Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 22:24

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 24.09.2010 at 21:45

Many things aren't natural solutions. Should we do away with all technology and medicine?

Medicine and technology can help us to fulfill our natural needs. Elective abortion is certainly not fulfilling a natural need.

Quote:

Also, awful deeds are relative. Good and evil are merely social constructs, and on a more detailed level, personal preferences. Thus, they have no objective authority.

Are you willing to say that nazi Germany was just as good as modern Sweden? If not, then stop with such childishness.

I'd say elective abortion helps fulfill a natural need. It contributes to a more functional society by removing unwanted/disabled/poverty children, and part of human nature is to build and maintain societies. This goes back to survival: if society isn't maintained, it decays and collapses, having an effect on every member's life.

And yes. Nazi Germany is just as "good" as modern Sweden. I stand by that statement 100%.

...feel free to misinterpret or take that out of context anyway you wish.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 22:33

Written by [user id=35612] on 24.09.2010 at 21:48

And as the user above me stated. If we are to keep ourselves to natural course of events, we should stop everything

That. Just. Doesn't. Make. Sense. At....All...

Quote:

Especially in the way of healthcare, seeing as that is, by fact, artificially lengthening your "intended" lifespan.

Artificially lengthening someone's lifespan means keeping a person artificially alive, when he/she/it is braindead. Taking medicine to keep oneself from becoming braindead is not unnatural at all.

What is the concrete difference between ending a life or lengthening one in terms of natural course of events?
And if you want things to make sense, i would stop quoting selectively and responding to the whole thing.
If i quote your reactions sentence by sentence I too can come up with really cheap one-liners.

Written by [user id=105293] on 24.09.2010 at 23:08

Written by Ellrohir on 24.09.2010 at 22:59

why? if it is "natural" that children are birth and anything else is not, then why it should be "natural" to cure cancer by chemical-based pharmaceuticals or performing any surgery? "naturally" you become ill...whole human medicine (excluding some basic herbalism maybe) is artificial

No one has the natural need to get cancer or get aborted. We all share a natural need to sustain our existence by all means possible, otherwise we die.

Oh i beg to differ about that. People commit suicide you know, and they don't do that because we all unanimously want to live as long as possible.

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 25.09.2010 at 13:37

I'd say elective abortion helps fulfill a natural need. It contributes to a more functional society by removing unwanted/disabled/poverty children, and part of human nature is to build and maintain societies. This goes back to survival: if society isn't maintained, it decays and collapses, having an effect on every member's life.

ELECTIVE abortion means abortion for reasons, that are NOT RELATED to welfare and the mothers/child's health. Abortion for those reasons is called SELECTIVE abortion.

Quote:

And yes. Nazi Germany is just as "good" as modern Sweden. I stand by that statement 100%.

I told you to stop being childish. If you're going to put good in quotation marks, then you might as well put Germany in quotation marks, because both words are definitive terms, that apply to observable reality.

Written by [user id=35612] on 25.09.2010 at 19:49

Oh i beg to differ about that. People commit suicide you know, and they don't do that because we all unanimously want to live as long as possible.

Firstly, needs and wants are not the same thing and you are talking about wants.
Secondly, a deathwish is not a natural desire, it is an acquired one. All human beings share natural desires, not aquired ones. What is good for us, is that, which we need, not what we want.

Written by [user id=105293] on 26.09.2010 at 14:24

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 25.09.2010 at 13:37

I'd say elective abortion helps fulfill a natural need. It contributes to a more functional society by removing unwanted/disabled/poverty children, and part of human nature is to build and maintain societies. This goes back to survival: if society isn't maintained, it decays and collapses, having an effect on every member's life.

ELECTIVE abortion means abortion for reasons, that are NOT RELATED to welfare and the mothers/child's health. Abortion for those reasons is called SELECTIVE abortion.

Quote:

And yes. Nazi Germany is just as "good" as modern Sweden. I stand by that statement 100%.

I told you to stop being childish. If you're going to put good in quotation marks, then you might as well put Germany in quotation marks, because both words are definitive terms, that apply to observable reality.

Abortion (both selective and elective) benefits society, which benefits the individual. Survival is a basic human need, and in order to survive, individuals band together and form societies. In order for a society to remain healthy and functional*, it needs to be taken care of. Selective abortion removes undesirable burdens, and elective helps reduce the population and strain on resources, even if that's not the main reason for it.

And yes, good is a term we apply to reality in an attempt to make sense of it. What constitutes "good" differs based on who you ask, and as it doesn't exist beyond a mere word (no way to measure it), good is ultimately meaningless. Germany exists as a nation, as it has clearly defined borders that are enforced, and has its own language, culture, and ethnicity. Or at least it did, but that's another topic altogether. Point is, Germany is clearly defined, that definition is observable and enforced, and it is agreed upon. "Germany" is a definitive term, like "good", but it has a clearer meaning. When put into the grand perspective of the universe, "Germany" is meaningless, as is every other term we create. But in relation to humanity, it has more of a meaning than binaries like "good/evil", "right/wrong", etc.

The only way for morality to have authority is if it is enforced. Even then, it's only meaningful to the nation/culture deciding and enforcing it. Their laws do not apply to other nations/cultures, and have no other backing beyond force. If I wanted to get in a monster truck and demolish a bunch of pedestrians, from an objective standpoint, there would be nothing wrong about it. In relation to the laws established in my country, it would be seen as "wrong" and "immoral", and would be punished. Morality, despite being a lie, needs to exist for the sake of order and stability. Each nation needs to decide what it views as "right" or "wrong", requiring a consensus of values and ideas amongst the population. Which is why issues like abortion, euthanasia, economic intervention, etc. are big topics. For my country, I hope we decide on a functional course that leads to prosperity, as that's what I personally value (although many others may not). It's why I discuss these topics with my friends, people in my community, and online, and plan on becoming more politically active at my college. We need to decide on a course to take, and doing so requires discussion, pointing out logical inconsistencies, and finding solutions that won't unravel as time goes on (which means America needs to shift away from the current paradigm of liberalism).

*since I used the term "functional", I'll clarify where function/dysfunction fit into this, (to save people the time of potentially asking for an explanation, seeing that I ripped on binaries): function and dysfunction can be observed and measured. However, it's not so black and white. A society can't simply be slapped with one label or the other, as there are many degrees and types of function and dysfunction, and many elements which combine to create them. It's possible to have both within a society/nation, as often is the case, especially in the West. To measure it requires going back to the biological survival drive and applying that to society: is this society capable of surviving into the long term, allowing its members to live safely and carry out their lives? One may argue that this mentality could result in a society that simply stagnates, accepting "well it's decent enough..." and having no desire to improve. I'd say that stagnation begins to create a state of apathetic nihilism in the population, which in turn begins to cause decay. Desire for improvement and excellence are crucial for societal health.

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 27.09.2010 at 01:57

Abortion (both selective and elective) benefits society, which benefits the individual. Survival is a basic human need, and in order to survive, individuals band together and form societies. In order for a society to remain healthy and functional*, it needs to be taken care of. Selective abortion removes undesirable burdens, and elective helps reduce the population and strain on resources, even if that's not the main reason for it.

Abortion, or indeed death of any kind, helps reduce the population, but it also robs the society of potentially very useful members, members who would do much more to help the society by living than by being dead.

Quote:

And yes, good is a term we apply to reality in an attempt to make sense of it. What constitutes "good" differs based on who you ask, and as it doesn't exist beyond a mere word (no way to measure it), good is ultimately meaningless.

And what constitutes the shape or the age of the Earth also differs, depending on whom you ask. There are creationists who will swear the Earth is 6000 years old, that doesn't change the age of the Earth or make the shape of the Earth subjective. The real good is that, which fulfills our natural needs, needs, which do not differ depending on whom you ask.

Quote:

Germany exists as a nation, as it has clearly defined borders that are enforced, and has its own language, culture, and ethnicity. Or at least it did, but that's another topic altogether. Point is, Germany is clearly defined, that definition is observable and enforced, and it is agreed upon. "Germany" is a definitive term, like "good", but it has a clearer meaning. When put into the grand perspective of the universe, "Germany" is meaningless, as is every other term we create. But in relation to humanity, it has more of a meaning than binaries like "good/evil", "right/wrong", etc.

Why is the term "Germany" meaningless in the "grand perspective of the universe"? What is the "grand perspective of the universe"?

Quote:

The only way for morality to have authority is if it is enforced. Even then, it's only meaningful to the nation/culture deciding and enforcing it. Their laws do not apply to other nations/cultures, and have no other backing beyond force. If I wanted to get in a monster truck and demolish a bunch of pedestrians, from an objective standpoint, there would be nothing wrong about it. In relation to the laws established in my country, it would be seen as "wrong" and "immoral", and would be punished. Morality, despite being a lie, needs to exist for the sake of order and stability.

Enforced or not, morality is not subjective. You killing a bunch of people in a monster truck would be objectively wrong, because you'd be violating the natural rights of your victims, not because people don't like it. That it was morally wrong wouldn't change if the authorities cheered and high-fived you.

Sorry for the delayed response, had several things to attend to this week. Anyway...

Quote:
Abortion, or indeed death of any kind, helps reduce the population, but it also robs the society of potentially very useful members, members who would do much more to help the society by living than by being dead.

I don't know how the situation is in Estonia, so I'm not about to speak for your country, but in America, we have plenty of people. Too many. Several of which are interchangeable. We have no clear direction, and waste time arguing over trivial issues, which only creates further distraction and misdirection. The demanding attitude of the population is only reinforced by politicians, as our democratically-influenced structure has degenerated into a high school popularity contest. Only way to get into office is to cater to the short-sightedness of the average citizen. And if you question the general American attitude (the holy trinity of convenience, neurotic individuality, and liberal humanism) beyond a minimal level, you get socially ostracized. Hell, even questioning one of the three is enough for that. Good luck getting into office with an idea that isn't prepackaged. With all these factors, the chances of abortion eliminating someone profound is minimal. If more people are aborted, there will be others to replace them. America isn't missing out. Also factor in the continuing expansion/strain on social programs, pressure for more relaxed immigration policies, and environmental damage. Do we really need more people?

Quote:
And what constitutes the shape or the age of the Earth also differs, depending on whom you ask. There are creationists who will swear the Earth is 6000 years old, that doesn't change the age of the Earth or make the shape of the Earth subjective. The real good is that, which fulfills our natural needs, needs, which do not differ depending on whom you ask.

...except we have methods to determine these beyond relying on mere opinion.

Quote:
Why is the term "Germany" meaningless in the "grand perspective of the universe"? What is the "grand perspective of the universe"?

Germany is relevant to us, but humanity isn't relevant to the universe.

Quote:
Enforced or not, morality is not subjective. You killing a bunch of people in a monster truck would be objectively wrong, because you'd be violating the natural rights of your victims, not because people don't like it. That it was morally wrong wouldn't change if the authorities cheered and high-fived you.

And what makes violating natural rights wrong on a moral level? What gives the idea of natural rights any backing? I don't see how such a concept can exist by its own justification. Additionally, how would one determine an actions universal moral worth, such as a bad action with good end results, or a good action with bad results? Also factor in the intent.

What I value may differ from what someone else values. In the end, whoever imposes their will on or convinces others calls the shots. As time goes on, it becomes ingrained, creating a (very general) consensus within most of the culture.

Basically, it comes down to this: if we want to continue to survive, we need a more balanced approach to life and death. All of this humanistic, life-affirming thinking is leading to disaster. I personally value not only the continued existence of humanity, but the prosperity and excellence of my country, and I'd say I'm not too off base in comparison to others with the same end goal. Just that a lot of their methods won't achieve it, and in the long term are counterproductive. In the end, morals are all subjective. It's just a matter of having the most convincing opinion while taking into account that lots of people are ruled by emotion.

Abortion is not ruled by emotion, therefore abortion is not subjective and thus does not make abortion morally wrong whatsoever...a lot of these stupid comparisons are pretty ignorant...

I'm sorry but people are still not people before they come into this world BECAUSE THEY AREN'T BORN YET!!!! THEY HAVE NO USE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BORNE INTO THIS WORLD YET! YOU CAN PUT ALL INSTANCES OF MORALITY TO REST AND ALL INSTANCES OF SIN TO REST BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLE DOES NOT EXIST YET!

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 06.10.2010 at 23:27

Sorry for the delayed response, had several things to attend to this week. Anyway...

Ditto.

Quote:

I don't know how the situation is in Estonia, so I'm not about to speak for your country, but in America, we have plenty of people. Too many. Several of which are interchangeable. We have no clear direction, and waste time arguing over trivial issues, which only creates further distraction and misdirection. The demanding attitude of the population is only reinforced by politicians, as our democratically-influenced structure has degenerated into a high school popularity contest. Only way to get into office is to cater to the short-sightedness of the average citizen. And if you question the general American attitude (the holy trinity of convenience, neurotic individuality, and liberal humanism) beyond a minimal level, you get socially ostracized. Hell, even questioning one of the three is enough for that. Good luck getting into office with an idea that isn't prepackaged. With all these factors, the chances of abortion eliminating someone profound is minimal. If more people are aborted, there will be others to replace them. America isn't missing out. Also factor in the continuing expansion/strain on social programs, pressure for more relaxed immigration policies, and environmental damage. Do we really need more people?

Frankly, it doesn't matter. Merely the possibility that a useful member might be aborted rules out the idea that abortion must definitely benefit the society.

Quote:

...except we have methods to determine these beyond relying on mere opinion.

All humans share radical equality. This is an objective moral truth, it is not an opinion.

Quote:

Germany is relevant to us, but humanity isn't relevant to the universe.

Umm...ok. I don't see why this matters, but whatever.

Quote:

And what makes violating natural rights wrong on a moral level? What gives the idea of natural rights any backing? I don't see how such a concept can exist by its own justification.

The fact that we can observe all humans share the same natural needs gives the idea of natural rights backing.

Quote:

Additionally, how would one determine an actions universal moral worth, such as a bad action with good end results, or a good action with bad results? Also factor in the intent.

Just because moral good and bad can be very difficult to determine, doesn't invalidate the concepts. I like to use color blindness to explain this: for some people it is almost impossible to distinguish between light green and light red, but that doesn't mean that those concepts are invalid.

Quote:

What I value may differ from what someone else values.

Yes, but your natural needs do not differ from anyone else's.

Quote:
Frankly, it doesn't matter. Merely the possibility that a useful member might be aborted rules out the idea that abortion must definitely benefit the society.

So we should discard all potentially beneficial methods if there's a risk involved, no matter the degree?

Quote:

All humans share radical equality. This is an objective moral truth, it is not an opinion.

Humans aren't equal. People have different ranges of skills, abilities, intellect, etc. And this inequality is needed for society to function, as we need scientists and artists along with workers. However, when the power lies disproportionally in the hands* of, or in favor** of the average-below average citizens, you get a lot of problems.

*democracy
**socialism

Also, please elaborate on how radical equality of humans is an objective moral truth.

Quote:

Umm...ok. I don't see why this matters, but whatever.

You asked, so I felt obliged to offer an explanation. The universe exists independently from humanity. It has no use for our constructs, ideas, or life. If we go, it carries on without us.

Quote:

The fact that we can observe all humans share the same natural needs gives the idea of natural rights backing.

Then we're responsible for preserving ourselves. More on this in my last paragraph.

Quote:

Just because moral good and bad can be very difficult to determine, doesn't invalidate the concepts. I like to use color blindness to explain this: for some people it is almost impossible to distinguish between light green and light red, but that doesn't mean that those concepts are invalid.

Moral good, on an objective level, is impossible to determine, so that alone invalidates it. Colors are observable as a physical phenomenon through our senses, but that doesn't give them any meaning beyond a way to make sense of our surroundings. They're a definition we assign to different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Also, the wavelengths exist independently of us, whereas morality is a complete human invention.

Quote:

Yes, but your natural needs do not differ from anyone else's.

True. However, people have different degrees of insight on how to best fulfill their natural needs while not screwing over society at large. If society goes, most of us go, so in order to fulfill our natural need for survival, society needs to be maintained. And sometimes that means violating the natural rights of others that are threats to functionality (for the sake of the argument, I'll assume that abortion, removing social safety nets, executing criminals, etc. would fall under that category).

It's impossible to create a world that's both sustainable and allows everyone to live in perfect peace, harmony, and equality. Just doesn't happen in nature. Such is life.

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 12.10.2010 at 00:18

So we should discard all potentially beneficial methods if there's a risk involved, no matter the degree?

My point was only that which you yourself confirm - that abortion is potentially beneficial to the society, but not necessarily. I didn't elaborate on what we should or should not do.

Quote:

Humans aren't equal. People have different ranges of skills, abilities, intellect, etc. And this inequality is needed for society to function, as we need scientists and artists along with workers.

I didn't say all humans share absolute equality, that is false. All humans share radical euqality in that we all have the same needs and we are all rational beings, and all humans share superficial inequality like the ones you mentined.

Quote:

Also, please elaborate on how radical equality of humans is an objective moral truth.

We can observe that: "All humans share radical euqality in that we all have the same needs and we are all rational beings". Now, if morality were, whatever we prefered it to be, i don't think that we could make that kind of rational moral statement. We would neither need to, nor be able to make a rational statement that applied to an arbitrary subject.

Quote:

You asked, so I felt obliged to offer an explanation. The universe exists independently from humanity. It has no use for our constructs, ideas, or life. If we go, it carries on without us.

That's like one of my friends saying that life has no meaning because the universe doesn't care. My response is: I am not talking about the universe and I don't care whether the universe cares. I care about me, you, the people around me and mankind in general. Whether or not the universe cares about these things is irrelevant to me, because I am not talking about the universe.

Quote:

Moral good, on an objective level, is impossible to determine, so that alone invalidates it.

No it isn't and no it doesn't. You cannot say that and not back it up with something.

Quote:

Colors are observable as a physical phenomenon through our senses, but that doesn't give them any meaning beyond a way to make sense of our surroundings. They're a definition we assign to different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Also, the wavelengths exist independently of us, whereas morality is a complete human invention.

Morality doesn't exist independently of our natural rights, which do not exist independently of our natural needs. How is it a human invention?

Quote:

True. However, people have different degrees of insight on how to best fulfill their natural needs while not screwing over society at large. If society goes, most of us go, so in order to fulfill our natural need for survival, society needs to be maintained. And sometimes that means violating the natural rights of others that are threats to functionality (for the sake of the argument, I'll assume that abortion, removing social safety nets, executing criminals, etc. would fall under that category).

If we agree that humans share radical equality (natural rights) then I that's that. We agree that there is an objective moral standard - right and wrong, good and evil.

Quote:

It's impossible to create a world that's both sustainable and allows everyone to live in perfect peace, harmony, and equality. Just doesn't happen in nature. Such is life.

That claim displays an unwarranted level of certainty, but nonetheless I agree that humans suck at creating peace and I don't think a perfectly moral society could ever exist either. But that doesn't mean morals are subjective, they never have been, they never will be.

Over and out.

Quote:
My point was only that which you yourself confirm - that abortion is potentially beneficial to the society, but not necessarily. I didn't elaborate on what we should or should not do.

I'd still say that it has a definite benefit: population reduction. The (small) chance of aborting someone of potentially high value can be counteracted by improving our society, which can be done through a system that fosters competition and specialization, as opposed to regressing toward forced egalitarianism. In addition, we need a greater discourse of ideas, which means instead of having knee jerk reactions to "unacceptable" ones (don't do what the UK is doing...), they need to be discussed and examined on multiple levels.

Quote:
I didn't say all humans share absolute equality, that is false. All humans share radical euqality in that we all have the same needs and we are all rational beings, and all humans share superficial inequality like the ones you mentined.

Yes. However like I previously mentioned, ensuring our survival means creating conditions that could disadvantage less functional humans, possibly leading to their demise, and in some contexts, outright violating what would be called their natural rights.

Quote:
We can observe that: "All humans share radical euqality in that we all have the same needs and we are all rational beings". Now, if morality were, whatever we prefered it to be, i don't think that we could make that kind of rational moral statement. We would neither need to, nor be able to make a rational statement that applied to an arbitrary subject.

Again, I agree that we all have the same natural need. However, I don't see how it's possible to turn a biological observation into an objective moral construct. It's a bit of a stretch. Especially when comparing ourselves to other organisms. In nature, animals kill to survive. We set up communities to unite for a common goal (survival) forgoing the law of the jungle. Each community creates its own agreements, values, standards, etc. In order to maintain those, potential threats to stability need to be weeded out. Less modernized tribes simply kill the threats. Within their cultural context, that's perfectly acceptable.

However, put into context with Western influenced societies, selecting and killing individuals would threaten societal stability, as our governments and values are ill-suited for such a practice. Basically, there needs to be an indirect way of doing so. Allowing some sort of Social Darwinism to take hold would be much more appropriate. Stop subsidizing life, rewarding failure, and cut back on public services. The acceptability of abortion, at least in America, still hasn't reached a conclusion. Lots of disagreement on how far into pregnancy abortion should be offered, it at all, and if it's consistent with our values.

In short, different values and ideas work for different countries and cultures. There is no "one size fits all" solution, thus negating objective morality. Also, it shouldn't be assumed that I'm saying subjective morals, values, etc. are completely worthless, as despite their objective existence, they allow for a more stable and functioning society (unless carried to a neurotic extreme). But subjective morality is another topic altogether, which I'm willing to discuss.

Quote:

That's like one of my friends saying that life has no meaning because the universe doesn't care. My response is: I am not talking about the universe and I don't care whether the universe cares. I care about me, you, the people around me and mankind in general. Whether or not the universe cares about these things is irrelevant to me, because I am not talking about the universe.

Overall, life has no meaning, which allows us to individually assign our own personal meaning to it. Whether we place that to a deity, biology, the universe, ourselves, or anything else is up to the individual. We're here. Might as well enjoy it, while realizing life isn't a free ride. We have to put in work to survive, and if an organism is generally dysfunctional, it becomes a threat to our survival, and learns to either adapt or it gets eliminated. If life had a meaning beyond our perception of one, it would be clearly defined. Again, not saying subjectivity is worthless.

Quote:

No it isn't and no it doesn't. You cannot say that and not back it up with something.

Reread my previous posts. They do more than enough to back it up. Biological need =/= objective morality =/= personal preference.

Quote:

Morality doesn't exist independently of our natural rights, which do not exist independently of our natural needs. How is it a human invention?

It's purely a mental/emotional construct, ingrained through evolution. Nothing external supports it on an objective level. Unless you want to delve into religion and theology, which is a good recipe for all sides/viewpoints going in circles while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Quote:
If we agree that humans share radical equality (natural rights) then I that's that. We agree that there is an objective moral standard - right and wrong, good and evil.

Never said that it's an objective moral standard. Just a biological need. No right/wrong, good/evil, or any other universal judgments involved. Ensuring survival means you might have to tread into what might be considered immoral waters if holding the survival of all humans as a standard.

Quote:

That claim displays an unwarranted level of certainty, but nonetheless I agree that humans suck at creating peace and I don't think a perfectly moral society could ever exist either. But that doesn't mean morals are subjective, they never have been, they never will be.

Over and out.

Until you can prove there's a link between every person's biological needs and objective morality, I'm standing by my argument.

...this is pretty much gonna go on forever.

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 12.10.2010 at 06:12

Quote:

Yes. However like I previously mentioned, ensuring our survival means creating conditions that could disadvantage less functional humans, possibly leading to their demise, and in some contexts, outright violating what would be called their natural rights.

Which doesn't invalidate obejective moral as I stated it. At all.

Quote:

Again, I agree that we all have the same natural need. However, I don't see how it's possible to turn a biological observation into an objective moral construct.

If we can observe that all men are born equel (sharing the same needs), then it logically follows that they are all born with the same rights. What are you not seeing about this?

Quote:

It's a bit of a stretch. Especially when comparing ourselves to other organisms. In nature, animals kill to survive. We set up communities to unite for a common goal (survival) forgoing the law of the jungle. Each community creates its own agreements, values, standards, etc. In order to maintain those, potential threats to stability need to be weeded out. Less modernized tribes simply kill the threats. Within their cultural context, that's perfectly acceptable.

Except animals have no moral responsibility as all of their actions are either reflexive or instinctive, and moral truths aren't dependent on what is or is not culturally accepted.

Quote:

However, put into context with Western influenced societies, selecting and killing individuals would threaten societal stability, as our governments and values are ill-suited for such a practice. Basically, there needs to be an indirect way of doing so. Allowing some sort of Social Darwinism to take hold would be much more appropriate. Stop subsidizing life, rewarding failure, and cut back on public services. The acceptability of abortion, at least in America, still hasn't reached a conclusion. Lots of disagreement on how far into pregnancy abortion should be offered, it at all, and if it's consistent with our values.

All you're saying here is that not all societies are the same or work very well - meaning that unlike individuals they don't share radical equality. That doesn't invalidate moral truths. At all. Again.

Quote:

In short, different values and ideas work for different countries and cultures. There is no "one size fits all" solution, thus negating objective morality.

Except this doesn't validate moral truth. At all. Again. The very fact that you keep insisting upon different societies needing and accepting different solutions = that societies don't share radical eqality and therefore societies don't share natural rights, only individuals do. But all we've ever been talking about is individuals of the species as having equality. Furthermore the fact that some societies are in need of a population reduction and others are not means it is an aquired need, not a natural one.

Quote:

Overall, life has no meaning, which allows us to individually assign our own personal meaning to it.

Which is ok and has no baring on concepts like moral truth.

Quote:

Reread my previous posts. They do more than enough to back it up. Biological need =/= objective morality =/= personal preference.

Except it is perfectly logical to conclude that the same needs equel the same rights. And just because some society benefit from violations of those rights doesn't invalidate those rights. At all.

Quote:

It's purely a mental/emotional construct, ingrained through evolution. Nothing external supports it on an objective level. Unless you want to delve into religion and theology, which is a good recipe for all sides/viewpoints going in circles while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Except we can objectively conclude via logic that the same needs = the same rights. You have done nothing to demonstrate this to be false. Talking about religion is missing the point completely. If there was a God deciding what is morally right or wrong, then we would no longer be talking about objective morals. THEN we would be talking about subjective morals that are simply agreed upon but not necessarily based on observable reality - you know, your version.

Quote:

Until you can prove there's a link between every person's biological needs and objective morality, I'm standing by my argument.

If the needs are the same, then the rights cannot be different, that wouldn't follow. Feel free to stand by what you want, so long as you stop ignoring the fact that there is a logical reason why I claim that humans share radical equality.

Quote:

...this is pretty much gonna go on forever.

It wouldn't if you accepted that moral truths exist.

Quote:

It wouldn't if you accepted that moral truths exist.

The way I see it is that we both have pretty different thinking styles, at least in this aspect. So this really isn't going anywhere and has become locked in stagnation. I still can't see how an objective moral statement can be derived from a biological need or how a subjective mental construct can be made universal. It would need a higher authority or an external backing to have any universal application beyond an enforced opinion.

So no, I'm not going to concede, as you haven't convinced me, and I don't expect you to concede either.

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 13.10.2010 at 01:58

The way I see it is that we both have pretty different thinking styles, at least in this aspect.

That's a given.

Quote:

So this really isn't going anywhere and has become locked in stagnation. I still can't see how an objective moral statement can be derived from a biological need or how a subjective mental construct can be made universal. It would need a higher authority or an external backing to have any universal application beyond an enforced opinion.

Fine, let's just end it here then, it's been fun. I just want to mention that a higher authority backing up moral would not be making the moral objective, but just enforcing it. If a higher authority would indeed be deciding moral, then it would no longer be objective.

I'm off to drink coffee now, a subjectively good experience awaits!

Written by [user id=105293] on 13.10.2010 at 08:13

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 13.10.2010 at 01:58

The way I see it is that we both have pretty different thinking styles, at least in this aspect.

That's a given.

Quote:

So this really isn't going anywhere and has become locked in stagnation. I still can't see how an objective moral statement can be derived from a biological need or how a subjective mental construct can be made universal. It would need a higher authority or an external backing to have any universal application beyond an enforced opinion.

Fine, let's just end it here then, it's been fun. I just want to mention that a higher authority backing up moral would not be making the moral objective, but just enforcing it. If a higher authority would indeed be deciding moral, then it would no longer be objective.

I'm off to drink coffee now, a subjectively good experience awaits!

And I'm off to study bio psych. This may be entertaining, or perhaps not, depending on the mind-state of the student and their personal definition and values. Or coming from an objective standpoint, it will suck. Studying for exams is objectively not fun.

Ahahaha.

Kill the damn thing and never look back .

No seriously, here's what I think: I have no idea and neither do you. Simply because we haven't come to a consensus on that yet that would see us wind up this debate once and for all. Just let the person(s) concerned do what they deem best for themselves and stop arguing over it as if you were gods. You can't tell whether it's murder or not, nor can you judge those who think it is, or not for that matter. If you have nothing against it, well, go out and knock your girlfriend up (if she's also okay with it of course ). On the other hand, if you find it unethical or perhaps intolerable, then just don't do it. But the bottom line is, you can only decide for yourself and nobody else.

Maybe the couple that wanted to get rid of it aren't financially stable and knew already that if they had kept it they would have been in so much trouble that even him growing up would have blamed them for giving birth to him with no financial support whatsoever at his disposal. Or maybe they did it because the girl thought her ass (sorry, bad word ) would look bigger and her baby would refrain her from having fun, or the boy thought having this baby would mean that he's going to be stuck with that girl for the rest of his life.

The first couple clearly were brave for doing the abortion and deserve to be saluted for that, whereas, the second couple deserve to be thrown in a mosh pit of crazy drunk metalheads. But the action remains the same, they both did the same thing.

Whether we like it or not, people will keep having kids and the abortion will always be there. If you're okay with it, good for you, if not, use your head...just a little bit but for crying out loud stop meddling in people's lives.

Written by [user id=105293] on 12.10.2010 at 11:03

Except we can objectively conclude via logic that the same needs = the same rights.

An example perhaps?

Anyway, if something is a human invention, it doesn't necessarily have to be subjective. Think about chess for example. It's a made up game, but the rules apply the same to everyone who play, if you change the rules, it's no longer chess. Same holds for language, mathematics and moral discourse and "snakes and ladders". "At least that's what I have come to understand"(Jack Skellington).

I think somewhere down the line you have confused moral realism and moral objectivism. Realism - stuff exists independently. Objectivism - stuff can't be changed by any number of subjects. Everything that is real, is also objective, but not everything that is objective, is necessarily real. (I think. This one might be a bit flawed.)

Sorry to barge in like that.

But about abortion. I suggest a paper "Abortion and Infanticide" by Michael Tooley, this is kind of a zero point from which one should start arguing. This answers most questions and arguments raised here (at least those I read) in a very simple and elegant way. They make people read that paper in introductory ethics classes. I'm not sure I'm allowed to post it here, but perhaps you find it somewhere. I really do suggest you read it.

I don't understand why people make a big deal out of Abortion, I mean, if a person chooses to abort, they will not affect the rest of the world in any way. It isn't as if the procedure poses any real threat to society like a murderer would(since Abortion's often coined "murder"). I also don't understand how people can be so ignorant about the subject and protest the whole thing just because they think they know everything(when in reality they've only been looking for anything bad to say about it). Most people tend to think that it's only the irresponsible who have to chosen to get the easy way out the consequences, but they fail to take into account if the person was raped and unable to support the child, or if they had the unfortunate news that they have foetus that wouldn't even be alive when they give birth to it because maybe it had issues while it was developing it's vital organs or something. Personally, I think that people should have every right to do what they please as long as they don't harm another person(by the way, a foetus isn't a person - yet). What people choose to do with themselves is their business and nobody has any right to interfere no matter how weird it may be to you. Besides, the word is overpopulated anyway, we could do with fewer people.

Written by sallyjay on 04.07.2012 at 12:04

I don't understand why people make a big deal out of Abortion, I mean, if a person chooses to abort, they will not affect the rest of the world in any way. It isn't as if the procedure poses any real threat to society like a murderer would(since Abortion's often coined "murder"). I also don't understand how people can be so ignorant about the subject and protest the whole thing just because they think they know everything(when in reality they've only been looking for anything bad to say about it). Most people tend to think that it's only the irresponsible who have to chosen to get the easy way out the consequences, but they fail to take into account if the person was raped and unable to support the child, or if they had the unfortunate news that they have foetus that wouldn't even be alive when they give birth to it because maybe it had issues while it was developing it's vital organs or something. Personally, I think that people should have every right to do what they please as long as they don't harm another person(by the way, a foetus isn't a person - yet). What people choose to do with themselves is their business and nobody has any right to interfere no matter how weird it may be to you. Besides, the word is overpopulated anyway, we could do with fewer people.

Pretty much agree with ya there. Especially people who are raped. Imagine how awful it would be raising a child bearing the traits of someone who was like an evil, heinous criminal, plus you didn't want the child in the first place. That would just be hell.

I confess that as an economist in training I'm about as utilitarian as one can be and I absolutely hate the concept of morality. With this being said this is how I argue my favorable position to abortion when confronted with the "pro-life" crowd.

Lets make a few reasonable assumptions:
1. A life-capable embryon/fetus is considered alive.
2. Every human life is worth the same.
3. Abortion equals to homicide.
4. Our goal is to preserve life.

With this being said lets draw a very simple set of conclusions:
If one abortion prevents one death then society is better off by legalizing abortion. If it does not then society is better off by outlawing it.

When we make these assumptions abortion ceases to be a hard moral question and becomes one driven by data. If we look at the date we will see a very nice inverse relationship between abortion and homicides (not only that but also other serious crimes). This a alone already offsets the "murders" abortion causes, but then you also have to factor in the lives preserved due to the abortions being performed in proper clinics and by experienced professionals rather than at home or at a shady clinic.

This happens because most of the people that get abortions are low income minorities (talking about the US). These are also the groups that have the highest crime incidents which can be seen due to the inverse correlation between abortion and serious crime rates. There is an interesting study on this matter by Steven Levitt (he is the guy who wrote Freakonomics).

Personally I think there is some PROS and CONS but its often situational.

Like if its an ''accident'', like you had protection and something happened that was out of your control.. or you're not in a situation where you can provide for the child (because of age, wealth...) I guess the decision should be yours and you shouldn't be frowned upon for ''aborting''. Of course I understand that there is a moral concern about this but its not like you did everything to put yourself in this situation. Of course there is always the case of adoption... but is that really a life for a kid? I mean some live awesome lives raised in nice families, but there is always some exceptions, you can't predict that.

But on the other hand I seriously think some girls (please don't hate me) are really searching for it... I mean if you can't be mature enough to control your fucking
sex life, assume it. Seriously I know a girl that aborted 3 times, and it was from 3 different guys for fucks sake? Anyways at some point it gets ridiculous.

As for abortion itself im not against it, but to a certain extent. Use your wits fuck lol

Written by Guib on 09.08.2012 at 08:49

Personally I think there is some PROS and CONS but its often situational.

Like if its an ''accident'', like you had protection and something happened that was out of your control.. or you're not in a situation where you can provide for the child (because of age, wealth...) I guess the decision should be yours and you shouldn't be frowned upon for ''aborting''. Of course I understand that there is a moral concern about this but its not like you did everything to put yourself in this situation. Of course there is always the case of adoption... but is that really a life for a kid? I mean some live awesome lives raised in nice families, but there is always some exceptions, you can't predict that.

But on the other hand I seriously think some girls (please don't hate me) are really searching for it... I mean if you can't be mature enough to control your fucking
sex life, assume it. Seriously I know a girl that aborted 3 times, and it was from 3 different guys for fucks sake? Anyways at some point it gets ridiculous.

As for abortion itself im not against it, but to a certain extent. Use your wits fuck lol

You have to keep in mind that the girls that get aborted also have to talk to a specialist and/or therapist/psychologist (well that is the way it is done in Québec anyway). So these girls know very well what they did and what they are going or not going to do (abortion wise). Not to mention that prevention and education starts with kids at a relatively young age (before high school).

Therefore, I think the State is doing what it needs to do to concerning abortion. Of course, it is a shame that some people still ''don't get it'', and use abortion as contraception. But basicaly the majority of abortion cases are not of this nature, fortunately. And as most social issues and polities, an abusing minority should not be the basis of a restriction for the majority.

The main concern should be the liberty and well being of all members of society. That liberty being the control over one's body (and one's future), it is better protected with positive abortion policies rather then restrictive abortion policies.

PS : I am aware you are not against what I am stating, I just used your post as the basis to push the idea a little further.

I can give you a pretty short opinion on this. I think it's completely up to her. There really are women out there who are not fit to be parents. If they have those children they will just end up in the system and our tax dollars will have to be spent taking care of them.

I honestly see no cons in abortion.

I kind of want to become an abortion doctor in the future. I'd be getting paid to stick my hand in vaginas, getting paid to kill babies (I hate babies), and would be trolling the fuck out of jesus freaks. Seriously sounds like a dream job.

I am against killing. I believe that it is not the role of a human to cause any life to end. This is a matter of souls and humans, nothing else, and abortion should be illegal just like murder. I realize that I do sound really obnoxious, and I'm sorry for that, its just what I believe. It also may sound hypocritical coming from a thrash fan, but I feel like music about death is more spreading awareness than glorifying it. There's another question, are your life beliefs reflected in your music? Ill have to start a thread on that one once I have enough posts.

I'm not a fan of abortion, especially if the family can support the child, but sometimes it is necessary, I also don't think that I should have more control over a woman's body than she does, so it would not be my choice to make.

Written by [user id=136470] on 07.11.2012 at 22:21

I am against killing. I believe that it is not the role of a human to cause any life to end. This is a matter of souls and humans, nothing else, and abortion should be illegal just like murder. I realize that I do sound really obnoxious, and I'm sorry for that, its just what I believe. It also may sound hypocritical coming from a thrash fan, but I feel like music about death is more spreading awareness than glorifying it. There's another question, are your life beliefs reflected in your music? Ill have to start a thread on that one once I have enough posts.

So I take it you are a vegetarian?