have little to do with ethics. And I am not sure what you are asking me again. Do I think killing a human being is wrong, if it is done out of convenience, ie. unwillingness to raise a child or at least deal with the trouble of giving it away? Yes. Killing human beings out of convenience is wrong. What do the consequences have to do with anything here?
We dont even know how and why we make half the decisions we make. I still fail to see how that has anything to do with killing. If you kill somebody, you kill him there and then, what does it matter for him what happens in the future. The consequences of actions are not actions themselves, nor are the motives. Is killing somebody ever ok just because somebody did not intend to do so or thought such person would not really die as a consequence? What happened is not what somebody intended to happen or thought he was doing. Evaluating the agent in any act requires knowing the motives and evaluating the consequences of his action. So, for example, I think doing things which put others in extreme danger is just as bad as doing so and killing them and it makes no difference to distinguish between the two, despite whatever the consequences actually were ethically BUT legalistically and in terms of establishing some kind of justice for the victims, you have to take consequences and motives into consideration.
You have to define the term “human being”. In other words, you have to explain what concept is attached to that term. Basically, you have to tell us what kind of things can be represented with that word. You haven’t really done that in the above even though I actually agree with you that a human zygote is merely a human being in an early stage of development. At the same time, I do not expect you to provide a definition, first because most people are pretty poor when it comes to analytical thining, and second because providing a definition of the term “human being” may not be a trivial task.
But there’s also a third reason. Even if everyone agreed on the definition of the term “human being”, which is unlikely to happen, the dispute will still be unresolved, and the only thing that would happen is that people will realize that whether or not a human zygote is a human being is an irrelevant question.
I believe that what actually happened is that at some point in time people came across the statement “You should not kill an innocent human being”. Pretty much everyone agreed with it but only because different people interpreted in a different way. That they interpreted in a different way, however, is something they were unaware of and remain unaware of even to this day. Then, later on, when they started discussing abortion, they somehow accepted that they interpreted that statement in a literal way. I am sure that some people did but many, if not most, didn’t. As a consequence, they ended up pointlessly fighting over the definition of the term “human being”.
In reality, the only thing that matters is the comparison of the consequences of killing an unborn baby with the consequences of not killing an unborn baby. Nothing else. But my guess is that most people don’t do that sort of thing because it’s a bit too complicated for them ( they’d rather stay on the superficial level. )
You said that abortion is a simple issue. That suggests that you know, or that you can easily discover, the answer to the question “Is it okay to abort?” At the very least, you have stated that killing unborn babies out of convenience is wrong.
Yes, you either find him beautiful or you don’t. You might be lying for all I know. Or you might simply be unaware of what you really like ( i.e. your own beliefs. )
“I like X” means “I believe that X is good for me”. It’s a claim pertaining to something that is subjective ( = existing in minds. ) That something being your beliefs.
“X is good for me” is a different claim because it pertains to something that is objective ( = existing outside of minds. ) Either X is good for you or not, regardless of what anyone believes about it.
They always do, even when they are not aware of it, simply because that’s how minds work. But they might have a poor perception of what’s going to happen in the future.
Whenever you say that it’s wrong to choose to do something, you’re saying that it leads to consequences that are worse ( i.e. less preferable ) than the consequence of all other choices that were available to you at the time.
It matters to the killer ( and perhaps other people. ) The killer has to decide for himself whether or not the consequences of killing that person are better for him than the consequences of not killing that person. Other people also have to decide for themselves whether or not the consequences of allowing people to kill other people is better for them than the consequences of not allowing them to do so.
You are stoupid bro. You are literally repeating yourself again and making me think you have not even red the whole of my reply. But I dont think you are malicious, so I will write a reply because its quite interesting of a discussion, just not today. Respect.
As to that Mozart thing,what are you even talking about?the Mozart thing was to do with you asking me to establish ethical truths objectively and I said you should first prove me this is possible by showing me how youd prove Mozart is objectively beautiful when somebody does not find him beautiful. I am disagreeing with you CATEGORICALLY not per se, ie. I am saying its not possible to do what you say needs to be done and I gave you reasons why it is so whilst you are just repeating yourself at this point. I understand what you are saying bro, I just think you are completely wrong and gave you my reasons.
So you ethical considerations will involve everybodies interest and opinion BUT the victims? What if the victim to be killed has a say? What do you think they will say and how will they see the hierarchy of the consequences of…I dont know…killing them??? Are you even realising what you are saying and how stoupid it is bro? Additionally, I already told you why consequences are not important to the ethics or morality at all and you are just repeating yourself without addressing what I have said.
I took it that the first sentence is ironic and that what you actually said is that the proposition “I find Mozart beautiful” does not have “an objective, independently decidable, truth value”.
Note that you did not say “Mozart is objectively beautiful”. You said “I find Mozart beautiful”. These are two different propositions. And I explained why in my previous post. The subject of the first is an objective thing ( i.e. whether or not Mozart’s music is good for you ) and the subject of the second is a subjective thing ( i.e. whether or not you believe that Mozart’s music is good for you. )
Then you said that people act “the way they want and feel like”. But what makes you think that what they want to do is not a product of their subconscious mind doing cost-benefit analysis? The same applies to what they feel like doing. What makes you think that what they feel like doing is not a product of a subconscious process of cost-benefit analysis? Cost-benefit analysis is not necessarily a conscious process.
Then you said that people sometimes don’t make choices because of the consequences independent of their preferences. And that’s true. Decisions are made based on perceived consequences AND one’s preferences. Your mind chooses what to do based on what actions are perceived to lead to the most preferable consequences.
And now, you’re telling me that you asked me to prove that Mozart is objectively beautiful. I don’t think you did that. Maybe you wanted to ask that question but you did not express yourself adequately. Either way, I don’t think I should do that. Why shouldn’t I just prove that moral propositions have truth value? Why do I have to do a much more difficult task?
The first thing you have to do is figure out what “Mozart is beautiful” actually means. Since it’s your statement, Mr. Poland Young, it should really be you clarifying the meaning of the statement, but given that you’re currently unavailable, probably celebrating New Year’s Eve, I’ll do it first.
“Mozart is beautiful” means no more than “Mozart’s music is good for X” where “X” stands for some person. Things are always good for someone. The question is who that someone is in this case. That someone might be a real person or a hypothetical person. For example, it might be you but it also might be you with a slightly different mind ( e.g. Mr. Poland Young with more experience listening to music. ) I take it that, in this case, that someone is you. Thus, “Mozart is beautiful”, in this particular case, means “Mozart’s music is good for Mr. Poland Young”.
But what does it mean that something is good for someone? In this particular case, it means that listening to Mozart’s music has a positive effect on Mr. Poland Young. In other words, it means that the consequences of listening to Mozart’s music – in some situations at least, not necessarily in all – are more preferable to Mr. Poland Young than the consequences of not listening to Mozart’s music.
That’s really all there is to it.
Your taste refers to what you think or believe is good for you. It’s your perception of what’s good, not necessarily correct. That’s a subjective thing ( because it’s something that exists in minds. ) But whether or not any given thing is good for you or not is an objective thing that has nothing to do with what anyone believes.
You might like junk food, for example. That means that you think or believe that junk food is good for you. But in reality, junk food is bad for you and you have yet to learn that ( or, if you already know that, as most people more or less do, you have yet to inform the rest of your mind about that. )
What are you even talking about? LMAO… the ‘sub-conscious mind’ doing ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of whether Mozarts music is ‘good’ for you and therefore whether to find it 'beautiful ie. good because something good is beautiful because it is good… are you hearing yourself bro??? you are starting to sound as insane as the pompous bitch about to make a dramatic exit… even if these insane idiocies were true then it STILL CHANGES NOTHING because you being able state why and how something is beautiful for somebody does not mean you can show wit is beautiful for everybody so there can be a thing which is both beautiful and disgusting to two different people and equally validly so and there is no way to objectively demonstrate who is right and who is wrong so my point about the impossibility of ‘proving’ somebodies ethical stance is wrong or right when they believe something is either right or wrong through some objective and independent, imaginary cost-benefit analysis stands.
You talk about a human being as if you were talking about some robot with some specific goal to its existence…its creepy bro, seriously. and your stupidity is showing when you simply replace saying something is beautiful because somebody finds it beautiful with something is beautiful because it is ‘good for you’, as if you were saying anything or explaining anything and thinking you are saying something more than saying things are beautiful because things are beautiful. i am far too smart for such tricks.
and you really think there arent people who KNOW junk food is bad for them or is killing them and still enjoy it and find it beautiful and tasty??? what dungeon are your parents keeping you in bro?
Well, if you paid more attention, you would have noticed the bolded part:
I am fully aware of the fact that there are people who know that they are doing something that is wrong and who nonetheless enjoy doing that thing. Their problem is that their knowledge of how wrong that thing is didn’t penetrate their entire mind. Think of it this way. You are with your friends and they are doing something you know its wrong. Despite the fact that you know that it’s wrong, and despite your efforts to convince them that it’s wrong, they are still doing that thing. They, quite simply, don’t give a shit. Why? Because you have yet to convince them that you’re right and they have yet to adjust. Something similar is taking place inside human minds. One part discovers the truth but other parts have yet to learn of it and adjust in response to it.
Your mind is pre-wired with a goal to pursue. I call it “the highest goal”. Everything is centered around it. Without such a goal, you wouldn’t be able to distinguish between good and bad choices. They would all be the same, so it wouldn’t matter which one you pick.
That’s why I said it is you who should explain the meaning of your own statement – not me. But note that, when someone says “Mozart is objectively beautiful”, they do not necessarily mean “Mozart is objectively beautiful to everyone”. There is a difference between objectivity ( what exists outside of minds ) and universality ( what’s the same for everyone. ) I never said that what is good for one is necessarily good for everyone else.
I am lost bro. What are you even saying. If people find different things categorically good or bad ethically(like they find different things beautiful and ugly) and there is no way for others to change that then how do you see the ‘others’ ‘weighing up’ the ‘pros and cons’ of an action, to determine whether it is good or bad, as even remotely possible? That is besides the other issues with this crazy idea, like excluding the one killed completely from the ‘weighing’ or underestimating how unpredictable, unreliable and incredibly complex the ‘consequences’ actually are. And trying to judge something that has already happened or something that you might want to cause to happen by something that has not happened and may never happen. Of course killing somebody will be wrong and unacceptable in terms of ‘pros and cons’ for the one killed?, and people weigh each pro and con differently and some might have zero tolerance to particular things…how will you take all that into the account and come up with something that is a reasonable and sound compromise?
Kants ideas resonate here. Kant gets a lot of vomit thrown on him but he is DEFINATELY in the top 3 of the greatest Western philosophers. A moral system CATTEGORICALLY CANNOT be of any utilitarian nature because it fails to be a moral system then, as wrong and right loose any meaning if they are to be decided through useful and useless. But we are talking about ethics, not moralities. Within a morality, something like collective echo of opinions is much more applicable.
And that stuff between feminine and masculine…you can call me feminine, I dont mind. I prefer females most of the time because they are not pretentious and dont get on my nerves as much as men. Men cant really talk, cant converse, cant open up, know no real humility…everything to them is about pride and dominance. A male is a dishonest charlatan, a female is an honest one. When a female tries to push her advantage, she does so plainly and obviously, a male will do the same but three-fold masked and covered with layer beneath layer of pretence and lie.
You can think that something is good for you without it being good for you. This can, for example, happen if you are not reasoning properly and / or if your awareness is limited ( i.e. if you are not fully aware of the consequences. ) Other people can help you improve your perception of what is good for you by showing you that you’re making a mistake in the process of reasoning and / or by making you aware of things you are not aware of.
As an example, you might think that a piece of food is good for you because you’re unaware of its toxic effects. Other people can come and show you its toxic effects thereby changing your perception of that food from a positive one to a negative one. If your mind fully adjusts to that realization, even your taste will change; the food will start tasting bad.
It can be wrong FOR THEM for someone to kill them. But it’s not necessarily wrong FOR OTHERS to kill them. Albeit, in reality, cooperation ( which includes taking care of other people’s needs ) is probably more beneficial than being a predator. Regardless of that, when you need someone for some reason, you won’t kill them; it would be immoral to kill them. Why? Because you need them; because they can help you come the closest that you can to the attainment of the pre-wired goal.
Bro you are not understanding. How many times do I have to repeat myself??? or how many times will you simply repeat yourself? and stop lying.
if one finds something tasty, he will find it tasty even after knowing it is toxic. he will simply not eat it.
ANND… are you even understanding what I am saying bro…of course these things are true, but how does that constitute in weighing whether something is ethical or not objectively if people will perceive it differently IN TERMS OF PROS AND COS YOU KEEP HARPING ABOUT??
As I said, when your mind fully adjusts to the realization that the food is toxic, your taste changes as a result, and you no longer find it tasty.
The emphasis is on “when your mind fully adjusts to the realization”. Adjustments take time, they don’t happen instantaneously. If your mind never adjusts, your taste will never change.
Taste is a malleable thing, it’s not something that is fixed and unchanging. Furthermore, it’s something that can change in response to new insights. Of course, the change isn’t instantaneous and your taste won’t change unless you instruct it to update itself.
You asserted that ABORTION IS WRONG. That was your claim. And since something is always wrong FOR SOMEONE, you have to tell us FOR WHOM you think abortion is wrong. And since one and the same action is not necessarily wrong in all situations, you have to tell us in which situations abortion is wrong. It is YOUR claim, not OURS. Substantiate it. Don’t expect us to do it for you. Once you do that, you have to explain to us why you think it’s wrong for those women to abort. You do that by telling us what you think will happen if those women abort their baby and what you think will happen if they don’t. And then, once you do that, you have to explain to us why you think the consequences of the first choice are less preferable to those women than the consequences of the second choice.
What’s the problem here? Yes, I really don’t understand what’s your problem.
If you think abortion is wrong then don’t have one.
If you are trying to force others to live according to your beliefs then MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and stop trying to force your mental illness on others. Your make believe God is controlling your life, stop trying to control other people with your mental illness.
