N
nicholasG
Guest
Killing for the sake of killing is immoral because it would produce no good for anyone not because it’s morally wrong to take a life? Sounds cold and statistical. I’m afraid real life is not like that.
- Status
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Intuition always exists, you could go by a ethical reductionism and say ask ‘why why why’.
It’s always going to end up on some intuition.
My intuition is that person is not morally obligated to be a host for someone, even if that results in someone being saved.
If you disagree, than you would be fine with forced blood transfusion for example and any other forced use of someones body to help another person.
Empathy is useful, but it can’t form a moral system. l have empathy, that’s why l am pro-choice. l feel much more empathy for a mother who is forced to suffer for something she doesn’t want, than a fetus or embryo, who don’t have any traits necessity for being a human(not as a species).
How? l was clear that sentience comes in degrees, even a bug would have some very limited sentience.
l don’t think my logical system is absolutely perfect, far from it. But generally consequentialism is the strongest school of normitive ethics. Sentience based approach l used seems to be most consistent, as if you reject it, than you either have to accept eastern view of ‘Life has value on it’s own’ or view of some religions (Only humans have moral worth)
It’s always going to end up on some intuition.
My intuition is that person is not morally obligated to be a host for someone, even if that results in someone being saved.
If you disagree, than you would be fine with forced blood transfusion for example and any other forced use of someones body to help another person.
Empathy is useful, but it can’t form a moral system. l have empathy, that’s why l am pro-choice. l feel much more empathy for a mother who is forced to suffer for something she doesn’t want, than a fetus or embryo, who don’t have any traits necessity for being a human(not as a species).
How? l was clear that sentience comes in degrees, even a bug would have some very limited sentience.
l don’t think my logical system is absolutely perfect, far from it. But generally consequentialism is the strongest school of normitive ethics. Sentience based approach l used seems to be most consistent, as if you reject it, than you either have to accept eastern view of ‘Life has value on it’s own’ or view of some religions (Only humans have moral worth)
N
Nonatheist
Guest
That would case many problems.
Many things are considered a life, even cells and plants.
So, is killing them as bad as killing dogs or humans?
All sane human agrees that killing dogs is wrong, but why?
l say, because dogs are sentience and conscience, they can experience emotions etc.
And l base my morality on that.
Many things are considered a life, even cells and plants.
So, is killing them as bad as killing dogs or humans?
All sane human agrees that killing dogs is wrong, but why?
l say, because dogs are sentience and conscience, they can experience emotions etc.
And l base my morality on that.
E
Elf01
Guest
Say I’m starving and I have to kill either a dog or a newborn human who can’t feel pain to eat it to survive. Which should I kill?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Then we can only hope that no one ever finds themselves dependent on you. So long.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
You would be justified in killing either or.
As morality doesn’t exist in life/death situation.
As dog is more sentient, it would have higher moral value, so killing it would be ‘worse’ than killing a baby.
As morality doesn’t exist in life/death situation.
As dog is more sentient, it would have higher moral value, so killing it would be ‘worse’ than killing a baby.
E
Elf01
Guest
Are you vegan?
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Literally no, but l agree with Vegan philosophy.
Though l am not fully against humans not eating meat, l am against the idea that animals suffer just for profit. It makes me sick.
Though l am not fully against humans not eating meat, l am against the idea that animals suffer just for profit. It makes me sick.
J
jochoa
Guest
Can you recognize the lack of morality in the following hypothetical, regardless of whether you consider the twins persons or life?
The analogy falls short in that the violinist requires unnatural man-made technology to keep the violinist alive, whereas a child in the womb isn’t plugged in with something unnatural.
And applying the analogy equally:
If someone forced a man-made plug between a mother and her child in the womb in efforts to keep the child alive, the mother is not morally obligated to remain plugged.
However, I can’t imagine a plausible scenario.
- A mother is pregnant with twins
- She believes she can only afford one child
- She elects to kill one of the children.
- A mother is pregnant with twins (a boy and a girl)
- The mother believes the daughter will have a hard life in a unfair world
- She elects to kill the daughter
The analogy falls short in that the violinist requires unnatural man-made technology to keep the violinist alive, whereas a child in the womb isn’t plugged in with something unnatural.
And applying the analogy equally:
If someone forced a man-made plug between a mother and her child in the womb in efforts to keep the child alive, the mother is not morally obligated to remain plugged.
However, I can’t imagine a plausible scenario.
Last edited:
N
Nonatheist
Guest
First example:
That action would be immoral if we look at the world today, adoption is possible as well.
So if women wants one child, giving birth to another wouldn’t make her situation worse, so she would be justified in killing it.
If there was an example where food had enough food just for her and one child, and had no help, than l think killing the other fetus would be justified.
Second example:
This really depends on the intention, if women REALLY just didn’t want her child to suffer, than l think she would be MORALLY justified(she wouldn’t act immorally), intentions matter.
l see things like death, pain, and lack of freedom as intrinsically bad things, and health,life and freedom as intrinsically good. Those things can’t ever be not bad.
Someone can however have a justification for actions that would result in loss of those things.
That does seem to be an arbitrary naturalistic distinction, why would it matter that one is natural and other one isn’t?
That action would be immoral if we look at the world today, adoption is possible as well.
So if women wants one child, giving birth to another wouldn’t make her situation worse, so she would be justified in killing it.
If there was an example where food had enough food just for her and one child, and had no help, than l think killing the other fetus would be justified.
Second example:
This really depends on the intention, if women REALLY just didn’t want her child to suffer, than l think she would be MORALLY justified(she wouldn’t act immorally), intentions matter.
l see things like death, pain, and lack of freedom as intrinsically bad things, and health,life and freedom as intrinsically good. Those things can’t ever be not bad.
Someone can however have a justification for actions that would result in loss of those things.
That does seem to be an arbitrary naturalistic distinction, why would it matter that one is natural and other one isn’t?
N
nicholasG
Guest
Sorry but the only thing I can deduce from these comments is that you deliberately being Insincere or you are grossly immature.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Why though? l think l was quite rational in my argument.
N
nicholasG
Guest
Your arguments do not reflect real life. Now I know you are being Insincere.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
But money is a good reason.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l based my argument on real life.
l asked myself, why do we value certain animals more than the others.
It always ends up with sentience, dog has more value than a bug because dog can feel much more pain, is conscience and can feel emotions
l asked myself, why do we value certain animals more than the others.
It always ends up with sentience, dog has more value than a bug because dog can feel much more pain, is conscience and can feel emotions
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l disagree.
l don’t see profit every as a good reason to justify any moral action, profit is what makes man forget what morality is.
l don’t see profit every as a good reason to justify any moral action, profit is what makes man forget what morality is.
Y
YADA
Guest
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...what you say,birth, according to new research.
Learning language begins in the womb -
Babies begin thinking before birth
And even recognize faces and respond from other shapes they ignore - from the womb
www.telegraph.co.uk
A fetus is the earliest stage of a human person - its worth does not change in relation to its stage of development from conception to natural death. Whether you murder an unborn baby, or murder a 25 year old, or a 65 year old - its all murder, it is all immoral …No person is truly valued or safe from extermination if your life only has meaning if it is desired by another. If a person can kill another person based on their personal desires, economic circumstances or whim then no one is safe.
I hope you never become a parent until your biased opinions change - I find your arguments illogical and your respect for others non-existent due to changes in you “opinions” of what makes their life have value. I would be fearful for those around you, especially if they loose some factor you deem important for their life to have worth .
Learning language begins in the womb -
Babies begin thinking before birth
And even recognize faces and respond from other shapes they ignore - from the womb
Babies can recognise faces while still in the womb, scientists find
Babies can recognise faces while still in the womb, new research suggests.
www.telegraph.co.uk
A fetus is the earliest stage of a human person - its worth does not change in relation to its stage of development from conception to natural death. Whether you murder an unborn baby, or murder a 25 year old, or a 65 year old - its all murder, it is all immoral …No person is truly valued or safe from extermination if your life only has meaning if it is desired by another. If a person can kill another person based on their personal desires, economic circumstances or whim then no one is safe.
I hope you never become a parent until your biased opinions change - I find your arguments illogical and your respect for others non-existent due to changes in you “opinions” of what makes their life have value. I would be fearful for those around you, especially if they loose some factor you deem important for their life to have worth .
N
nicholasG
Guest
Your arguments (value system) is more apropos to computer games than real life. If I took your view then love is nothing more than animal sexual attraction, nothing else.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l looked at the links, both apply only to third trimester, and both are instinctual. They are no conscience behaviors.
Second point doesn’t leave me much room to respond. Why give life some specific value?
l can accept if you believe that, by in that case you have to accept that ALL life as equal. Even the life of plants, bugs and cells.
Only factor they can lose for me to deem their life worthless is sentience, that can only happen in the case of total braindeath.
Second point doesn’t leave me much room to respond. Why give life some specific value?
l can accept if you believe that, by in that case you have to accept that ALL life as equal. Even the life of plants, bugs and cells.
Only factor they can lose for me to deem their life worthless is sentience, that can only happen in the case of total braindeath.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l am not a naturalist, also love is an emotion, it has nothing to do with morality.
Love could be just a chemical reaction in a human brain, or it could be a part of a human soul.
Either way, that wouldn’t go against my theory
Love could be just a chemical reaction in a human brain, or it could be a part of a human soul.
Either way, that wouldn’t go against my theory
- Status