A Philosophical Debate On The Problem Of Abortion

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t know what it has to do with smart, but I’m sure Plato (and/or Socrates) was smarter than any of us and he seemed to believe that the philosopher doesn’t care at all about his reputation, he is in love with the true and the good, the opinions of slavish men don’t interest him at all.

Yes, i understand your point. But i am sure that plato would not want to be accused of being a liar and a deceiver, and neither would he willfully do anything to bring that accusation upon himself, short of expressing the truth.

 

[Oreoracle]

You present them in the way you want them to appear. In other words you have been making straw-men and redefining the meaning of words, so you can make it appear as if you have defeated the arguement.

I don’t think I’ve misrepresented anything, but perhaps you mean something else. We’ll go through this slowly and I’ll ask plenty of questions along the way, okay? That way, no one has to accuse the other of misrepresentation.

Anybody with enough sense and honesty will see that you are refusing to see the differential distinction between an embryo that is producing a person and the potentiality to become pregnant;

 

[Oreoracle]

Before I go to bed, I want to address your point about not killing coma patients. This is a genuine issue that utilitarianism cannot handle fully. For one, I agree that the life of a coma patient who may recover is valuable, and that this seems to contradict my position on abortion. There are several reasons why I hold these positions even though it is somewhat contradictory, however (no ethical system fully complies to our desires, of course, so contradictory positions are to be expected).

First of all, coma patients are far fewer in number than non-sentient fetuses. Preserving their lives, then, is much easier than ensuring that the lives of fetuses will be preserved. Secondly, the necessities of the coma patient are already accounted for–we don’t have to worry about how they’ll grow up with parents who don’t want them, or how their schooling, food, and shelter will be afforded, etc. Thirdly, coma patients are usually old enough to have an identity in society. The services they provided to others will be gone, and those close to the person will suffer if he dies.

Now you might ask why I prefer utilitarianism even though it isn’t perfect. That’s simply because I think it is the best. No system is perfect. We all choose the systems that have the fewest inconsistencies with our own feelings.

In addition, I have another major objection to the Catholic position on abortion that I haven’t yet mentioned. I will bring it up if we get that far. Good night.

 

[tonyrey]

. Indeed, life only seems to be worthwhile because happiness (the satisfaction of preferences) is involved.

According to this argument life ceases to be worthwhile if happiness seems unattainable. Therefore mercy killing is justified in every such case. Do you believe that?

The fetus is unable to be happy or feel pain. Therefore, its life, at its current stage, possesses no inherent value.

You yourself were unable to be happy or feel pain before you were born. Does that mean your mother would have been justified in aborting you?
Do you believe all unborn children can be aborted because they are unable to be happy or feel pain? The fact remains that they have inherent value because they will become able to be happy and feel pain if their lives are not terminated unnaturally.
That does not mean of course that sentience is the only reason why life is valuable…

 

[a_priori]

Therefore, its life, at its current stage, possesses no inherent value. You might think this all sounds cold, but my rejection of the value of a non-sentient fetus is the result of consistently applying an ethical system. It is far from baseless.

As you sit and type at your computer, what makes you “inherently valuable”? For that matter, just what IS “inherent value”?

 

[catharina]

I don’t know what is this business of extrinsic value being a “means to an end,” but as far as truth goes, I value it because, firstly, it makes me happy, and secondly, its opposite (falsehood) causes me great distress.

Since you claim to value truth, it being supportive of your personal happiness, explain please what truth can be found in the use of abortion as a medical treatment since no illness or condition mandates its use, rather the state of pregnancy is routinely used as the “need” for the “treatment” of abortion. In truth, pregnancy is not an illness requiring “treatment” by abortion.

 

[Fran65]

There are several reasons why I hold these positions even though it is somewhat contradictory…
First of all, coma patients are far fewer in number than non-sentient fetuses. Preserving their lives, then, is much easier than ensuring that the lives of fetuses will be preserved.

I have to smile at this. I was an RN and worked in ICU. You clearly have little idea of how much work, technology, time and money goes into trying to save the life of someone in a coma. (A much broader category than most are aware of btw)

Secondly, the necessities of the coma patient are already accounted for–we don’t have to worry about how they’ll grow up with parents who don’t want them, or how their schooling, food, and shelter will be afforded, etc.

Full recoveries are very rare and coma survivors need varying levels of support and care. This is unpredictable but can be devasting.

Thirdly, coma patients are usually old enough to have an identity in society. The services they provided to others will be gone, and those close to the person will suffer if he dies.

Unfortunately it is often the case that the person who ‘wakes up’ bears little resemblance to the person that they were before the coma inducing event. This is why there are support groups for those dealing with and living with a loved one with a head injury or similar. It is often all too frequent that the ‘services’ you refer to are indeed gone and often their family and friends suffer - albeit the suffering of someone not physically bereaved but psychologically bereaved. I have personally heard the wife of a coma survivor say that its like being a widow but living with the moving, talking body of her lost husband.

Your reasons for differentiating between coma patients and the unborn fetus do not stand up to scrutiny. That’s the problem with the type of ethical system you seem to subscribe to.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your reasons for differentiating between coma patients and the unborn fetus do not stand up to scrutiny. That’s the problem with the type of ethical system you seem to subscribe to.

My father spent almost two months in a coma, sustaining a closed head injury, and I couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said here.

 

[Oreoracle]

I have to smile at this. I was an RN and worked in ICU. You clearly have little idea of how much work, technology, time and money goes into trying to save the life of someone in a coma. (A much broader category than most are aware of btw)

I wasn’t aware that it was so difficult to let a machine do most of the work while the nurses refill some of the substances (the patient’s food and such). As long as you have the electricity, maintaining a comatose patient doesn’t seem to require much else, though I imagine that this depends on why the person is in a coma to begin with.

In any case, I’d be willing to bet that it would be more difficult, in terms of both resources and suffering, to make a decent life for an unwanted child. Children who are adopted don’t tend to be the most successful, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. It’s not worth the risk that the child will grow up without proper parenting, proper schooling, etc. I have a friend whose childhood was ruined by the process of moving from one foster home to another. Luckily, they turned out okay, but many can’t say the same.

Full recoveries are very rare and coma survivors need varying levels of support and care. This is unpredictable but can be devasting.

I don’t see how it would matter if the patient didn’t recover fully. They need only be sentient, and then they are valuable.

Unfortunately it is often the case that the person who ‘wakes up’ bears little resemblance to the person that they were before the coma inducing event. This is why there are support groups for those dealing with and living with a loved one with a head injury or similar. It is often all too frequent that the ‘services’ you refer to are indeed gone and often their family and friends suffer - albeit the suffering of someone not physically bereaved but psychologically bereaved. I have personally heard the wife of a coma survivor say that its like being a widow but living with the moving, talking body of her lost husband.

Really? Is this the case for most coma patients? I thought that patients were put into a comatose state for many surgeries. Most of them seem to wake up and be very much like they were before, albeit slightly more wary of hospitals. Again, I think we should ask ourselves why the person is in a coma to begin with before making any sort of ethical decision. Wouldn’t you agree?

Seriously, it would be great if you could give me more information on this topic. I’m underinformed, as you can tell. But it would be even better if you could provide some sources–perhaps websites. As you know, we’re on an internet forum, so it would be naive of me to assume that you’re an authority on this topic just because you say you’ve had experience. Nothing personal, I’m just being cautious.

 

[Oreoracle]

According to this argument life ceases to be worthwhile if happiness seems unattainable. Therefore mercy killing is justified in every such case. Do you believe that?

Not quite. In many cases, relatives, friends, and others (perhaps those informed by the media) are so attached to the patient that a mercy killing would cause some degree of social outrage. Because of the emotional attachment of relatives to the victims, the victim will have to suffer just to keep said relatives emotionally stable.

You yourself were unable to be happy or feel pain before you were born. Does that mean your mother would have been justified in aborting you?

Certainly. In fact, my mother had to endure immense, prolonged pain and nearly died from the pregnancy. This was because she was involved in an accident with a drunk driver. In addition to the other trauma done to her body, my presence in the womb caused the scar tissue on her belly (from the accident) to stretch. I was born 25 days early with jaundice. My mother’s mother had seven children, four of which died right after birth.

Yeah, so I think I know what I’m talking about when I say that every pregnancy isn’t hunky-dory like the Church would have you think. The risk that the mother will die is very real, and people like you are to blame when they feel too ashamed to save their own lives and refuse abortion. It disgusts me.

As you sit and type at your computer, what makes you “inherently valuable”? For that matter, just what IS “inherent value”?

Well, to be technical, my life isn’t inherently valuable. Only pleasure and pain have inherent value. Thus, the ability to feel (sentience) is what allows us to produce these positive and negative values. Life is only good insofar as it causes the production of pleasure, the inherent good.

 

[Betterave]

Not interested in answering my questions Oreo? If you grant the validity of my reductio ad absurdum, could you at least acknowledge this? Thanks!
(Or if you’re unfamiliar with this argumentative technique or need other clarification, let me know too… actually if you don’t know what a reductio is, just google it.)

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
According to this argument life ceases to be worthwhile if happiness seems unattainable. Therefore mercy killing is justified in every such case. Do you believe that?
Not quite. In many cases, relatives, friends, and others (perhaps those informed by the media) are so attached to the patient that a mercy killing would cause some degree of social outrage. Because of the emotional attachment of relatives to the victims, the victim will have to suffer just to keep said relatives emotionally stable.

So you do believe the life of an unborn child ceases to be worthwhile if its happiness seems unattainable?

In fact, my mother had to endure immense, prolonged pain and nearly died from the pregnancy.

You are citing an exceptional case. Do you believe its inability to be happy or feel pain is sufficient reason for aborting an unborn child?

Yeah, so I think I know what I’m talking about when I say that every pregnancy isn’t hunky-dory like the Church would have you think.

A false assertion…

The risk that the mother will die is very real, and people like you are to blame when they feel too ashamed to save their own lives and refuse abortion. It disgusts me.

Your emotive utterance is quite false… The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our own conscience. Have you heard of the principle of the lesser of two evils?

 

[Oreoracle]

Sorry. I forgot about this one.

Well, well! Sorry you took it that way, I know it sounded sarcastic, but it was supposed to be a valid reductio ad absurdum of your view. Hopefully you can try to see that.

I just don’t think a lot of thought was put into the criticism. You assumed that I held the same meta-ethical views as a Christian.

You wrote and I quoted: “It is clearly part of our progressive nature to decide…etc.” What do you mean by saying that what I quoted pertained to metaphysics, not ethics?

I mean that the statement can only be said to be ethical if I also said that the progress of nature is morally significant in itself. Christians sometimes do this by referring to their not-so-natural “Natural Law,” but I do no such thing. As I said, throughout history, ethics has always involved humans picking and choosing what we like and don’t like about nature (life over death, pleasure over pain, etc.). There’s nothing objective about it. It’s merely a species expressing their desire for their environment to be a certain way, and it often isn’t that way.

That being said, I’m an emotivist. The way I see it, ethics arise from emotions and are not objective. Also, I’m a utilitarian. You will notice that utilitarianism does not derive its values from metaphysics but from psychology (the tendency of sentient beings to seek pleasure and avoid pain).

(Most people would take it to be obvious that metaphysics has very important implications for ethics, especially metaphysical questions surrounding the person, agency, free will, God, immortality, etc.)

And these people always fail to answer the questions: why is God’s desire any better than my own? Why should his will be satisfied? Because you claim he’s perfect and leave it at that??

 

[Oreoracle]

So you do believe the life of an unborn child ceases to be worthwhile if its happiness seems unattainable?

Again: the value it has is directly proportional to the utility of its life. The more the unborn child and others value its life, the more utility it has. Obviously, the unborn child is not sentient and is not increasing the utility of its own life. This means its utility is entirely dependent on the feelings of the others, since it has no feelings of its own.

You are citing an exceptional case.

You can’t spout absolute rules and acknowledge exceptions at the same time. If there are exceptions to the rule, there is no rule. That’s why kids in English class don’t like hearing, “i before e except after c.” It doesn’t apply in all cases, so it’s not a rule.

Do you believe its inability to be happy or feel pain is sufficient reason for aborting an unborn child?

It’s not a “reason” for anything. I’m not saying, “Abort it because it doesn’t feel!” I’m saying that I don’t see any harm done in aborting it if the mother chooses to do so. And if the mother chooses to do so, we can say further that the fetus has negative utility (it is causing more suffering than happiness), and that could be a reason to abort it.

Your emotive utterance is quite false… The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our own conscience. Have you heard of the principle of the lesser of two evils?

Oh, you mean that teaching that directly contradicts everything else the Church said about morality? Yeah, I’ve heard it. How exactly does that principle apply here?

 

[a_priori]

Well, to be technical, my life isn’t inherently valuable. Only pleasure and pain have inherent value. Thus, the ability to feel (sentience) is what allows us to produce these positive and negative values. Life is only good insofar as it causes the production of pleasure, the inherent good.

I applaud you for at least being consistent. You are correct. In a mechanical universe the stars are incapable of conferring value to anything or anyone. But, oddly enough, to God even nihilists have value.

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5667272#post5667272)                 
             *So you do believe  the life of an unborn child ceases to be worthwhile if its happiness seems unattainable?*
                             Again: the value it has is directly proportional to the utility of its life.

Do you believe then that the life of anyone whose life seems useless is valueless?

The more the unborn child and others value its life, the more utility it has.

How does the unborn child value its life? Does the value of life depend entirely on the **subjective **evaluation of a few individuals?

Obviously, the unborn child is not sentient and is not increasing the utility of its own life. This means its utility is entirely dependent on the feelings of the others, since it has no feelings of its own.

That is a very precarious basis for its right to life. A lot of us wouldn’t be here if that is the sole reason for keeping us alive. It would depend on how people were feeling at that particular time.

You can’t spout absolute rules and acknowledge exceptions at the same time. If there are exceptions to the rule, there is no rule. That’s why kids in English class don’t like hearing, “i before e except after c.” It doesn’t apply in all cases, so it’s not a rule.

So the law against killing a person ceases to be a law because one is allowed to kill in self-defence?

Quote:
Do you believe its inability to be happy or feel pain is sufficient reason for aborting an unborn child?
It’s not a “reason” for anything. I’m not saying, “Abort it because it doesn’t feel!”

Your original statement: “The fetus is unable to be happy or feel pain. Therefore, its life, at its current stage, possesses no inherent value.” This suggests that there is no reason for it to be kept alive. Why keep it alive if it is valueless?

I’m saying that I don’t see any harm done in aborting it if the mother chooses to do so.

So the destiny of the unborn child depends **entirely **on the whim of its mother?

And if the mother chooses to do so, we can say further that the fetus has negative utility (it is causing more suffering than happiness), and that could be a reason to abort it.

Are you referring to physical pain, emotional trauma or what? How do you assess happiness? In terms of convenience?

•                     The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our own conscience. Have you heard of the principle of the lesser of two evils?            *

Oh, you mean that teaching that directly contradicts everything else the Church said about morality?

How does it contradict everything else the Church has said about morality?

How exactly does that principle apply here?

From what you have stated it seems you believe it would have been better if you had been aborted to prevent your mother from grievous suffering. But in such cases surely it is for the mother to decide. If she sincerely believes she will suffer excessively and may die she is justified in asking for the pregnancy to be terminated. We do not believe in life at all costs regardless of the consequences. In any moral decision three factors have to be taken into account: the intention, the means and the end. The end alone does not justify the means but if the intention is good and the end is good there is also the principle of the double effect. In the case of an abnormal pregnancy it is permissible to perform a procedure that will result in the death of the unborn child if the intention is to save the life of the mother. There have been some women who have chosen to die rather than let their unborn child die. Who are we to say that they were misguided? Even though we disagree on other thingss I’m sure you’ll agree that we all have the right to decide such matters for ourselves after due consultation with others. The buck rests with us…

 

[Oreoracle]

Do you believe then that the life of anyone whose life seems useless is valueless?

That depends on what you mean by “useless.” Can you recite the utilitarian definition of “utility” for me? I need to make sure you understand it before I give the affirmative. Otherwise, you’ll just shower me with baseless accusations.

How does the unborn child value its life?

It doesn’t. That’s the point.

Does the value of life depend entirely on the **subjective **evaluation of a few individuals?

It can depend on the subjective evaluation of many individuals. Can you give me an example of value that does not arise from subjective evaluation? Think about it like this: If everything in the universe were to lose consciousness, including God, would anything be valuable? No consciousness/opinions/emotions = no value.

So the law against killing a person ceases to be a law because one is allowed to kill in self-defence?

Laws are not moral absolutes and were never intended to be. They aren’t morals because they aren’t prescriptive. Instead, they describe a punishment that you will be forced to endure if you are found guilty of commiting a particular crime.

And we don’t have laws against killing people. We have laws against murder. The motivation for murder is, by definition, the malice held by the murderer toward the victim. If someone kills another with the intention to defend oneself, it’s not murder, but manslaughter.

So the destiny of the unborn child depends **entirely **on the whim of its mother?

Almost 100% of the time, yes. Since the mother is the one enduring the grueling process of pregnancy, and is one of the two (usually) who will have to raise the child, which will take up a good deal of the next 18-21 years of her life, I would say her feelings outweigh others in most cases.

Are you referring to physical pain, emotional trauma or what? How do you assess happiness?

“Happiness/pleasure,” as I’ve told you, is defined as the feeling produced by the satisfaction of preferences. “Pain/suffering” is defined as the feeling produced by the dissatisfaction of preferences. A preference is usually considered a compulsion to a goal of some kind.

How does it contradict everything else the Church has said about morality?

Have you ever read any work on Catholic ethics? Catholics hate worrying about consequences. I should know; communism is disliked for this very reason. Communism is considered an evil ideology by Catholics on the grounds that, “It’s good to share, but the action loses all of its goodness if sharing is required.” Catholics have to believe that consequences don’t matter in order to justify worshipping a god who would allow so much suffering in the world. In Catholicism, intention makes or breaks the goodness of the action. This is why Catholics reject that the world could be good if suffering and sinning were made impossible; if we don’t have the free will to choose to make others suffer, they say, then goodness doesn’t exist.

From what you have stated it seems you believe it would have been better if you had been aborted to prevent your mother from grievous suffering.

Obviously, my mother very strongly wanted me to be born. Since her happiness rested on my birth, I had positive utility, so it would have been wrong to abort me. If she had wanted an abortion, I would have had negative utility, and abortion would have been the right course of action.

 

[tonyrey]

 Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5669197#post5669197)                 
             *Do you believe then that the life of anyone whose life seems useless **is*** valueless?

Can you recite the utilitarian definition of “utility” for me?

How about “conducive to happiness”?

Quote:
How does the unborn child value its life?
It doesn’t. That’s the point.

Then why did you write:"The more the unborn child and others value its life, the more utility it has?

                                             Does the value of life depend entirely on the **subjective **evaluation of a few individuals?

It can depend on the subjective evaluation of many individuals. Can you give me an example of value that does not arise from subjective evaluation? Think about it like this: If everything in the universe were to lose consciousness, including God, would anything be valuable? No consciousness/opinions/emotions = no value.

If the physical universe did not exist there would be no basis for life, consciousness, emotions or value. Since it provides a basis for rational and sentient existence it must be valuable.

                                             So the law against killing a person ceases to be a law because one is allowed to kill in self-defence?

Laws are not moral absolutes and were never intended to be. They aren’t morals because they aren’t prescriptive. Instead, they describe a punishment that you will be forced to endure if you are found guilty of committing a particular crime.

So if you can evade punishment there is no reason not to commit a crime? Laws are just based on expediency?

                                             So the destiny of the unborn child depends **entirely **on the whim of its mother?

Almost 100% of the time, yes. Since the mother is the one enduring the grueling process of pregnancy, and is one of the two (usually) who will have to raise the child, which will take up a good deal of the next 18-21 years of her life, I would say her feelings outweigh others in most cases.

So in this case morality is based entirely on **one **person’s feelings? The father and the child itself should not be taken into account?

                                             Are you referring to physical pain, emotional trauma or what? How do you assess happiness?

“Happiness/pleasure,” as I’ve told you, is defined as the feeling produced by the satisfaction of preferences. “Pain/suffering” is defined as the feeling produced by the dissatisfaction of preferences. A preference is usually considered a compulsion to a goal of some kind.

So if you have a preference for agnosticism it is because you are compelled to have that preference?

                                             How does it contradict everything else the Church has said about morality?

Have you ever read any work on Catholic ethics? Catholics hate worrying about consequences.

Please give a precise reference to substanatiate this statement.

Quote:
From what you have stated it seems you believe it would have been better if you had been aborted to prevent your mother from grievous suffering.
Obviously, my mother very strongly wanted me to be born. Since her happiness rested on my birth, I had positive utility, so it would have been wrong to abort me. If she had wanted an abortion, I would have had negative utility, and abortion would have been the right course of action.

So her happiness was more important than your life. Even if her pregnancy had been perfectly normal she would have been justified in preventing you from having an opportunity to enjoy life in this world? Doesn’t it occur to you that would have been rather selfish of her?

 

[tonyrey]

Oreoracle;5670214:

 Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**

                 [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5669197#post5669197)                 
             *Do you believe then that the life of anyone whose life seems useless **is*** valueless?

Can you recite the utilitarian definition of “utility” for me?
How about “conducive to happiness”?

Quote:
How does the unborn child value its life?
It doesn’t. That’s the point.

Then why did you write:"The more the unborn child and others value its life, the more utility it has?

                                             Does the value of life depend entirely on the **subjective **

evaluation of a few individuals?
It can depend on the subjective evaluation of many individuals. Can you give me an example of value that does not arise from subjective evaluation? Think about it like this: If everything in the universe were to lose consciousness, including God, would anything be valuable? No consciousness/opinions/emotions = no value.
If the physical universe did not exist there would be no basis for life, consciousness, emotions or value. Since it provides a basis for rational and sentient existence it must be valuable.

So the law against killing a person ceases to be a law because one is allowed to kill in self-defence?
Laws are not moral absolutes and were never intended to be. They aren’t morals because they aren’t prescriptive. Instead, they describe a punishment that you will be forced to endure if you are found guilty of committing a particular crime.

So if you can evade punishment there is no reason not to commit a crime? Laws are just based on expediency?

                                             So the destiny of the unborn child depends **entirely **

on the whim of its mother?
Almost 100% of the time, yes. Since the mother is the one enduring the grueling process of pregnancy, and is one of the two (usually) who will have to raise the child, which will take up a good deal of the next 18-21 years of her life, I would say her feelings outweigh others in most cases.
So in this case morality is based entirely on **one **person’s feelings? The father and the child itself should not be taken into account?

Are you referring to physical pain, emotional trauma or what? How do you assess happiness?
“Happiness/pleasure,” as I’ve told you, is defined as the feeling produced by the satisfaction of preferences. “Pain/suffering” is defined as the feeling produced by the dissatisfaction of preferences. A preference is usually considered a compulsion to a goal of some kind.

So if you have a preference for agnosticism it is because you are compelled to have that preference?

How does it contradict everything else the Church has said about morality?
Have you ever read any work on Catholic ethics? Catholics hate worrying about consequences.

Please give a precise reference to substantiate this statement.

Quote:
From what you have stated it seems you believe it would have been better if you had been aborted to prevent your mother from grievous suffering.
Obviously, my mother very strongly wanted me to be born. Since her happiness rested on my birth, I had positive utility, so it would have been wrong to abort me. If she had wanted an abortion, I would have had negative utility, and abortion would have been the right course of action.

So her happiness was more important than your life. Even if her pregnancy had been perfectly normal she would have been justified in preventing you from having an opportunity to develop into a mature person and enjoy life? Doesn’t it occur to you that it would have been rather selfish of her?

 

[Betterave]

Sorry. I forgot about this one.

I just don’t think a lot of thought was put into the criticism. You assumed that I held the same meta-ethical views as a Christian.

I mean that the statement can only be said to be ethical if I also said that the progress of nature is morally significant in itself. Christians sometimes do this by referring to their not-so-natural “Natural Law,” but I do no such thing. As I said, throughout history, ethics has always involved humans picking and choosing what we like and don’t like about nature (life over death, pleasure over pain, etc.). There’s nothing objective about it. It’s merely a species expressing their desire for their environment to be a certain way, and it often isn’t that way.

That being said, I’m an emotivist. The way I see it, ethics arise from emotions and are not objective. Also, I’m a utilitarian. You will notice that utilitarianism does not derive its values from metaphysics but from psychology (the tendency of sentient beings to seek pleasure and avoid pain).

And these people always fail to answer the questions: why is God’s desire any better than my own? Why should his will be satisfied? Because you claim he’s perfect and leave it at that??

No problem, thanks for getting to it now. I think that you think a lot of groundless things (such as that not a lot was put into my criticism or that you have answered it). I suggest you read the thread Prodigal Son started on fishy argumentation. Where are you getting the claim that I assumed your meta-ethical views were the same as a Christian’s (whatever you suppose that to be - as if their were one meta-ethical view held by all Christians!)?

As I understand, your meta-ethical view is emotivist, your ethical view is utilitarian (you haven’t specified which kind - I’ll guess Bentham-style (naive hedonism) utilitarianism?), and your metaphysical view is naturalism. So how does any of this, assuming I have understood your position correctly, imply that I made false assumptions about your views? Nothing you wrote here takes me by surprise or appears to be counter to any assumption that I made.

(In future, please don’t tell me about “these people” - you don’t know me, I’m not “these people”, and that kind of generalization is just stupid. The questions that you say “these people” always fail to answer also seem to be irrelevant to anything that I said. If you think certain questions are relevant to this argument, explain how and ask them. I’ll either explain to you why they’re not relevant, do my best to answer them, or grant your point. Thanks.)