Arguing About Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter VanitasVanitatum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VanitasVanitatum said:
We can just discard whoever we want then and times are tough now, but a survival of the fittest morality is not ethical at all.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much where Hume’s reasoning leads. The “bodily autonomy” notion is an attempt to carve out a special right to eliminate unborn offspring. But as established earlier, it leads to just your conclusion.
 
Hume said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
I suppose by that logic no one owes anything to anyone.
Click to expand...
If they don’t agree to it, not really. The only exceptions are typically death and taxes.

To argue otherwise is to argue some sort of necessary slavery.

Best of luck with that.
Click to expand...
So human beings don’t have moral obligations unless they “agree to” them?

You may want to reconsider that idea.

A rapist has no “obligation” to not rape unless he first agrees to a moral code?

If he doesn’t agree to a moral code he has no obligation to it? Doesn’t owe anything to anyone?

Heck that notion even undermines your own libertarian principle that your freedom stops where the nose of another begins.

Sounds like the caveat to that principle is precisely the issue I have been pointing out all along — your liberty principle cannot be constrained by morality BECAUSE morality and liberty are frequently at odds.

You have now confirmed by suspicion because you admit no one “owes” anything to anyone (not even adherence to a moral code) unless they first agree to it.
 
Hume said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
The problem with this view is that it depends entirely upon whether your metaphysics are true.
Click to expand...
Nothing in metaphysics can be shown as demonstrably true. That why we hide it behind “meta” and smirk.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. “WE” don’t “hide behind” the “meta.” Perhaps YOU do, but I take it quite seriously because the “meta” determines everything in rational discourse even the stuff “we” don’t want to admit.

Every claim of yours has a “meta” something behind it — it may be implicit or some interlocutors (present company excepted, of course) may have devolved to the level of the bonobos to un-see it, but it IS there.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Yeah, no. “WE” don’t “hide behind” the “meta.” Perhaps YOU do, but I take it quite seriously because the “meta” determines everything in rational discourse even the stuff “we” don’t want to admit.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the biggest problem with it. It’s limiting principle is, well, rather limited.

It can include things that may very well not exist.

A great concerto of The Nothing, en extremis.
Every claim of yours has a “meta” something behind it — it may be implicit or some interlocutors (present company excepted, of course) may have devolved to the level of the bonobos to un-see it, but it IS there.
Click to expand...
You just want there to be so I’m as vulnerable the same darts as you.

But there isn’t. I readily offer up that if it’s not observable, it doesn’t objectively exist.

Now, the thing may still exist in a way (like love, beauty, so on), but not in an objective way.
HarryStotle said:
So human beings don’t have moral obligations unless they “agree to” them?
Click to expand...
The broader collective, yeah. Long live democracy, right?
HarryStotle said:
A rapist has no “obligation” to not rape unless he first agrees to a moral code?
Click to expand...
The broad collective will punish the rapist if he rapes in a way that’s forbidden (rape in some instances in history was advocated. Right of first night, (Insert ethinicity)-ization, so on.

If he rapes in a way not permitted, he’ll have to hide or escape from the dominion of the collective that deems it verboten.
HarryStotle said:
Heck that notion even undermines your own libertarian principle that your freedom stops where the nose of another begins.
Click to expand...
I agree, which is why law against it is so common, particularly in more modern, less superstitious, less radical society.
HarryStotle said:
Sounds like the caveat to that principle is precisely the issue I have been pointing out all along — your liberty principle cannot be constrained by morality BECAUSE morality and liberty are frequently at odds.
Click to expand...
As I’ve been saying literally all along, we restrain freedom when we can make a good reason for it. Apropos, law - with all it’s flaws.
HarryStotle said:
You have now confirmed by suspicion because you admit no one “owes” anything to anyone (not even adherence to a moral code) unless they first agree to it.
Click to expand...
If you don’t agree with the common laws of the collective, then you are free to do that. But you must either not actively violate those laws (and face punishment) or you must leave their physical dominion so as to be beyond those laws.
 
A week ago, I proved that Hume’s ethic is tyranny, and showed him a substitute which was not tyranny. He ignored it.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
Liberty is the default unless you can prove the righteous tyranny that constrains it.
Click to expand...
You’re mistaken because you are relying on an axiom not the default. So in reality you have to prove your position too.
 
Last edited:
The default is always “undefined”.

Morally, that’s liberty. Free moral agency.

Thanks, van!
 
Hume said:
The default is always “undefined”.

Morally, that’s liberty. Free moral agency.

Thanks, van!
Click to expand...
That includes prohibiting abortion for whatever which was my point.
 
Last edited:
You can’t make the argument for why women should be constrained so.

Another swing and a miss…
 
Hume said:
You can’t make the argument for why women should be constrained so.

Another swing and a miss…
Click to expand...
That’s because I am relying on the default so I don’t need one theoretically.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
Sure. To constrain liberty you have to make an argument.

You cant.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t because liberty is the default and that allows liberty to be constrained.
 
Last edited:
“Total freedom is total tyranny”! What? These two human
powers are diametrically opposite each other!
 
I agree

As a society, we agree on reasonable constraints all the time. Like stop signs.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top