Abortion ethics--help

[ateista]

sure, but i still don’t understand why that should make a moral difference.

is it because you subscribe to some kind of deep relation between morality and property rights, and perhaps also believe that ownership of the body is something like the most basic example of a(n inalienable) right to property?

I wish that there were inalianable rights, I really do. But there are none. A right is always granted by some entity, which has the power to enforce it. The same entity can take that right away, and enforce that, too. It all boils down to power.

not on all theories of taxation, i’m afraid…

Well, if taxation is voluntary, and there are no repercussions for failing to pay those taxes, then you are right. However, I never heard of such a system. If you do not pay the property taxes, you will lose your house. Alan Sherman wrote once that in the US the government let’s us play Monopoly with our money, properties, etc… but as soon as it sees fit, it can trample on all our property rights, because it has more power than any individual.

by “moral”, i just mean the moral norms that apply to human action. like “one ought not intentionally to kill another person”.

It is very nice, but much too vague. Especially since there is always an “unless…”, as we all know.

well, it is (or was) either immoral or not; in that sense, the morality of cannibalism is objective.

Objective, for sure. But not absolute. There was the famous and true story of the people whose plane crashed in the Andes and they had to survive by eating the dead passengers. Was their action moral, or not?

but do you fervently hope that it won’t change simply because you like things the way they are right now? or because you believe that, if things did change in the way you describe, we would then be part of an unjust regime?

I hope because the soceity which does not grant the right to self-determination is repulsive to me.

and i’m young and cynical enough…kind of sad, really.

Well, let’s call ourselves realistic instead of cynical, and everything will look better.

in what sense are fundamental rights “fundamental”, though?

Just what I consider very important to make life enjoyable. To me these are negative rights. To be left alone as long as I do not actively harm others. (Of course the devil is in the details. Maybe we could talk about them in another thread.)

 

[john_doran]

Well, if taxation is voluntary, and there are no repercussions for failing to pay those taxes, then you are right. However, I never heard of such a system. If you do not pay the property taxes, you will lose your house. Alan Sherman wrote once that in the US the government let’s us play Monopoly with our money, properties, etc… but as soon as it sees fit, it can trample on all our property rights, because it has more power than any individual.

that’s not really what i was talking about…

you said that if something is taxed, then it was never really yours - that is a statement about property and ownership, and one that does not hold on every theory of rights.

ateista:

It is very nice, but much too vague. Especially since there is always an “unless…”, as we all know.

A) it is about as specific a norm as you can get: it describes a specific, morally unrectifiable intention; and

B) there is no “unless”: the specified intention is always unrectifiable.

ateista:

Objective, for sure. But not absolute.

not true: whatever the answer might be to the moral question concerning specific acts of cannibalism, that answer will be the same for anyone else forming identical intentions in the same circumstances. that’s what i mean by “absolute”.

i agree with you, though, that cannibalism is not always wrong.

ateista:

There was the famous and true story of the people whose plane crashed in the Andes and they had to survive by eating the dead passengers. Was their action moral, or not?

i don’t know, because i was not privy to the intentions behind their individual acts; i can tell you that i believe it’s entirely possible to commit morally legitimate acts of cannibalism, though.

ateista:

I hope because the soceity which does not grant the right to self-determination is repulsive to me.

right. so you don’t believe in objective moral judgments like “the nazi regime was unjust”, but only preferential judgments like “i don’t like the nazi regime”. which also means that all you can say about rape or murder, for example, is that you don’t like them.

ateista:

Well, let’s call ourselves realistic instead of cynical, and everything will look better.

it’s the fact that i think it’s simply a realistic outlook that makes me sad: i wish the world was different, you know?

ateista:

Just what I consider very important to make life enjoyable. To me these are negative rights. To be left alone as long as I do not actively harm others. (Of course the devil is in the details. Maybe we could talk about them in another thread.)

so “fundamental” just means something like “most important to me”…

 

[ateista]

that’s not really what i was talking about…

you said that if something is taxed, then it was never really yours - that is a statement about property and ownership, and one that does not hold on every theory of rights.

I am not sure what you mean here. A “right” to do, or not to do, or possess something is a social contract. (It makes no sense to apply this term for a single individual living alone on an island.)

The “right” simply means that the individual can do, not do, etc… the something that is protected by the “right” - without fear of repercussion. If another individual would violate that right, the contract assures that the soceity will apply force against the one who violated that “right” - and hopefully will try to restore the orginal status quo (if possible). That is the only definition I am aware of.

A) it is about as specific a norm as you can get: it describes a specific, morally unrectifiable intention; and

B) there is no “unless”: the specified intention is always unrectifiable.

not true: whatever the answer might be to the moral question concerning specific acts of cannibalism, that answer will be the same for anyone else forming identical intentions in the same circumstances. that’s what i mean by “absolute”.

i agree with you, though, that cannibalism is not always wrong.

i don’t know, because i was not privy to the intentions behind their individual acts; i can tell you that i believe it’s entirely possible to commit morally legitimate acts of cannibalism, though.

I see now, and I agree with you. If one very carefully and presicely defines all the circumstances (which includes the intent) concerning an act, then one can say that this act was moral or immoral.

Our disagreement came from the fact that people make generic statements, like: “theft is always immoral, no matter, what the circumstances were, no matter what the intents of the thief were”.

This kind or generalization is what I was arguing against.

Is this the time for a champange to celebrate an impotrant agreement?

right. so you don’t believe in objective moral judgments like “the nazi regime was unjust”, but only preferential judgments like “i don’t like the nazi regime”. which also means that all you can say about rape or murder, for example, is that you don’t like them.

Yes, I agree with you. (The bottle is getting empty shortly, time to open another one…) Likewise I would say that treating other sentient beings as objects for amusement only is always immoral. I would say that torturing even non-sentient beings for amusement only is always immoral.

As long as we are precise in the description of the circumstances of the event, I agree that we can make objective moral judgments.

it’s the fact that i think it’s simply a realistic outlook that makes me sad: i wish the world was different, you know?

I sure do. My wish is the same.

so “fundamental” just means something like “most important to me”…

Yes, pretty much!

 

[john_doran]

I am not sure what you mean here. A “right” to do, or not to do, or possess something is a social contract. (It makes no sense to apply this term for a single individual living alone on an island.)

The “right” simply means that the individual can do, not do, etc… the something that is protected by the “right” - without fear of repercussion. If another individual would violate that right, the contract assures that the soceity will apply force against the one who violated that “right” - and hopefully will try to restore the orginal status quo (if possible). That is the only definition I am aware of.

fair enough…suffice it to say that there are differing opinions both as to the fundamental nature of rights, their relation (if any) to morality, and to both justice and the law.

that’s really the only point i was making.

ateista:

I see now, and I agree with you. If one very carefully and presicely defines all the circumstances (which includes the intent) concerning an act, then one can say that this act was moral or immoral.

Our disagreement came from the fact that people make generic statements, like: “theft is always immoral, no matter, what the circumstances were, no matter what the intents of the thief were”.

This kind or generalization is what I was arguing against.

Is this the time for a champange to celebrate an impotrant agreement?

i’ve got a bottle-and-a-half in the fridge…maybe i’ll go crack 'em open.

ateista:

Yes, I agree with you. (The bottle is getting empty shortly, time to open another one…) Likewise I would say that treating other sentient beings as objects for amusement only is always immoral. I would say that torturing even non-sentient beings for amusement only is always immoral.

agreed on both counts.

ateista:

As long as we are precise in the description of the circumstances of the event, I agree that we can make objective moral judgments.

I sure do. My wish is the same.

again, agreed.

ateista:

Yes, pretty much!

“fundamental” as it is most commonly used in legal and political philosophy, usually also means or entails inviolability…

 

[mdzialo]

You might check out Dr. Peter Simpson’s recent essay on the topic:

aristotelophile.com/Books/Articles/Nov07AbortionSimpson.pdf