Pro-life Or Pro-choice?
Even if we consider it a human, it's similar to a human in a vegetative state. It's not the same as killing someone who's had a year or so of extra brain development.
Even if we say a fetus is a human being (which it doesn't even resemble until all those months later), it lives parasitically, has no brain activity for a while, and doesn't even feel pain for several months.
If someone is saying that a group of cells is a human being, they're probably already too far gone into self-righteousness.
Even if we say a fetus is a human being (which it doesn't even resemble until all those months later), it lives parasitically, has no brain activity for a while, and doesn't even feel pain for several months.
If someone is saying that a group of cells is a human being, they're probably already too far gone into self-righteousness.
This is a very interesting and obviously a morally and ethically loaded topic.
I find it fascinating what we can justify when it is "convenient" to do so. It seems we can almost justify anything due to convenience and ease can we not?
Let us take the most helpless and defenseless of our species especially at a time when it is at the state of complete dependence on us, we will betray its trust and utterly wipe it out because it is convenient and very easy to do so. It is our right to do so is it not? After all, who has time to put up with these things when you weren't expecting to have to? Or if it is a lifestyle you've eased into - after a while I suppose it is just second nature to remove one or two here and there because after all…… why would we face the tyranny of forcing ourselves to put up with anything that is not convenient?
So it is about ease perhaps? While we're at it I can think of a whole slew of people that for convenience sake simply need to cease to exist:
1.) Criminals - complete drain on society and appear to be completely self serving and very dangerous and contribute only in negative ways if any. They should definitely be wiped out. It would be easier to not have to deal with any of them.
2.)Those who are in vegetative states as was discussed earlier. What use have we for YOU? It would definitely be more convenient to rid ourselves of them and we know we will loose nothing for they contribute nothing!
3.) People whom we disagree with or who are just too obtuse to "get with the program". Man, it seems like the idiots are breeding (see idiocracy for documentary proof!) faster than anyone can calculate or imagine. And soon they will completely dominate everything! They definitely need wiped out.
I guess my list could keep going but you get the picture.....
Nietzsche said god was dead...…. he was utterly wrong. We are now god, and when we decide a point we are righteously able to conclude that it was justifiable and if it is all the more convenient.... better still!
However, I must pause and wonder where this reality will lead us. I wonder if the data set that we are producing is going to show us something completely different than what we expected...… sort of like compiling a C++ code at times...…. the errors and the reasons turn out to be obscure and very different than what you may have expected.
Maybe it doesn't just all boil down to convenience or efficiency and mathematical precision or least common denominator populist morals?? Wouldn't it be convenient if it did?
I am reminded of a few guys that wrote some lyrics that sort of remind me about situations like these when we bring this stuff up....
When they turn the pages of history
When these days of have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness,
For the seeds that we let grow?
We turned our gaze from the castles in the distance...
Eyes cast down the path of least resistance!
Cities full of hatred, fear and lies
Withered hearts and cruel tormented eyes!
Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise
beating down the multitude and scoffing at the wise....
Xanadu
I find it fascinating what we can justify when it is "convenient" to do so. It seems we can almost justify anything due to convenience and ease can we not?
Let us take the most helpless and defenseless of our species especially at a time when it is at the state of complete dependence on us, we will betray its trust and utterly wipe it out because it is convenient and very easy to do so. It is our right to do so is it not? After all, who has time to put up with these things when you weren't expecting to have to? Or if it is a lifestyle you've eased into - after a while I suppose it is just second nature to remove one or two here and there because after all…… why would we face the tyranny of forcing ourselves to put up with anything that is not convenient?
So it is about ease perhaps? While we're at it I can think of a whole slew of people that for convenience sake simply need to cease to exist:
1.) Criminals - complete drain on society and appear to be completely self serving and very dangerous and contribute only in negative ways if any. They should definitely be wiped out. It would be easier to not have to deal with any of them.
2.)Those who are in vegetative states as was discussed earlier. What use have we for YOU? It would definitely be more convenient to rid ourselves of them and we know we will loose nothing for they contribute nothing!
3.) People whom we disagree with or who are just too obtuse to "get with the program". Man, it seems like the idiots are breeding (see idiocracy for documentary proof!) faster than anyone can calculate or imagine. And soon they will completely dominate everything! They definitely need wiped out.
I guess my list could keep going but you get the picture.....
Nietzsche said god was dead...…. he was utterly wrong. We are now god, and when we decide a point we are righteously able to conclude that it was justifiable and if it is all the more convenient.... better still!
However, I must pause and wonder where this reality will lead us. I wonder if the data set that we are producing is going to show us something completely different than what we expected...… sort of like compiling a C++ code at times...…. the errors and the reasons turn out to be obscure and very different than what you may have expected.
Maybe it doesn't just all boil down to convenience or efficiency and mathematical precision or least common denominator populist morals?? Wouldn't it be convenient if it did?
I am reminded of a few guys that wrote some lyrics that sort of remind me about situations like these when we bring this stuff up....
When they turn the pages of history
When these days of have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness,
For the seeds that we let grow?
We turned our gaze from the castles in the distance...
Eyes cast down the path of least resistance!
Cities full of hatred, fear and lies
Withered hearts and cruel tormented eyes!
Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise
beating down the multitude and scoffing at the wise....
Xanadu
Xanadu4ever: Pointing things out doesn't constitute an argument. You have not given a single reason why anyone should think callousness is good or bad, you've just pointed out that certain statements (e.g. "killing is okay sometimes if it's convenient, even if it otherwise would not be okay") are callous and expect others to come up with their reasons. If you want to convince others that it's bad you should make the argument.
Helios,
I didn't make an EXPLICIT argument but I attempted to make it implicitly. But I will elucidate further...
The argument and reasoning is this: we have to examine our motivations for any choice and these need to be weighed against a standard. But who's standard? The standard I come up with may not be the standard YOU come up with and in the end we're left with 7 billion standards (and increasing by the second!) and each is going to be different based on experience and point of view. So who's opinion or standard gets the pole position? Is it subjective as Nietzsche seems to be implying and arguing? Where does subjective reasoning and standards lead society? I posit that the place it leads society is a very dark and destructive path. Nietzsche agreed with this as well!
Maybe the contemplation of this very stark and deadly reality is what drove him insane? Maybe we'll join him before it is all over?
IF it comes down to subjective decisions then all decisions are simply always correct and there are no wrong answers. If there are no wrong answers, then we should all feel great because no one is ever going to be wrong. In a society where feelings are ever more important than facts - this should be a reassuring point then.
If we arbitrarily decide what is right or wrong based on convenience then we should expect every outcome to occur and all outcomes are justified because it is all subjective. There is no right and wrong in a post-modern subjective society. Sadly, it is unpleasant and ugly and there is no dressing it up to be some form of noble choice. Sounds like there are a lot of people that would have wished to be on a different side of that choice. It simply comes down to "might makes right" if we allow society to be constructed in this fashion.
Now what happens if YOU or I are on the wrong side of these subjective standards? If there is no objective truth or a sense of what is a reasonable expectation of fairness applied evenly to everyone - I suggest that when we don't get to decide and others do - you and I are going to end up in a very bad situation - out of convenience of the people who do get to make the choices.
Nietzsche saw this and he predicted that the 20th century would be the most deadly and bloodiest century to that point (he said that at the end of the 19th century).
Millions of people were wiped out in the 20th century - more so than ALL the other centuries previously combined from what we can tell by predictive mathematics. So far he is correct. What happens if the 21st century out-performs the 20th in this respect?
Now I put the onus on the advocates of subjective reality. If there is no right or wrong then we don't get to complain when we're being slaughtered. There is no reason to lament any "bad" outcomes because this is merely a subjective perception to being on the wrong side of someone else's decision.
After all - I just happen to be holding the machine gun (or the scalpel and vacuum apparatus and scissors) and you don't. Nothing personal (or maybe it is....) - it is just more convenient this way and frankly I'm the one who is deciding.
Xanadu
I didn't make an EXPLICIT argument but I attempted to make it implicitly. But I will elucidate further...
The argument and reasoning is this: we have to examine our motivations for any choice and these need to be weighed against a standard. But who's standard? The standard I come up with may not be the standard YOU come up with and in the end we're left with 7 billion standards (and increasing by the second!) and each is going to be different based on experience and point of view. So who's opinion or standard gets the pole position? Is it subjective as Nietzsche seems to be implying and arguing? Where does subjective reasoning and standards lead society? I posit that the place it leads society is a very dark and destructive path. Nietzsche agreed with this as well!
Maybe the contemplation of this very stark and deadly reality is what drove him insane? Maybe we'll join him before it is all over?
IF it comes down to subjective decisions then all decisions are simply always correct and there are no wrong answers. If there are no wrong answers, then we should all feel great because no one is ever going to be wrong. In a society where feelings are ever more important than facts - this should be a reassuring point then.
If we arbitrarily decide what is right or wrong based on convenience then we should expect every outcome to occur and all outcomes are justified because it is all subjective. There is no right and wrong in a post-modern subjective society. Sadly, it is unpleasant and ugly and there is no dressing it up to be some form of noble choice. Sounds like there are a lot of people that would have wished to be on a different side of that choice. It simply comes down to "might makes right" if we allow society to be constructed in this fashion.
Now what happens if YOU or I are on the wrong side of these subjective standards? If there is no objective truth or a sense of what is a reasonable expectation of fairness applied evenly to everyone - I suggest that when we don't get to decide and others do - you and I are going to end up in a very bad situation - out of convenience of the people who do get to make the choices.
Nietzsche saw this and he predicted that the 20th century would be the most deadly and bloodiest century to that point (he said that at the end of the 19th century).
Millions of people were wiped out in the 20th century - more so than ALL the other centuries previously combined from what we can tell by predictive mathematics. So far he is correct. What happens if the 21st century out-performs the 20th in this respect?
Now I put the onus on the advocates of subjective reality. If there is no right or wrong then we don't get to complain when we're being slaughtered. There is no reason to lament any "bad" outcomes because this is merely a subjective perception to being on the wrong side of someone else's decision.
After all - I just happen to be holding the machine gun (or the scalpel and vacuum apparatus and scissors) and you don't. Nothing personal (or maybe it is....) - it is just more convenient this way and frankly I'm the one who is deciding.
Xanadu
| I find it fascinating what we can justify when it is "convenient" to do so. It seems we can almost justify anything due to convenience and ease can we not? |
We kill insects don't we? I never see an insect help group pop up. Cognitive wise, they're at a higher level than a fetus at conception.
You can say "you'd kill a fetus due to convenience!?" Well, yes. The word convenience is correct, but is purposefully used to degrade the argument. It's also convenient to be alive. Just because it's "convenient" doesn't mean it's some selfish action with no morality.
| IF it comes down to subjective decisions then all decisions are simply always correct and there are no wrong answers. |
That's why we were looking for logical paths and trying to figure out what the basis of our ethics actually are. Would you consider an egg a chicken? Would you consider turtle eggs to be turtles? Would you consider a bundle of cells to be a human being?
However, an emotional argument would not try establish any of this. What does it mean to be human?
I promise you China isn't going to outlaw abortions any time soon. Population figures are too much. You can say convenience, but it's to ensure quality of life to all citizens. If you think a fetus is more important than people's current lives, by all means save the fetus and go adopt them. Not only that, go ahead and be a surrogate for women who can't afford to be pregnant (money issues, can't work while pregnant, etc..).
Here are a few inconvenient situations for you:
1) Being robbed.
2) Getting killed.
3) Being kidnapped.
4) Losing your job and getting thrown out on the streets.
5) A mob beating the shit out of you.
6) Getting pregnant with a baby you can't afford.
7) Getting pregnant with a baby you can't afford because someone raped you.
And then we can look at this ethical delima if you say a fetus shouldn't be aborted. If due to rape, is abortion justified? If not, how can you call yourself ethical when a woman was raped and you force her to carry a the baby to term? Psychological trauma and ruining her life. If yes, how come suddenly the rights of a fetus have disappeared? If it has the right to live, what about the rape should interfere with this right? Wouldn't this also be classified as "convenience"? Maybe you finally realized convenience is just a word meant to hide the true nature of the situation so that pro-life people can dodge reality.
Also, take a look at the man who had his brother in his stomach for 30+ years. It was surgically removed, was that bad? It was like a fetus, parasitic. However, there was no chance of pregnancy obviously. It stayed in there, sucking off him and growing. If a fetus is a human being, that "thing" would have been no different.
Final question, how come in the case of the mother's life is in danger the mother is always the one chosen? If it's a fight between who lives, they say kill the fetus and save the mother. Why's that? How come they don't say, "Kill the mother and save the fetus!" ? Why is the mother's life held up higher? And don't tell me because the fetus is "worth less" or "not as developed", because in a hostage situation, children are usually allowed through first. So children's lives are held up pretty high, but then not a fetus?
My theory? That deep down we realize it's life is still too young, too undeveloped to really understand life and death. It doesn't even care if it dies because it doesn't even understand the concept. The woman's life is more important, because she's a part of the household, is a functional member of society, and she's more cognitive. So the woman is chosen over the fetus because of "convenience" as you'd put it.
Zapshe,
The word convenience in no way degrades the argument in the least. It is calling a spade a spade. To not blatantly call it what it is serves to be intellectually dishonest with ourselves and others. So you are at least agreeing that when someone decides to abort a baby that it is convenient (to some degree in the short term) and that was my point. So we agree here?
Correct, convenience does not imply morality and the converse is true. In fact, many moral acts are very inconvenient. When you donate your time to better someone or help them learn or even do something for someone who is incapable of it themselves or even perhaps ultimately laying down one's own life for that of another's is inconvenient many times.
Also, I hear abortion is actually quite inconvenient and traumatic to the woman as well as to the genetically identified entity (aka- the blob of cells) that just so happens to have its own genetic identification code (BTW - that unique genetic identifier is science rather than dogma to be clear) unique to both the sperm doner and the walking incubation unit (affectionately known as the "mother"). So it would seem that convenience is un-linked to the actions themselves many times but definitely linked to the motivation behind those actions - at least in the short term. My point is, when there is no ethical or moral restraints convenience seems to trump many times.
So if you find a logical path that definitively shows you that murdering another human being without cause is morally wrong - will that change your mind? Do you think that path exists?
You make my point for me.==>
If it is all subjective then I can define the chicken egg as a dinosaur the turtle eggs as rhododendrons and the bundle of cells (human? - again unique DNA identifier of cells is science) as a wooden chair. And tomorrow they would all have different meanings (if convenient) and ways I could interact and interface with them because you asked ME what I would call them. If I'm in charge we do it MY way in a subjective society.
Anyone who disagrees is bound to end up a pile of cells (human?) if they don't watch it and I will be perfectly justified in this action. Because it is all subjective. No right, no wrong. No up, no down. No chicken, no turtle. Only what you WANT it to be when you want it to be out of convenience or even hate or even rage or even laziness or even apathy - fill in the blank - it is all legitimate.
So ensuring the quality of life by ensuring the destruction of others? Does that sound counter intuitive to you? That seems very oxymoronic and counter-intuitive to me. Who decides who lives and who dies? I guess the Chinese! That sounds about right when it comes to the mantra of communism and the 20th century. (Thank you Nietzsche)
Your inconvenient situations are inconvenient for sure but as we stated earlier they are also immoral when one purposely performs those acts on another knowing that they are wrong. Unless we live in a subjective world - where there is no wrong or right - then they are all absolutely ok. However, me using my famous machine gun from my earlier post on all of them would ALSO be ok so it seems like it all works out in subjective society. That was pretty easy. No people = no problems!
I think I've discovered that the word convenience means that people can do morally reprehensible and ugly things to other human beings and then tell themselves they were justified so that they can go to sleep at night with themselves. All while then railing against others when those others happen to identify the actions for what they are in all of their ugliness and immorality.
It's pretty cruel for people not to go along with another's fantasy of reality when so much mental trauma is involved.
How about the ethical and moral dilemma of that blob of cells (genetically unique by DNA code and science proven once again) doesn't want to be destroyed? I think the blob of cells definitely suffered more than just psychological trauma to be sure since it is now just a red stain on the abortion clinic floor. But again, subjective society says this is fine. Man, I sure am glad I wasn't the recipient of such subjective reasoning - are you glad that you were not?
That's the real question isn't it? Are YOU glad that your walking incubation unit (aka - mother) chose to allow you to live?
The mother's life is NOT always chosen. That would be an absolute. Are you saying that this is always ABSOLUTELY the case with no exceptions? I think there have been cases where the mother has requested that her child live because she knew she was dying (inconveniently I might add) and that she wanted her child to live so she decided to lay down herself for her child's sake.
Zapshe, my whole point here is what you are dancing around with your many hypothetical and real situations.... What or WHO defines what it is to be human? Is it YOU is it I or is it the Chinese? What if that person is NONE of the choices I just gave you? What if man is not his own god?
My whole argument has been that of Nietzsche's. IF (and only if - there are no half ways here) man is his own god - then we WILL have a subjective society and so all the things you were upset about above don't matter. It doesn't matter about the poor raped woman, it doesn't matter about her psychological trauma, it doesn't matter about the children in a destitute household, it doesn't matter about the person that thinks differently, it doesn't matter about the person's corpse burning in an oven because there is no objective truth.
Does that sound right to you? Does that sound like the world you want to be a part of or have worked toward?
My last question is this for you: What if there is more to life than all of this and that there is such a thing as objective truth and that it can be known? How does that change everything in your thinking?
I suspect that most peoples minds are already made up and in the end - sadly the vast majority of people only learn one way ==> through pain and suffering. There are those that don't go that route though and they learn by observing knowable truth and being receptive to changing their thinking.
I will rest on this issue since I am not here to convince anyone - only ask tough questions that are inconvenient and also make ourselves look in the mirror and ask "Do I like what I see?"
Xanadu
The word convenience in no way degrades the argument in the least. It is calling a spade a spade. To not blatantly call it what it is serves to be intellectually dishonest with ourselves and others. So you are at least agreeing that when someone decides to abort a baby that it is convenient (to some degree in the short term) and that was my point. So we agree here?
Correct, convenience does not imply morality and the converse is true. In fact, many moral acts are very inconvenient. When you donate your time to better someone or help them learn or even do something for someone who is incapable of it themselves or even perhaps ultimately laying down one's own life for that of another's is inconvenient many times.
Also, I hear abortion is actually quite inconvenient and traumatic to the woman as well as to the genetically identified entity (aka- the blob of cells) that just so happens to have its own genetic identification code (BTW - that unique genetic identifier is science rather than dogma to be clear) unique to both the sperm doner and the walking incubation unit (affectionately known as the "mother"). So it would seem that convenience is un-linked to the actions themselves many times but definitely linked to the motivation behind those actions - at least in the short term. My point is, when there is no ethical or moral restraints convenience seems to trump many times.
So if you find a logical path that definitively shows you that murdering another human being without cause is morally wrong - will that change your mind? Do you think that path exists?
| That's why we were looking for logical paths and trying to figure out what the basis of our ethics actually are. Would you consider an egg a chicken? Would you consider turtle eggs to be turtles? Would you consider a bundle of cells to be a human being? |
You make my point for me.==>
If it is all subjective then I can define the chicken egg as a dinosaur the turtle eggs as rhododendrons and the bundle of cells (human? - again unique DNA identifier of cells is science) as a wooden chair. And tomorrow they would all have different meanings (if convenient) and ways I could interact and interface with them because you asked ME what I would call them. If I'm in charge we do it MY way in a subjective society.
Anyone who disagrees is bound to end up a pile of cells (human?) if they don't watch it and I will be perfectly justified in this action. Because it is all subjective. No right, no wrong. No up, no down. No chicken, no turtle. Only what you WANT it to be when you want it to be out of convenience or even hate or even rage or even laziness or even apathy - fill in the blank - it is all legitimate.
So ensuring the quality of life by ensuring the destruction of others? Does that sound counter intuitive to you? That seems very oxymoronic and counter-intuitive to me. Who decides who lives and who dies? I guess the Chinese! That sounds about right when it comes to the mantra of communism and the 20th century. (Thank you Nietzsche)
Your inconvenient situations are inconvenient for sure but as we stated earlier they are also immoral when one purposely performs those acts on another knowing that they are wrong. Unless we live in a subjective world - where there is no wrong or right - then they are all absolutely ok. However, me using my famous machine gun from my earlier post on all of them would ALSO be ok so it seems like it all works out in subjective society. That was pretty easy. No people = no problems!
| And then we can look at this ethical delima if you say a fetus shouldn't be aborted. If due to rape, is abortion justified? If not, how can you call yourself ethical when a woman was raped and you force her to carry a the baby to term? Psychological trauma and ruining her life. If yes, how come suddenly the rights of a fetus have disappeared? If it has the right to live, what about the rape should interfere with this right? Wouldn't this also be classified as "convenience"? Maybe you finally realized convenience is just a word meant to hide the true nature of the situation so that pro-life people can dodge reality. |
I think I've discovered that the word convenience means that people can do morally reprehensible and ugly things to other human beings and then tell themselves they were justified so that they can go to sleep at night with themselves. All while then railing against others when those others happen to identify the actions for what they are in all of their ugliness and immorality.
It's pretty cruel for people not to go along with another's fantasy of reality when so much mental trauma is involved.
How about the ethical and moral dilemma of that blob of cells (genetically unique by DNA code and science proven once again) doesn't want to be destroyed? I think the blob of cells definitely suffered more than just psychological trauma to be sure since it is now just a red stain on the abortion clinic floor. But again, subjective society says this is fine. Man, I sure am glad I wasn't the recipient of such subjective reasoning - are you glad that you were not?
That's the real question isn't it? Are YOU glad that your walking incubation unit (aka - mother) chose to allow you to live?
| Final question, how come in the case of the mother's life is in danger the mother is always the one chosen? If it's a fight between who lives, they say kill the fetus and save the mother. Why's that? How come they don't say, "Kill the mother and save the fetus!" ? Why is the mother's life held up higher? And don't tell me because the fetus is "worth less" or "not as developed", because in a hostage situation, children are usually allowed through first. So children's lives are held up pretty high, but then not a fetus? |
The mother's life is NOT always chosen. That would be an absolute. Are you saying that this is always ABSOLUTELY the case with no exceptions? I think there have been cases where the mother has requested that her child live because she knew she was dying (inconveniently I might add) and that she wanted her child to live so she decided to lay down herself for her child's sake.
Zapshe, my whole point here is what you are dancing around with your many hypothetical and real situations.... What or WHO defines what it is to be human? Is it YOU is it I or is it the Chinese? What if that person is NONE of the choices I just gave you? What if man is not his own god?
My whole argument has been that of Nietzsche's. IF (and only if - there are no half ways here) man is his own god - then we WILL have a subjective society and so all the things you were upset about above don't matter. It doesn't matter about the poor raped woman, it doesn't matter about her psychological trauma, it doesn't matter about the children in a destitute household, it doesn't matter about the person that thinks differently, it doesn't matter about the person's corpse burning in an oven because there is no objective truth.
Does that sound right to you? Does that sound like the world you want to be a part of or have worked toward?
My last question is this for you: What if there is more to life than all of this and that there is such a thing as objective truth and that it can be known? How does that change everything in your thinking?
I suspect that most peoples minds are already made up and in the end - sadly the vast majority of people only learn one way ==> through pain and suffering. There are those that don't go that route though and they learn by observing knowable truth and being receptive to changing their thinking.
I will rest on this issue since I am not here to convince anyone - only ask tough questions that are inconvenient and also make ourselves look in the mirror and ask "Do I like what I see?"
Xanadu
Last edited on
<edit>Please check who you're replying to</edit>
That's an appeal to consequences. "If X is true, then Y is true. I don't like Y, therefore X is false."
Yes, subjective morality implies that your moral code may differ from mine. That's why every complex society has developed a legal system, so that there's an (ideally) unambiguous standard against which to judge actions. Morality is irrelevant.
Is death inherently worse than life? The planet doesn't have infinite resources; only so much sunlight falls into it on a given year. That means that past a certain point, for someone to be born, either someone else has to die, or everyone has to live more frugally. Do you think it's acceptable for everyone to live out their entire lives in tiny boxes consuming the absolute minimum resources as long as there one or two hundred billion people and no abortions?
Who ever said that? If someone tries to harm you you can stop them.
What are you talking about? What do you think morality is? Do you think that your ability to distinguish pleasure from pain hinges on your ability to make moral decisions?
Animals (particularly non-social animals) are arguably amoral, right? Their behavior is not guided by morality. Yet if you kick an animal it'll behave one way, and if you pet it will behave a different way. Clearly, animals (humans included) don't need morality to distinguish bad things that happen to them from good things.
| The argument and reasoning is this: we have to examine our motivations for any choice and these need to be weighed against a standard. But who's standard? The standard I come up with may not be the standard YOU come up with and in the end we're left with 7 billion standards (and increasing by the second!) and each is going to be different based on experience and point of view. So who's opinion or standard gets the pole position? Is it subjective as Nietzsche seems to be implying and arguing? Where does subjective reasoning and standards lead society? |
Yes, subjective morality implies that your moral code may differ from mine. That's why every complex society has developed a legal system, so that there's an (ideally) unambiguous standard against which to judge actions. Morality is irrelevant.
| Millions of people were wiped out in the 20th century - more so than ALL the other centuries previously combined from what we can tell by predictive mathematics. So far he is correct. What happens if the 21st century out-performs the 20th in this respect? |
| If there is no right or wrong then we don't get to complain when we're being slaughtered. |
| There is no reason to lament any "bad" outcomes because this is merely a subjective perception to being on the wrong side of someone else's decision. |
Animals (particularly non-social animals) are arguably amoral, right? Their behavior is not guided by morality. Yet if you kick an animal it'll behave one way, and if you pet it will behave a different way. Clearly, animals (humans included) don't need morality to distinguish bad things that happen to them from good things.
Last edited on
Gentlemen,
You are correct! I was replying to Zapshe's post and I accidentally put Helios' tag in there in stead! That is evidently my error! I will correct it!
Xanadu
You are correct! I was replying to Zapshe's post and I accidentally put Helios' tag in there in stead! That is evidently my error! I will correct it!
Xanadu
| Helios, |
I'm not Helios
| So you are at least agreeing that when someone decides to abort a baby that it is convenient (to some degree in the short term) and that was my point. So we agree here? |
Yes, if having an abortion due to complications (like deformed fetus) or due to the danger of one's own life would also qualify as "convenience" to you as well.
| In fact, many moral acts are very inconvenient. |
Same with immoral acts. It's very inconvenient to go out of your way to murder people.
| Also, I hear abortion is actually quite inconvenient and traumatic to the woman as well as to the genetically identified entity |
Not really, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. And even if it was, it's not on the same level as pregnancy. As for the blob of cells, no shit - it's being killed.
| that just so happens to have its own genetic identification code (BTW - that unique genetic identifier is science rather than dogma to be clear) |
So does every sperm cell and every bacteria and so on. Do we qualify humans by genes? If so, my hair, skin, and individual organs are also human? When my immune system kills dangerous cells that may have become cancer, is it committing genocide?
| unique to both the sperm doner and the walking incubation unit (affectionately known as the "mother"). |
Are you sure you're on the right side of that comparison? The mother is a human, with dreams and goals. You want to take away humanity and personal freedom to call them a "walking incubation unit" as if to justify forcing pregnancy on them?
| My point is, when there is no ethical or moral restraints convenience seems to trump many times. |
Sure. It could be convenient to kill someone who is black mailing me with information, but I probably wont - even if I had the means to without getting caught. The issue is that we can't be separated with our morality, even in the face of convenience. So why then are so many for abortion? Because morality.
People realize that a fetus is not more important than a human being and doesn't understand life/death (or anything really). But the woman has a life to live and a mistake/rape shouldn't result in 9 months of pregnancy, then attachment to their child (which happens naturally), just for the traumatic and unethical situation of "keep the child you can't care for or dump it in foster care?"
| So if you find a logical path that definitively shows you that murdering another human being without cause is morally wrong - will that change your mind? Do you think that path exists? |
A fetus is a human being? Do you define a human as a bundle of cells? And yes, the logical path exists. If there is no cause, why do it? Especially when we know that people live, have a consciousness, and don't want to die. We understand this, so it's not very moral to kill people. Therefore, without cause, why kill? And no, this doesn't help your case.
| If it is all subjective then I can define the chicken egg as a dinosaur |
Not that subjective. The point is that there's a fine line where it's subjective. Is a a comatose patient a human being? Yes, biologically. Why do we pull the plug? Because they lost the aspects we associate with a "human being". There's no one home in there, like a fetus.
Your comparisons are a gross exaggeration and misunderstanding. I'm sure you'd also advocate some people are "they" genetically. And that women who like to dress like men should be legally referred to as a man. Feelings don't change facts.
| Because it is all subjective. No right, no wrong. No up, no down. No chicken, no turtle. |
What? Again, FINE LINE between what's fact and what's subjective.
| So ensuring the quality of life by ensuring the destruction of others? Does that sound counter intuitive to you? |
You think black people should be jailed on the spot? Straw man argument much? A fetus isn't a human being. You wouldn't say masturbating is murder would you? Those sperm could have become humans, but they didn't.
| Who decides who lives and who dies? I guess the Chinese! |
They did what was needed. If you think ensuring the quality of life through abortion is horrible, you find a better way. There are billions of people who's lives could go down the drain. Not only that, those unborn babies will suffer. Then when they're born, they can go into that world you created and keep suffering. How logical of you! Lets ruin EVERYONE'S life so that a fetus can mature and become a human.
| as we stated earlier they are also immoral when one purposely performs those acts on another knowing that they are wrong. |
We don't "KNOW" abortions are wrong. There's a disagreement between logical views like mine and emotional one's like yours. Lets say there was a group of starving people and they know they'll die if they don't kill and eat one of their own. They KNOW it's wrong, but do what they have to do, probably with slight trauma afterwards. Logical people don't get an abortion and think they've just murdered someone (logical person != immoral).
| I think I've discovered that the word convenience means that people can do morally reprehensible and ugly things |
According to any dictionary, not really. It may result from it or it may not. The point is that my argument says that abortion isn't any of that.
| How about the ethical and moral dilemma of that blob of cells |
What about the ethical and moral dilemma of those insect and bugs you kill that have more cognitive capabilities than that blob of cells? Exactly, there isn't any dilemma.
| I think the blob of cells definitely suffered more than just psychological trauma |
Do bacteria "suffer" when we kill them? No. Suffering is something reserved for things with a consciousness.
| That's the real question isn't it? Are YOU glad that your walking incubation unit (aka - mother) chose to allow you to live? |
It's already such a small chance that I've of been born at all. Ask my non-existent sperm friends that I out-swam whether or not they give a shit. They don't. Once you're born, NOW you care. If I had been aborted, then I wouldn't have cared. Your argument here is a fallacy. Plus, suicide is a real thing. Thank God we have children who's parents were so fit that the kids became mentally unstable, huh? Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlP7n9Amakw
All for the unborn, but once they're born they can go fuck themselves. You wouldn't adopt a child, you wouldn't be a surrogate, you wont take the responsibility on yourself, but have the gall to force your own personal morality on others as if they HAVE to abide by it.
| The mother's life is NOT always chosen. |
The only reason the mother's life wont be chosen is because she herself decides to have the baby at that expense, at least in modern day society. If you wanna say this wasn't always the case, freedom also wasn't always the case. We have a society based on modern morality.
| Helios, my whole point here is what you are dancing around with your many hypothetical and real situations.... |
Again, I'm not Helios. Helios (as far as I know) wouldn't even argue with you in this direction because the very basis of your convection is tainted by illogical bias. But no, I'm not "dancing" around with this, it's very real and I want to see how consistent your morality is.
| then we WILL have a subjective society and so all the things you were upset about above don't matter. It doesn't matter about the poor raped woman, it doesn't matter about her psychological trauma, it doesn't matter about the children in a destitute household, it doesn't matter about the person that thinks differently, it doesn't matter about the person's corpse burning in an oven because there is no objective truth. |
Fine line between subjective and not subjective. We have a clear definition of good and evil. We all agree on these things to a certain extent. Society IS based on these subjective things, and it's not what you just described. Your point is invalid.
| I will rest on this issue since I am not here to convince anyone - only ask tough questions that are inconvenient and also make ourselves look in the mirror and ask "Do I like what I see?" |
Wow, how arrogant of you :) Because what you say and think are the TRUTH and everyone else will find themselves dumbfounded and rethinking everything once you step into the room. Bravo!
Your argument was baseless and only relied on emotional appeal. There was about as much logic in your argument as there is logic with the three stooges.
Helios, (I am actually replying to the right person here this time I believe!)
But you are appealing to utilitarianism.... if it works then do it. The ends justify the means as long as it works and is a solution? A solution for who? The people left or the people you wiped out?
So if our laws are based on unambiguous standards, who came up with the standards and what is the basis for those standards?? How do we choose? Who gets to write the rule book and how do we enforce it?
I disagree with you, I would hope our laws of societies are based in some form of morality/ethics - otherwise they are subjective and you might as well just come up with a random arbitrary set of rules for people.
I have heard the "Is death worse than life" premise before and it is a curious one. My answer to this is: I don't know, it depends on where you end up when you die! And if you don't believe you end anywhere and someone has to die - why don't people who hold this opinion volunteer to simply die and reduce the surplus population?
A person who kills themselves would actually be choosing an action that on the face of it is quite self-less and also very beneficial to society at large based on your argument and notion.
Sadly, I don't see the volunteers rushing to the front of the line - I only see them volunteering others to take their advice. So if death is a noble and neutral thing then there should be no reason why we shouldn't just volunteer and step in front of a train. would you agree?
Helios, I am saying that the natural outcome of a subjective society is that there is no right and wrong.... I wasn't trying to imply that anyone in particular on this board and subject were making that argument. On the contrary, I was expounding the opinion of Nietzsche if his conclusions are drawn out to their natural outcome. So to answer your question - Nietzsche said that. I agree with you, you SHOULD be able to defend your life and liberty and property as well.
IF we are nothing but animals does that also make us amoral beings? This is what you are explicitly inferring from your quote. Then we really have no right or ability to decide morality either since by your definition we are incapable of it and animals do NOT need morality to distinguish between bad and good things.
If we DON'T need morality to distinguish good things from bad things then how did you just make that distinction? That seemed like you arbitrarily and subjectively just told me what the definitions of "good" and "bad" were without any basis behind it. that is a contradiction of logic.
I'll ask your question back to you ==> What are YOU talking about? Your definition of morality invalidates itself. You can't have this both ways. How did we get a definition of "Good" and "Bad" all of a sudden if we are animals and are amoral and therefore do not NEED morality to judge good from bad in the first place? Then what DO we need to be able to discern good from bad and how did you come up with those rules?
Moreover, if we don't NEED morality to decide good from bad - is not this whole topic suddenly invalidated and null according to your logic?
Xanadu
P.S. - You are correct it was an appeal to consequences. Would you agree that consequences matter or are they of NO consequence?
But you are appealing to utilitarianism.... if it works then do it. The ends justify the means as long as it works and is a solution? A solution for who? The people left or the people you wiped out?
So if our laws are based on unambiguous standards, who came up with the standards and what is the basis for those standards?? How do we choose? Who gets to write the rule book and how do we enforce it?
I disagree with you, I would hope our laws of societies are based in some form of morality/ethics - otherwise they are subjective and you might as well just come up with a random arbitrary set of rules for people.
I have heard the "Is death worse than life" premise before and it is a curious one. My answer to this is: I don't know, it depends on where you end up when you die! And if you don't believe you end anywhere and someone has to die - why don't people who hold this opinion volunteer to simply die and reduce the surplus population?
A person who kills themselves would actually be choosing an action that on the face of it is quite self-less and also very beneficial to society at large based on your argument and notion.
Sadly, I don't see the volunteers rushing to the front of the line - I only see them volunteering others to take their advice. So if death is a noble and neutral thing then there should be no reason why we shouldn't just volunteer and step in front of a train. would you agree?
| Who ever said that? If someone tries to harm you you can stop them. |
Helios, I am saying that the natural outcome of a subjective society is that there is no right and wrong.... I wasn't trying to imply that anyone in particular on this board and subject were making that argument. On the contrary, I was expounding the opinion of Nietzsche if his conclusions are drawn out to their natural outcome. So to answer your question - Nietzsche said that. I agree with you, you SHOULD be able to defend your life and liberty and property as well.
| Clearly, animals (humans included) don't need morality to distinguish bad things that happen to them from good things. |
IF we are nothing but animals does that also make us amoral beings? This is what you are explicitly inferring from your quote. Then we really have no right or ability to decide morality either since by your definition we are incapable of it and animals do NOT need morality to distinguish between bad and good things.
If we DON'T need morality to distinguish good things from bad things then how did you just make that distinction? That seemed like you arbitrarily and subjectively just told me what the definitions of "good" and "bad" were without any basis behind it. that is a contradiction of logic.
I'll ask your question back to you ==> What are YOU talking about? Your definition of morality invalidates itself. You can't have this both ways. How did we get a definition of "Good" and "Bad" all of a sudden if we are animals and are amoral and therefore do not NEED morality to judge good from bad in the first place? Then what DO we need to be able to discern good from bad and how did you come up with those rules?
Moreover, if we don't NEED morality to decide good from bad - is not this whole topic suddenly invalidated and null according to your logic?
Xanadu
P.S. - You are correct it was an appeal to consequences. Would you agree that consequences matter or are they of NO consequence?
Last edited on
| P.S. - You are correct it was an appeal to consequences. Would you agree that consequences matter or are they of NO consequence? |
You just said:
| The ends justify the means as long as it works and is a solution? |
Are the consequences the means or the ends? Answer: the ends. By definition the consequences are what happen as a result. YOU are the one trying to forfeit consequences as if they don't mean anything in the face of your flawed morality.
Zapshe,
I am not sure you are replying with nothing but logic devoid of emotion. It sure seems like the emotion is running pretty high on your end.
You said above==>
Where did we get that clear definition of "good" and evil" that we all inherently agree with? What is that clear definition? Can you detail and explain it to me? How did we arrive at this evident truth?
There is sadly no fine line between subjective and objective truth - they are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive ideas. I believe there is a law in philosophy called the "Law of non-contradiction" And it is essentially XOR for logical argument.
It goes something like this==> A or B but not A AND B at the same time. However, I suppose if they merge then everything you are asserting makes perfect sense. But I assert that they have NOT merged and are completely different ideas.
Again, my whole argument has been from the beginning that if we leave it to ourselves to define "good" and "bad" (in other words WE play god) we do so at our own peril and we do it SUBJECTIVELY and not objectively. When we choose to go down this path - the outcome is neither pretty nor beneficial and no amount of verbal niceties will cover the consequences which end up having consequence to all involved.
You also stated this:
Why do you look to see how consistent my morality is? You don't even know me so why would my moral consistency matter in this debate?
Sorry I confused your tag with Helios' initially - however I did go back and correct it. It would appear though that I was not fast enough.
Xanadu
I am not sure you are replying with nothing but logic devoid of emotion. It sure seems like the emotion is running pretty high on your end.
You said above==>
| Fine line between subjective and not subjective. We have a clear definition of good and evil. We all agree on these things to a certain extent. Society IS based on these subjective things, and it's not what you just described. Your point is invalid. |
Where did we get that clear definition of "good" and evil" that we all inherently agree with? What is that clear definition? Can you detail and explain it to me? How did we arrive at this evident truth?
There is sadly no fine line between subjective and objective truth - they are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive ideas. I believe there is a law in philosophy called the "Law of non-contradiction" And it is essentially XOR for logical argument.
It goes something like this==> A or B but not A AND B at the same time. However, I suppose if they merge then everything you are asserting makes perfect sense. But I assert that they have NOT merged and are completely different ideas.
Again, my whole argument has been from the beginning that if we leave it to ourselves to define "good" and "bad" (in other words WE play god) we do so at our own peril and we do it SUBJECTIVELY and not objectively. When we choose to go down this path - the outcome is neither pretty nor beneficial and no amount of verbal niceties will cover the consequences which end up having consequence to all involved.
You also stated this:
| it's very real and I want to see how consistent your morality is. |
Why do you look to see how consistent my morality is? You don't even know me so why would my moral consistency matter in this debate?
Sorry I confused your tag with Helios' initially - however I did go back and correct it. It would appear though that I was not fast enough.
Xanadu
| But you are appealing to utilitarianism.... if it works then do it. The ends justify the means as long as it works and is a solution? |
| So if our laws are based on unambiguous standards, who came up with the standards and what is the basis for those standards?? How do we choose? Who gets to write the rule book and how do we enforce it? |
| I would hope our laws of societies are based in some form of morality/ethics - otherwise they are subjective and you might as well just come up with a random arbitrary set of rules for people. |
I disagree that law should be based on anyone's morality. That's how you get stupid puritanical laws such as drug prohibition, prohibition of prostitution, prohibition of abortion, etc.
I think the point of laws should be solely to promote social cohesion and stability. For example, a society where murder is allowable is inherently unstable, because you have to constantly expend effort to protect yourself. Same with theft.
A society where abortion is illegal is no more stable (arguably it's slightly less stable) than one where it's legal. When someone gets an abortion no part of society is harmed, as fetuses are not persons.
| Helios, I am saying that the natural outcome of a subjective society is that there is no right and wrong. |
| IF we are nothing but animals does that also make us amoral beings? This is what you are explicitly inferring from your quote. Then we really have no right or ability to decide morality either since by your definition we are incapable of it and animals do NOT need morality to distinguish between bad and good things. |
If you're sincerely confused by my argument then I suggest you reread it.
| If we DON'T need morality to distinguish good things from bad things then how did you just make that distinction? |
| Your definition of morality invalidates itself. |
| How did we get a definition of "Good" and "Bad" all of a sudden |
| You are correct it was an appeal to consequences. Would you agree that consequences matter or are they of NO consequence? |
| I am not sure you are replying with nothing but logic devoid of emotion. It sure seems like the emotion is running pretty high on your end. |
I don't think it's humanly possible to talk without emotion. But no, emotions aren't running high.
| Where did we get that clear definition of "good" and evil" that we all inherently agree with? |
Lets say I step in while someone is being harassed. Morally speaking, no sane person would object to it being a moral or "good" act.
Lets say I go up to a happy family and murder their children. No sane person would object to it being "immoral".
They are NOT fully subjective because of how we would define good and evil. If "Good" is an action that results in happiness and least loss of life, then killing someone and making their families sad would not be "good". However, the subjective part comes in if you were to say, "What about Hitler's life and family? What about Osama Bin Laden's life and family?" Then there you realize that even though the act of killing them might have a hint of "evil", it was the overall "good" choice.
Some acts are subjective, some aren't.
Morality is innate, we ourselves fine tune it. This is why it's very subjective in things like abortion. While it's still subjective in the fact that the "truth" isn't embedded in the universe, the basis for Good and Evil are well understood and known.
Sure, someone could argue those scenarios I mentioned are or aren't moral, but it's not controversial and the mass majority would be clear.
| There is sadly no fine line between subjective and objective truth - they are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive ideas. |
Here's the issue with this claim. We define our species as "homo-sapiens" or "humans". We are all human here. We do this with chickens. Anything of that species is a chicken. However, when we go to the stages before birth, how can we define that to be a human or a chicken? There aren't the needed components to qualify it as such.
Therefore, saying a fetus is a human being is more of a philosophical claim that is subjective. However, pro-life people like to bounce between the two ends of the word in order to make their invalid points.
| I believe there is a law in philosophy |
Are we talking about facts or philosophy?
| However, I suppose if they merge then everything you are asserting makes perfect sense. |
What ideas would we be merging?
| Again, my whole argument has been from the beginning that if we leave it to ourselves to define "good" and "bad" (in other words WE play god) we do so at our own peril and we do it SUBJECTIVELY and not objectively. |
I think you mean "ASSERTING 'good' and 'bad'", not defining it, because we do that any time we say something is either good or bad or any time a dictionary has a definition!
Since there's no God, why not define them ourselves? Society needs a basis that is as fair as possible, logical, and within reasonable demands (don't kill insects, they are living things! - You can make a moral argument but that's asking too much).
| Why do you look to see how consistent my morality is? You don't even know me so why would my moral consistency matter in this debate? |
What? Because you argue for pro-life, so if you're morality is inconsistent it shows that your argument here means nothing. There's no objective fact that you can run to and hide behind to make your points, they are all subjective and disagreed with by many. So if EVEN YOU can't stick by your own morality, you're not someone to listen to and you've lost the debate.
Helios,
Hence why we are not agreeing where objective truth originates from.
Morality is subjective eh? Again, you make my point for me. You are right, if we all decide that morals are what we say they are whenever we say they are - then that is in fact a subjective definition. We agree on this point. However, I am really arguing that morality really is NOT subjective - it is objective if given by a supreme law giver. It just really suits our corrupt purposes to make it subjective.
WHY is murder illegal? Because that cool legislature you were just talking about with the judges and maybe a dictator or two said it was? What if that legislature decides to change the law by that same cool court and now say that murder is perfectly fine? Does that now make it ok?
Again, your definition of "stupid puritanical laws" again makes my point. In YOUR opinion they are stupid laws and therefore if YOU are writing the rule book or banging the gavel - then we obviously don't need to worry about those laws anymore. And if I am writing the laws and banging the gavel a likely different outcome is going to happen and on and on we go. Subjectivism.
Negative. I turned your argument on its head and that is inconvenient. If we have NO NEED of morality to distinguish good from bad then implying that you CAN discern this is nonsensical and circular at best.
Uh, this argument is very odd. I am not sure how you are making any type of correlation between breathing and currency......... and how that has any impact whatsoever on what we are discussing. I suppose I have a trillion dollars and if you are still breathing then you do too!
OK, well then I get where you are coming from now. You should be able to relate to Nietzsche's ideas pretty easily then I would suppose?
So if you cause me pain inadvertently while trying to save my life this is our definition of evil? What if I feel the euphoria of opium coursing through my veins as it slowly stops my heart and I die .... yet it feels OH so good on the way down - is this our definition of "good"? This seems like a shabby definition of "good" and "evil" and very elementary to be frank with you. I need a better explanation and so does everyone else. So Pain = bad and euphoria = good? Do I have that right?
I wasn't referring to logic or rhetoric when I was discussing consequences.... I was referring to the very real outcome one will have after getting hit by that very real locomotive!
Xanadu
| If that's the case, I don't understand why you need to ask these questions. |
Hence why we are not agreeing where objective truth originates from.
| What the hell are you talking about? Morality is what's subjective. The point of having a code of law is that it's objective. "Murder is illegal and punishable with prison" is an objective statement. It doesn't pass a moral judgement on murder, it just says that if you murder, you'll be sent to prison. |
Morality is subjective eh? Again, you make my point for me. You are right, if we all decide that morals are what we say they are whenever we say they are - then that is in fact a subjective definition. We agree on this point. However, I am really arguing that morality really is NOT subjective - it is objective if given by a supreme law giver. It just really suits our corrupt purposes to make it subjective.
WHY is murder illegal? Because that cool legislature you were just talking about with the judges and maybe a dictator or two said it was? What if that legislature decides to change the law by that same cool court and now say that murder is perfectly fine? Does that now make it ok?
Again, your definition of "stupid puritanical laws" again makes my point. In YOUR opinion they are stupid laws and therefore if YOU are writing the rule book or banging the gavel - then we obviously don't need to worry about those laws anymore. And if I am writing the laws and banging the gavel a likely different outcome is going to happen and on and on we go. Subjectivism.
| You're being purposely disingenous. Stop it. If you're sincerely confused by my argument then I suggest you reread it. |
Negative. I turned your argument on its head and that is inconvenient. If we have NO NEED of morality to distinguish good from bad then implying that you CAN discern this is nonsensical and circular at best.
| You don't need a trillion dollars to breathe. Well, if you don't need a trillion dollars to breathe, then how come you're breathing right now? Clearly, you must have a trillion dollars. |
Uh, this argument is very odd. I am not sure how you are making any type of correlation between breathing and currency......... and how that has any impact whatsoever on what we are discussing. I suppose I have a trillion dollars and if you are still breathing then you do too!
| I never defined morality, but I'm fine with morality being defined as something that doesn't exist. I'm a moral nihilist. |
OK, well then I get where you are coming from now. You should be able to relate to Nietzsche's ideas pretty easily then I would suppose?
| Are you able to distinguish pleasure from pain? |
So if you cause me pain inadvertently while trying to save my life this is our definition of evil? What if I feel the euphoria of opium coursing through my veins as it slowly stops my heart and I die .... yet it feels OH so good on the way down - is this our definition of "good"? This seems like a shabby definition of "good" and "evil" and very elementary to be frank with you. I need a better explanation and so does everyone else. So Pain = bad and euphoria = good? Do I have that right?
I wasn't referring to logic or rhetoric when I was discussing consequences.... I was referring to the very real outcome one will have after getting hit by that very real locomotive!
Xanadu
Zapshe,
You are right, someone COULD argue all the points you have just made and they will and have. Again, his name is Nietzsche.
Moreover, they will be justified in arguing against your definition of morality in a subjective construct. Just because YOU said it doesn't make it so or just because I have said it doesn't make it so. Humorously, just because Nietzsche said it doesn't make it so either...... however he is at least been intellectually honest enough to come straight out with it even though it is very awkward to do so.
But I get where you are coming from now. ==>
Your quote above is what I have been arguing all along. In a subjective society you will be forced to define them and I am glad you have made this statement.
And the answer to your why not do it ourselves I have also answered earlier==> You do so at your own peril. But we all only learn by pain and destruction. That has been my observation.
Like I said earlier, it would seem like we all have our minds made up and that is how it is. I guess we'll just have to see where the chips fall in the end.....
Xanadu
You are right, someone COULD argue all the points you have just made and they will and have. Again, his name is Nietzsche.
Moreover, they will be justified in arguing against your definition of morality in a subjective construct. Just because YOU said it doesn't make it so or just because I have said it doesn't make it so. Humorously, just because Nietzsche said it doesn't make it so either...... however he is at least been intellectually honest enough to come straight out with it even though it is very awkward to do so.
But I get where you are coming from now. ==>
| Since there's no God, why not define them ourselves? |
Your quote above is what I have been arguing all along. In a subjective society you will be forced to define them and I am glad you have made this statement.
And the answer to your why not do it ourselves I have also answered earlier==> You do so at your own peril. But we all only learn by pain and destruction. That has been my observation.
Like I said earlier, it would seem like we all have our minds made up and that is how it is. I guess we'll just have to see where the chips fall in the end.....
Xanadu
| You are right, if we all decide that morals are what we say they are whenever we say they are |
| What if that legislature decides to change the law by that same cool court and now say that murder is perfectly fine? Does that now make it ok? |
What do you think it means for morality to be objective? Something is objectively true if it's truth value is independent of the observer. For example, the speed of light has an objective value. It would have that value even if there were no humans to observe it. Is objective morality like that, too? Does it come from physical properties of the universe? From somewhere else?
| In YOUR opinion they are stupid laws and therefore if YOU are writing the rule book or banging the gavel - then we obviously don't need to worry about those laws anymore. And if I am writing the laws and banging the gavel a likely different outcome is going to happen and on and on we go. Subjectivism. |
But let's suppose for a moment that the legislative system in my country was exactly me. I get to write or remove laws as I please. Does that mean that those laws are subjective? No. A law either exists or it doesn't exist. Now, a law might be poorly written so that its scope is vaguely defined, but the existence of a law is not subjective.
| Uh, this argument is very odd. |
| If we DON'T need morality to distinguish good things from bad things then how did you just make that distinction? |
Since you don't need a trillion dollars to breathe, you can breathe regardless of whether you have a trillion dollars.
| I turned your argument on its head and that is inconvenient. |
| So if you cause me pain inadvertently while trying to save my life this is our definition of evil? |
What you originally said was "there is no reason to lament any 'bad' outcomes because this is merely a subjective perception to being on the wrong side of someone else's decision."
So, I ask again, are you able to distinguish pleasure from pain? If you're able to distinguish pleasure from pain then you will likely at least attempt to defend yourself if someone tries to hurt you. This has nothing to do with morality. It's a basic instinct of all animals to move away from harmful stimuli and towards pleasurable stimuli.
| You are right, someone COULD argue all the points you have just made and they will and have. Again, his name is Nietzsche. Moreover, they will be justified in arguing against your definition of morality in a subjective construct. |
All your arguing now is that we are both on baseless arguments? Not that I agree, but that would mean the logical option is to keep it legal (since making it illegal would be done so on baseless grounds) and anyone who thinks it's not moral can simply refrain from it themselves.
| And the answer to your why not do it ourselves I have also answered earlier==> You do so at your own peril. But we all only learn by pain and destruction. That has been my observation. |
Your personal observations don't amount to fact.
| Like I said earlier, it would seem like we all have our minds made up and that is how it is. I guess we'll just have to see where the chips fall in the end..... |
Uh... NO? What chips are going to fall? It's already legal where I am and lots of other palaces. You talk like there's going to be hell in the streets or some civil war.