the exasperated philosopher?

I get exasperated with internet philosophy, because it gets to the point where you cannot adequately explain your ideas in a 1000 word post anymore. Okay, you can say “this is this”, and “that is that”, but because most of those this’s, and many of those thats are unintuitive, getting readers into the mindframe where they become so within such a short space, is impossible.

EDIT: Fuck, I’ve become such a nerd. Thanks ILP.

Exasperation is not the problem; that’s natural. How can something that is a natural occurrence be a problem? Anyway, the body absorbs all such emotions and when it does, it’s finished. Being exasperated about exasperation is the problem.

iambiguous wrote:

But if John says, “killing animals for sport is wrong”, Bob will ask, “what do you mean by that?” And it is quite possible they will never agree on what all the words mean in the discussion that follows—let alone what they should mean in conjunction with the killing of animals for sport.

What Bob will want to know is what John means when he speaks of hunting and mounting a deer as wrong. Why is it wrong? And John will give him reasons. And Bob will then give John reasons why he believes it is not wrong.

The exasperation comes for both them hours later when neither can convince the other of something each thinks makes perfect sense.

There is a limit here beyond which philosophers can’t go in settling it. It can’t be settled. That’s the source of the exasperation.

iambiguous wrote:

Thus the exasperation revolves around values that come into conflict when we can’t make our words align such that the conflict goes away.

My position is precisely the opposite. We can never all hold the same values because we live in the world and view it from so many utterly vast and varied existential perspectives. At best we can strive to embrace moderation, negociation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law] when interacting in the political [legal] sphere.

No matter how often John and Bob reformulate their positions they will never be in alignment if they refuse to acknowledge that neither of their arguments is the most rational. Instead, they have to agree to modify their convictions and pass legislation that allows for hunting but places restrictions on it.

In a world without God any behavior can be rationalized. And we all make our own existential leaps. But very very few equate the killing a new born baby or a child with the killing of the unborn in the first trimester—which is when the overwhelming preponderance of abortions [over 90%] occur. But I agree that allowing them at all is just a rationalization in turn. And this rationalization revolves around the insistence that in the first trimester, it’s not really a human being that is being killed.

Well, I disagree.

But you then argue:

No, let’s pursue it.

Let’s take that to its logical limits.

Suppose science is able to determine the precise point when “a clump cells” becomes a “human being”.

Suppose a woman you know finds herself pregnant. Suppose for whatever personal reason she decides she wants the abortion after that point is reached. Would you argue that she must go through with the birth or be charged with first degree murder?

Suppose the pregnancy was as a result of rape or incest. Same thing? Give birth?

After all, it is not the fault of the fetus.

But the exasperation occurs more when folks are convinced there really are arguments that reflect the most rational manner in which to think about something.

And when that something revolves around moral and political values the exasperation can easily shift gears to outrage.

Depends on how tightly one wants to cling to the medium through which he expresses himself. Some don’t bother to get involved to any major extent. Those inclined to argument in the political/moral arena most likely become politicians, attorneys and such. They have the ability to present information unemotionally. Or use it perhaps as leverage.

Can you rationalise your disagreement? I’m not looking for the rationalisation itself, I’m just curious whether you see your own view as a rationalisation, or just those of those who disagree with you.

Taken to its logical limits, science can’t determine that. Science is descriptive of natural processes, but it doesn’t get to set the terms of language - the argument over abortion depends not on whether such-and-such cells are present or a particular biochemical process has taken place. The science of reproduction is exceptionally thoroughly researched. The question is at what point in the process the term/concept “human being” should apply, and that is not a natural fact.

Such a situation is contingent on people’s views of the world. Some cultures take the starting point for humanity as conception, some quickening, some 20 weeks, some birth, a very few even later. There is no culture-free objective value of a concept like humanity, as it’s a concept. However, given that concept and a shared cultural understanding of it, rational conclusions can still be drawn - reason doesn’t only apply to external facts-about-the-world.

If science (or anyone) had somehow managed to prove that, then yes. The situation is exactly the same as if the baby had been born and was then killed. It should be carried to term and then offered for adoption.

I really think lose touch with reality here.

I have had many of these conversation and there was never any confusion over the term ‘wrong’, over the fact that two people can be on different sides of an issue.

It has nothing to do with making sense, as you seem to think. It has to do with the existence of different values, which is part of the human condition and generally does not exasperate people. Only the ponderer who restricts himself to logic gets exasperated, but this is because he misunderstands the world.

It is not about which one is the most rational, but which one is believed in with the most conviction. The strength of convictions on both sides will determine the arbitrary logic of the negotiations.

Very simple. The DMT gets produced after 49 days. That is plenty of time to have an abortion after incest or a rape.
NOT enough time to have an abortion if a woman only find out shes pregnant after two months - but since, in such a case the conception can’t have been traumatic, there would be no special ethical reasons to justify a belated abortion.

Realistic definitions allow for practical guidelines.

iambiguous wrote:
[i]…exasperation occurs more when folks are convinced there really are arguments that reflect the most rational manner in which to think about something.

And when that something revolves around moral and political values the exasperation can easily shift gears to outrage.[/i]

Yes, to the extent the political sphere encourages less volatile exchanges regarding the most volatile moral and political issues the greater the good for all of us.

But no matter what is decided regarding legal action there are still going to be many exasperated folks who insist the laws do not reflect precisely what they construe to be rational and ethical.

That never goes away. And it’s time to start discussing why it never goes away.

People are neurotic. There’s talk against birth control, droning on and on about the preciousness of life, then bombing and massacre. It is too absurd. We’re concerned with an unborn life while we are killing thousands and thousands of people by bombing, starvation, poverty and terrorism. “Concern” about life is only to make a political issue out of it. It’s just an academic discussion. I’m not interested in that.

Many of us see all this and nevertheless are interested in changing things. Are you really interested? Are you interested in the future of mankind? Expressions of exasperation, anger, righteousness, and caring have no meaning to me. It’s just a ritual. You sit and talk, that’s all. You are not at all angry. If you were angry at this moment, you wouldn’t ask questions, even to yourself. You sit talking of exasperation. The angry wouldn’t talk about it. The body has already acted with regard to that anger by absorbing it. The anger is burnt, finished then and there. You don’t do anything; the body just absorbs it. That is all.

My own view here is a rationalization insofar as I try to make sense out of the world as does everyone else. But we don’t have to rationalize in discussing abortion as a medical procedure, do we? Here we can deal with actual biological facts. And the observations here will either be or not be factually true.

But in discussing abortion as a moral issue rationalizations are all we have.

I agree. That is the point I am trying to make to others in this exchange.

Here I agree as well—as long as we agree in turn that “shared cultural understandings” are just that: shared naratives regarding what seems reasonable and what seems unreasonable within a particular human community.

But with respect to our own culture many points of view are not shared at all. And that is why legislation [and court rulings] relating to abortion seek to draw the lines somewhere in the middle of the moral/political spectrum. And that ever shifts over time.

iambiguous wrote:

[i]Suppose a woman you know finds herself pregnant. Suppose for whatever personal reason she decides she wants the abortion after that point is reached. Would you argue that she must go through with the birth or be charged with first degree murder?

Suppose the pregnancy was as a result of rape or incest. Same thing? Give birth?[/i]

Here I do not agree. I would never support a public policy that forced women to give birth against their wishes. How could gender equality prevail in a world where men do not ever have to confront this terrible choice?

And that is what makes some abortions tragedies. It comes down to what William Barrett discussed in Irrational Man as a conflict of two goods. The unborn should have the right to live. But women should have the right to control their own bodies.

Which is why making abortion rare should be the goal of all parties.

Hunting:

There is wrong in the sense that all parties understand the meaning of the word. And there is wrong in the sense that they don’t. “Why is it wrong, John?”, Bob will ask. And then they will argue heatedly over the connotations…the moral spin…they embrace regarding the meaning the the words “right” and “wrong” behavior here.

That they have “different values”…and clearly know it…is not cause for exasperation. It is when they go about futilely trying to “prove” to each other that only one set of values…their’s…is truly rational that the tempers may flare. Here the meaning of the word “wrong” revolves around the content of the arguments themselves.

As long as we agree the negociations can only be arbitrary. When legislation is being proposed, for example, the law makers can’t go to an Imannuel Kant to confirm what the moral duty of all citizens must be with respect to sport hunting.

Abortion:

iambiguously wrote:

[i]Suppose science is able to determine the precise point when “a clump cells” becomes a “human being”.

Suppose a woman you know finds herself pregnant. Suppose for whatever personal reason she decides she wants the abortion after that point is reached. Would you argue that she must go through with the birth or be charged with first degree murder?

Suppose the pregnancy was as a result of rape or incest. Same thing? Give birth?[/i]

Suppose the woman is obese and not aware that she is pregnant? Suppose she is in denial about it? Suppose she puts off the decision because she is terrified of her fanily’s reaction? Or suppose dramatic circumstances occur in her life whereby she decides to change her mind and have the abortion?

She should be forced to give birth or sentenced to death row as a convicted murderer?

I can’t go along with that.

Sadly, I agree with this assessment of how people rationalize so many seemingly contradictory things. But the “neurosis” often flows from the exasperation they feel in not being able to put their own square pegs in the round holes of others.

We can’t make the world less complex and convoluted however by wishing away the reality of politics in our lives. Politics is all about power. It is about the capacity of those able to enforce a set of rules that most closely aligns with their own sense of right and wrong. We see that in the abortion wars all the time. In the sixties and the seventies the narrative was clearly on the side of those who embraced pro-choice arguments. But since [and especially of late] the narrative has swung to the other side. Just one more conservative SC justice [or a Republican landslide in 2012] can take us right back to the fifties.

But in any event, neither side will be any closer to presenting a moral argument all will agree to be apllicable universally.

But lots of folks on both sides of the abortion debate are willing to abandon talk and take action. And that can result in either one extreme or the other taking control of both the legiuslatures and the courts. Action is just as problematic as speech.

As for me, only when the self-righteous moralists from both camps abandon the belief that they and only they preach the whole truth about abotion, will they learn to become less exasperated. How? In embracing moderation, negoctiation and compromise instead.

That way both sides win something and no side loses everything.

It’s called democracy.

Facts fit into a framework, as we are both arguing. Once you have a “fact” of what a human being is, you have a biological fact about when a foetus becomes a human.

A woman is already forced to give birth if the unborn baby reaches a stage of development we judge to be human. You can’t abort at 30 weeks, and if you did you (and/or your doctor) would most likely be charged with a criminal offence. The fact that science has somehow determined the point only confirms that point against others.

How can gender equality prevail in a world where women are allowed to take human life if they wish to and men aren’t?

Legislation is not based on negotiation, and Immanual Kant is an asshole.
You can go to a lot of other philosophers however. If you’re interesting in the concept of values, which you seem not to be.
If you insist on focusing on the futility of trying to convince another of your values then I think there’s not much to be said except that we agree. But that’s not getting to the bottom of it.

I would want her to know what she’s doing, but I wouldn’t turn her in if that’s what you mean. But that isn’t because it’s an abortion case but because I don’t like to turn over friends to the law.

All crimes have justifications. In this case it’s easy enough to do a pregnancy test, and if the victim doesn’t think of it herself someone else should and probably will.

Since I’m not in favor of killing other humans, I’m not n favor of the death penalty. So I can’t get along with your scenario either.
There are all sorts of degrees of murder. If it is established that a 50 day old embryo is a person, then yes, I think abortion after that point should be punishable.
But so far it has not been established scientifically, so there is absolutely no ground for such a law.

iambiguous wrote:

My own view here is a rationalization insofar as I try to make sense out of the world as does everyone else. But we don’t have to rationalize in discussing abortion as a medical procedure, do we? Here we can deal with actual biological facts. And the observations here will either be or not be factually true.

But we argue about what the framework ought to be all the time. Thus some argue that, with respect to determining when in fact the unborn becomes human, we must always begin here…or there…or somewhere else entirely.

But never have we all concurred on where the framework must be entered.

How many women in reality are forced to give birth? And how many women who had an abortion after 30 weeks have been tried for first degree murder?

And even if some are it does not make it necessarily rational or moral. All medical science can do is move back the point of “viability”. But it doesn’t make this point universally applicable in determing if abortion should be ethical or unethical.

Men aren’t “allowed” to here because men do not become pregnant. Indeed, I tend to subscribe to Erica Jong’s conjecture that, “if men could become pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.”

It’s almost always about politics in the end not principles.

iambiguous wrote:

As long as we agree the negociations can only be arbitrary. When legislation is being proposed, for example, the law makers can’t go to an Imannuel Kant to confirm what the moral duty of all citizens must be with respect to sport hunting.

Legislation [when it isn’t out and out paid for by Wall Street] often involves negociation and compromise. Especially with respect to “social issues” like abortion. Otherwise one or another of the extremist narratives would prevail.

That’s true. I am far more interested in how philosophers who espouse a particular “concept of values” are able to situate it out in the world we live in.

That is the bottom of it [for me] when folks actually come into conflict. The conflicts reflect the assumptions that are made from all sides. But the assumptions reflect merely shared points of view about the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus and the rights of the pregnant woman wanting to abort a zygote/embryo/fetus.

iambiguous wrote:

Suppose a woman you know finds herself pregnant. Suppose for whatever personal reason she decides she wants the abortion after that point is reached. Would you argue that she must go through with the birth or be charged with first degree murder?

Then in the eyes of the law you become an “accessory after the fact”. The fact in this case being murder.

Would you turn in women who were not your friends if you found out they had abortions after the point was reached?

iambiguous wrote:

[i]She should be forced to give birth or sentenced to death row as a convicted murderer?

I can’t go along with that.[/i]

But you could go along with sending them to jail for the rest of their lives?

What punishment would you deem appropriate? And suppose someone turned in a woman you loved for having a “post-point” abortion? Would that make you reconsider the part about punishment?

I agree entirely, and that’s because a framework isn’t an external fact but a conceptual scheme. I can see a soccer team as eleven individuals running around on a pitch, as a list of names, as a positional diagram with only numbers, as a name in a league listing, as a totem of social belonging - all depending on how it’s most useful and productive for me to consider them in the context.

Very few are forced by the state, now that the laws permit it up to the time they do. By their families/community/social expectations? Many, many.

As for first degree murder, I don’t know that that’s the appropriate charge and I don’t know how to find figures. Very few, I’d guess, not least because by that stage a child is pretty viable and you couldn’t find a doctor to do it. Is killing a viable baby in the womb at 30 weeks development ethically different to killing a 10-week premature baby after delivery? Not that viability is for me the defining point, but it seems at least a latest boundary for abortion.

I thinnk we’re agreed that rational has precious little to do with it, aren’t we? I’d agree that viability isn’t a significant moral choice except as a fairly value-independent cut-off point for unacceptability. Fairly, as it’s still a statistical choice - do you go for 10% viability, 50%, 90%?

Principles are politics enshrined in dogma. If men could get pregnant, women would have ordered society to keep the men barefoot in the kitchen.

Yes, I mistakenly stated that legislation is not based on negotiation - of course sometimes it is based primarily on shared gound of interests of some private people. What I mean to say is that it shouldnt be, and in important cases has not been. Not that people dont negotiate when they are creating laws, but what laws are based on is values. Sometime, the values have to be compromised by negotiation, in other cases, if these values are shared by the law-givers, the formation of laws is almost a mathematical process.

What do you mean by that? I’m trying to form a picture of your angle.
Which philosophers would you read, and on which subjects?

Underneath this lies the value of the conflict.
This is sort of a metaphysical value, at least one assessed from outside of the conflict. But I think the value in the conflict is the mechanism that the most tightly held value (which includes determination as well as capacity to argue or fight for it) will prevail.

It’s hard to say, I admit. But that doesn’t change the fact that I take the scenario of the 49 days seriously, and think that if this is true, laws should be made in correspondence.

A murder charge really is too heavy for this I feel, but it should be seriously and legally discoraged.
If you think that’s inconsistent, consider the fact that a murder charge will lead to vastly different punishments in different cases and countries. Here in Holland it is very possible to get out of jail after two years if you kill someone spontaneously.

There are many cases in which I would feel horrible to see a person I love go to jail. Most cases, all probably.
I’m just saying that I think it would be inconsistent, if the 49 days DMT theory is correct, to judge infant-murder as murder one and late abortion as no crime…

But my aim here is to link any framework to the stuff inside it. Some ethicists all but ignore the conflicts going on down on the ground. Instead they try to deduce a Morality and then from it start in on ennumerating moral duties and obligations.

Rationality with respect to performing abortions is rather precise. But with respect to the ethics of the procedure it is anything but precise.

It doesn’t matter whether there is truth. People will go on believing they will and the exasperated philosopher, in most cases will keep on being exasperated. People who like to argue will continue to argue.

The exasperated philosopher is much like the exasperated teacher…

My students (a group of salary men) hate learning English grammar in my ESL class. Every time I tried to teach English I would get exasperated, but one day out of frustration I just didn’t make a lesson plan and started talking about philosophy and spitting philosophical questions… lo! and behold, they started speaking English! I couldn’t believe it. They started learning and asking questions about English grammar.