E
Elf01
Guest
The justification is the same before and after birth, and unless I’m mistaken you would give a fetus due to be born in a week the same moral worth as a newborn?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That means that things that can’t consent can have anything happen to them. This would also apply to sleeping people and babies.Fetus can’t consent, consent principle applies only to being that can rationally consent(age depends on the type of consent),
Last edited:
N
Nonatheist
Guest
If we lived in a world where no person would want to take care of disabled child that will never be independent, than yes l think that killing after birth will be even mercy to some extent.
But we don’t live in such world, there are people who would want to take care of such child.
So, if women decides not to give birth to such child, she has justifications on the ground of giving birth hurting her, and also on the ground that child will be a burden.
When child is born, someone is going to take care of it even if child it’s self is a burden.
At that point, killing child wouldn’t have a justification.
But we don’t live in such world, there are people who would want to take care of such child.
So, if women decides not to give birth to such child, she has justifications on the ground of giving birth hurting her, and also on the ground that child will be a burden.
When child is born, someone is going to take care of it even if child it’s self is a burden.
At that point, killing child wouldn’t have a justification.
E
Elf01
Guest
So killing something that has no moral worth is justified if nobody else can take care of it?When child is born, someone is going to take care of it even if child it’s self is a burden.
At that point, killing child wouldn’t have a justification.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Consent principle applies mostly to things regarding freedom, not causing pain or death doesn’t require consent.
To that l would have to say that a sleeping person has to consent before going to sleap, things that require consent are by defaut immoral if commited without it.
As for difference between a sleeping man and a baby, l have to fall on a core difference between the two, one has reached the level of personhood while other didn’t.
l don’t think personhood can’t be temporary lost, only permanently(brain death).
To that l would have to say that a sleeping person has to consent before going to sleap, things that require consent are by defaut immoral if commited without it.
As for difference between a sleeping man and a baby, l have to fall on a core difference between the two, one has reached the level of personhood while other didn’t.
l don’t think personhood can’t be temporary lost, only permanently(brain death).
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
The man is no longer person because he no longer has the trait which constitue it.l have to fall on a core difference between the two, one has reached the level of personhood while other didn’t.
A sleeping person can’t just consent in advance and during the period where they are sleeping what you said previously oncenring the fetus would apply.To that l would have to say that a sleeping person has to consent before going to sleap, things that require consent are by defaut immoral if commited without it.
Last edited:
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l don’t think personhood can be temporary lost, as personhood is not a temporary state, but a permanent one.
So, permanent state can only be permanently lost
So, permanent state can only be permanently lost
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
How can that be reconciled with the fact they don’t show anysides of personhood?l don’t think personhood can be temporary lost, as personhood is not a temporary state, but a permanent one.
So, permanent state can only be permanently lost
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Only beings that have no moral worth are braindead beings.
Beings that in no way can suffer.
If there is ZERO chance of someone taking care of the child, which would result in child starving, than it’s more than justified, it’s even moral l would say.
Beings that in no way can suffer.
If there is ZERO chance of someone taking care of the child, which would result in child starving, than it’s more than justified, it’s even moral l would say.
U
upant
Guest
why stop at birth? why should she be burden with kids if she changes her mind after the birth?Women who doesn’t want a child benefits from more freedom and lack of suffering if she chooses to abort it.
logic doesn’t bring everyone to the same conclusion, what happens then? abortion is a good example, we disagree on the logic behind the act, who is right?They are based on logic. Authority is not needed for something to be absolute.
what if no one else wants the baby? is the mother free to end its life since the child is now a burden?It doesn’t have to be mother,
I don’t see a difference at all, both result in the same thing, a dead baby.Difference is that her getting an abortion would be more moral than just throwing the baby,
you consent to the possibility,When you consent to sex, you don’t always consent to being pregnant
doesn’t excuse personal responsibility. you live with the consequences. you don’t get to eliminate itSo, when you do something dangerous that has high risk of getting you hurt or killed, can doctors just reject you by saying ‘well, you accepted the risks’?
who gets to define the justificationNo, as l said, l base my morals on sentience, so if someone chooses to kill something sentient without a justification it would be immoral
try the biblel find no good explenation for that.
wouldn’t this justify eliminating drug dealers, etc?This has more to do with the violinist analogy, no being no matter how sentient it is has a right to live if that life reduces the freedom or damages another person.
you could use this argument to kill any child, any old person, any handicapped individual. you just need to set up the framework, location, etc.If there is ZERO chance of someone taking care of the child, which would result in child starving, than it’s more than justified, it’s even moral l would say.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l would say that once a being obtains a personhood, temporary states that reduce it don’t affect it, as their personhood is never lost but just temporary suspended.
blackforest
Well-known member
You admitted upthread that sentience is a philosophical concept. What qualifies as “sentient enough” is based on your personal opinion. That a baby’s passage out of the cervix indicates - poof! - instant, “acceptable” sentience is absurd. Or did you have another “poof!” moment in mind?l don’t think human have rights because they are humans, l think humans have rights because they are the most sentient beings.
Also, using your personal and subjective criteria for sentience, may I walk into the ICU of a hospital and start beating up a patient? By your rationale, why should she have rights if she lacks sentience?
N
Nonatheist
Guest
At that point, she can send them for an adoption, meaning that child can exist without her.
True, that’s why all my positions are temporary, if l see them as illogical l will change them.
If no other person on planet wants to take care of the child, than yes. It’s either that or starving. But that’s not real scenario.
Yes but not all deaths are similar, abortion is far less painful than starving to death, when most abortiosn are done fetus doesn’t even have a developed enough nervous system to feel any meaningful pail.
Okey, so you are fine with doctors rejecting a patient because ‘they were not cereful enough’? Lets agree to disagree.
Logic again, though it’s has some arbitrary thoughts in it.
l would rather not, l rejected divine revelation, if God existed(which l think is likely), than only reason will be needed to find him.
No, because those people are not dependent on other people to survive. If something lives only because of it’s host, than host has a right to remove it.
Not in the reality we live in, if some possible universe yes.
True, that’s why all my positions are temporary, if l see them as illogical l will change them.
If no other person on planet wants to take care of the child, than yes. It’s either that or starving. But that’s not real scenario.
Yes but not all deaths are similar, abortion is far less painful than starving to death, when most abortiosn are done fetus doesn’t even have a developed enough nervous system to feel any meaningful pail.
Okey, so you are fine with doctors rejecting a patient because ‘they were not cereful enough’? Lets agree to disagree.
Logic again, though it’s has some arbitrary thoughts in it.
l would rather not, l rejected divine revelation, if God existed(which l think is likely), than only reason will be needed to find him.
No, because those people are not dependent on other people to survive. If something lives only because of it’s host, than host has a right to remove it.
Not in the reality we live in, if some possible universe yes.
D
Dolphin
Guest
Are you hoping to prove to us that we should all be pro-choice? What is your motive here? Proving that we aren’t smart enough to know the logical arguments around abortion?
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Meaning of sentience l use is the same philosophers and general public uses.
What makes something sentient is set in stone, l compere animals on scientific level to find which has more or less sentience.
There is always going to be some subjectivity, but l think l was as objective as l could be.
What makes something sentient is set in stone, l compere animals on scientific level to find which has more or less sentience.
There is always going to be some subjectivity, but l think l was as objective as l could be.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
Not at all. l never expected coming here and convincing someone, l want to test my ideas.
To see some flaws in them, and to think how l can improve them or abandon them if they turn out to be bad.
To see some flaws in them, and to think how l can improve them or abandon them if they turn out to be bad.
blackforest
Well-known member
It’s not objective to say that you have a right to commit violence against another human being in a state of low sentience. It is your opinion, one you’re imposing on the most vulnerable among us.There is always going to be some subjectivity, but l think l was as objective as l could be.
N
Nonatheist
Guest
l choose sentience based approach, because l find it most objective.
l can ask questions like, why would creature have a moral worth, just because their are a part of a human species?
This can result in many different answers, two most common l noticed from Catholic people are
‘Human special because God’ or ‘Humans are special because of the ability to reason, which no other animal has, so only humans moral value’
Second argument is something that Tim Hsiao(A Catholic philosopher) likes to make.
l dislike both for many reasons.
So l think that sentience based approuch is the least arbitrary one
l can ask questions like, why would creature have a moral worth, just because their are a part of a human species?
This can result in many different answers, two most common l noticed from Catholic people are
‘Human special because God’ or ‘Humans are special because of the ability to reason, which no other animal has, so only humans moral value’
Second argument is something that Tim Hsiao(A Catholic philosopher) likes to make.
l dislike both for many reasons.
So l think that sentience based approuch is the least arbitrary one
D
Dolphin
Guest
I think this can only be answered if you are religious and say that humans are made in the image and likeness of God. If you don’t agree with this, then it is much harder to answer this questionwhy would creature have a moral worth, just because their are a part of a human species?
D
Dolphin
Guest
What is this violinist approach?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.