Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[jochoa]

What is this terror of subjectivity?

The chaos of subjectivity can be derived from an earlier statement of yours:

I don’t want to be raped therefore rape is bad.

Subjectivity grants that although you don’t want it, another might person might want to rape you and is indifferent to your feelings, and therefore, it would be good from their perspective. This is no doubt chaos and rape is objectively wrong, yet with subjectivity it would be both good and bad.

Are your aims in life going to be exactly the same as mine? Are our priorities going to match?

We all have identical aims: To get the most needs and wants fulfilled.
Since priorities are choices, we may or may not agree on priorities.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What is this terror of subjectivity?

The chaos of subjectivity can be derived from an earlier statement of yours:

I don’t want to be raped therefore rape is bad.

Subjectivity grants that although you don’t want it, another might person might want to rape you and is indifferent to your feelings, and therefore, it would be good from their perspective. This is no doubt chaos and rape is objectively wrong, yet with subjectivity it would be both good and bad.

I see. So if someone wants to assault me and there is an objective reason not to do so then I’m fine.

You think that would work? Actually, do you think that does work?

 

[jochoa]

I see. So if someone wants to assault me and there is an objective reason not to do so then I’m fine.

You think that would work? Actually, do you think that does work?

One evidence that suggests you are more likely to be fine when the assaulting party objectively knows it is wrong is 78% of Pregnant Women Seeing an Ultrasound Reject Abortions - LifeNews.com

When women understand that the child in their womb is objectively a child, they reject the assault that was about to be dealt to the child.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I see. So if someone wants to assault me and there is an objective reason not to do so then I’m fine.

You think that would work? Actually, do you think that does work?

One evidence that suggests you are more likely to be fine when the assaulting party objectively knows it is wrong .

Your link has nothing to do with subjectivity and relativity. But a lot to do with emotion.

 

[Abrosz]

Can you pick the greatest of loves, perhaps one that encompasses the others, and define that one?

No, because they are all important - for different reasons. Your request is like demanding to choose the “greatest” of all colors when contemplating a picture. Every kind of love is well defined, except maybe agape, and I DID give the proper definition of that one.

If a toe nail is somehow made into a zygote, I still support not killing the zygote.

Again you change the question. What about the toenail, itself? Cloning is an existing technology. As long as any cell can be “convinced” by some artificial means to start the process of eventually changing and growing into a human being, it can be viewed as a “potential human” or the first stage of a human being or simply a toenail. Is now the process of discarding a clipped toenail an “abortion”?

What’s the problem?

The definition of a human being. What is a mixed set of chromosomes (partially human, partially animal)? A chimera could have both lungs and gills - is it still a human? What if it has only gills, is it now an amphibian?

• What if you don’t have a nose, does the right of my fist end where your eyes begin?
• What if you don’t have any limbs, does the right of my fist end where your chest begins?
  Nth Degree. The right of my force ends where your body begins, even if your body is the body of a single celled zygote.

The meaning is simple, no need to overanalyse or dissect it. The single cell of a zygote is NOT a human being. Is the egg a potential chicken or an actual one? When you have a scrambled egg for breakfast, do you believe that you just had a fried chicken?

 

[jochoa]

No, because they are all important - for different reasons. Your request is like demanding to choose the “greatest” of all colors when contemplating a picture. Every kind of love is well defined, except maybe agape, and I DID give the proper definition of that one.

What type of love do you believe abortion is?
I say a selfish love, one that is indifferent to the flourishment of the humanity of the human being aborted.

Is now the process of discarding a clipped toenail an “abortion”?

In this hypothetical, discarding a toe nail wouldn’t be analogous to “abortion” because the toe nail is not a zygote or further developed human being.
And, this discussion helps me connect more dots to the morality of loving parents creating children, as will as the immorality of unloving parents creating children.
If one has the ability to create a zygote from a clipped toe nail, would it be moral to do so?
I say no on multiple accounts:

1. It is unloving to create a human being that has the right to a mom and dad’s love till death.
2. It amplifies selfishness in the one making the clone.

The definition of a human being. What is a mixed set of chromosomes (partially human, partially animal)? A chimera could have both lungs and gills - is it still a human? What if it has only gills, is it now an amphibian?

Do you know of a case of a chimera with human parents? You might be over analyzing things.

The meaning is simple, no need to overanalyse or dissect it. The single cell of a zygote is NOT a human being. Is the egg a potential chicken or an actual one? When you have a scrambled egg for breakfast, do you believe that you just had a fried chicken?

You should listen to your advice! No need to over analyze or dissect it. The egg of a chicken is definitely not human. Let’s focus on the egg of a human. Disclaimer: the following, if natural, is a good thing. When a lady endures menstruation, she has lost a potential human being. Perhaps this could also explain some experiencing pain and various moods. It might be like an unconscious reaction to losing a potential baby.

Yet in fairness, to answer your questions directly:
An egg inside a hen is a potential chicken.
I do not believe I am having fried chicken when eating scrambled eggs because the eggs in question have lost their potential to become a chicken.

 

[Abrosz]

I say a selfish love, one that is indifferent to the flourishment of the humanity of the human being aborted.

No one said that abortion is the sign of “love”.

Do you know of a case of a chimera with human parents? You might be over analyzing things.

In thought experiments every hypothetical scenario is allowed, except logically contradictory ones.

I do not believe I am having fried chicken when eating scrambled eggs because the eggs in question have lost their potential to become a chicken.

In the country it is quite possible that the egg has already been fertilized. Is the fertilized egg really a “chicken”? Or is it still a fertilized egg?

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

Do you know of a case of a chimera with human parents? You might be over analyzing things.

In thought experiments every hypothetical scenario is allowed, except logically contradictory ones.

I asked what’s the problem because if two humans sexually and naturally reproduce, and the offspring, for some unexplainable reason, looks and functions more like a fish, their offspring is still a human being. I really liked a definition for human being shared earlier: a human being is the offspring of humans.

jochoa:

I do not believe I am having fried chicken when eating scrambled eggs because the eggs in question have lost their potential to become a chicken.

In the country it is quite possible that the egg has already been fertilized. Is the fertilized egg really a “chicken”? Or is it still a fertilized egg?

Although I wouldn’t be able to distinguish the difference, it is a chicken that is in early stages of development.

When do you say the fertilized egg becomes a chicken?

 

[Abrosz]

I asked what’s the problem because if two humans sexually and naturally reproduce, and the offspring, for some unexplainable reason, looks and functions more like a fish, their offspring is still a human being. I really liked a definition for human being shared earlier: a human being is the offspring of humans.

What about the mutants? These questions are not simple. Simplistic answers are insufficient.

When do you say the fertilized egg becomes a chicken?

At the moment of hatching. Just like the medical student becomes a medical doctor at the time she receives her diploma.

 

[jochoa]

What about the mutants? These questions are not simple. Simplistic answers are insufficient.

The meaning is simple, no need to overanalyse or dissect it

If two humans sexually reproduce a mutant, said mutant is a human being.

jochoa:

When do you say the fertilized egg becomes a chicken?

At the moment of hatching. Just like the medical student becomes a medical doctor at the time she receives her diploma.

On that note, you too, should see fried chicken when a fried fertilized chicken egg is unnaturally hatched by means of cracking, then cooked.

I’d say a medical student becomes a potential medical doctor upon receiving a diploma, and becomes an actual medical doctor upon beginning the practice. An interesting way of looking at it would be:
A. Earning the diploma is like the seed.
B. The workplace is like the egg.
C. The union of the two, conceives a medical doctor, whom will develop the practice over time.

 

[Abrosz]

If two humans sexually reproduce a mutant, said mutant is a human being.

Not according to biology. To be a member of a species requires that you be able participate in an offspring providing activity.

On that note, you too, should see fried chicken when a fried fertilized chicken egg is unnaturally hatched by means of cracking, then cooked.

What has “unnatural” have to do with anything? And breaking the shell of a fertilized egg is NOT hatching.

I’d say a medical student becomes a potential medical doctor upon receiving a diploma, and becomes an actual medical doctor upon beginning the practice.

That is nonsense. The receiving of the diploma is the dividing line between a medical student and a medical doctor. They have the same knowledge, they can perform the procedures equally well, and still the doctor is qualified to open a practice, while the student is not.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

If two humans sexually reproduce a mutant, said mutant is a human being.

Not according to biology. To be a member of a species requires that you be able participate in an offspring providing activity.

Please know, after I initially proposed a human being is a member of the homo sapien species, I recognized a more concise and clear definition from another member: the offspring of humans. Therefore, I still consider those deemed as infertile as human beings. What do you consider them?

jochoa:

On that note, you too, should see fried chicken when a fried fertilized chicken egg is unnaturally hatched by means of cracking, then cooked.

What has “unnatural” have to do with anything? And breaking the shell of a fertilized egg is NOT hatching.

Then neither would a cesarean section be a birth. What then do you label those walking the earth via cesarean section?

That is nonsense. The receiving of the diploma is the dividing line between a medical student and a medical doctor. They have the same knowledge, they can perform the procedures equally well, and still the doctor is qualified to open a practice, while the student is not.

Hmm…if a person retired from being a medical doctor, would you still consider them a medical doctor? I would distinguish that the person is no longer a medical doctor, yet still a potential medical doctor, who is officially a retired medical doctor.

 

[Abrosz]

Therefore, I still consider those deemed as infertile as human beings.

They are not infertile. They have a different set of chromosomes, and they can procreate with others who have the same set of chromosomes. They are new species.

Then neither would a cesarean section be a birth. What then do you label those walking the earth via cesarean section?

The egg is broken to be consumed. The result of a caesarean is not. And if the egg already has a chicken embryo in it, it will not be consumed - usually.

Hmm…if a person retired from being a medical doctor, would you still consider them a medical doctor?

As long as they are are allowed to practice. But I was talking about the dividing line between a student and a doctor. Why do you want to change the subject?

 

[jochoa]

They are not infertile. They have a different set of chromosomes, and they can procreate with others who have the same set of chromosomes. They are new species.

Given your understanding,

To be a member of a species requires that you be able participate in an offspring providing activity.

Based on this, I have a friend, who either him or his wife, is not human because they are deemed as infertile. I disagree because I clearly experience them as human beings, but what do you say? Do you believe one of them has a different set of chromosomes and is a new species?

The egg is broken to be consumed. The result of a caesarean is not. And if the egg already has a chicken embryo in it, it will not be consumed - usually.

Basing whether a cracked egg yielded a chicken or not on intention for cracking the egg is silly. Let’s say:
I crack a fertilized egg because I want to let the life live outside the egg. Is it now a chicken? I would say it has always been a chicken from the moment of fertilization.
What if I crack a fertilized egg open to consume the life, but then I decide to let it live, did it change from not being a chicken to being a chicken once I changed my intention? I say of course not.
What if a doctor performs a cesarean to consume the life and cause death, would you recognize the birth and murder of a child?

As long as they are are allowed to practice. But I was talking about the dividing line between a student and a doctor. Why do you want to change the subject?

Since I see a deeper dividing line than you do, I shared an example highlighting that division. I see the practice of medicine as an additional necessary objective to being a medical doctor. I am confident that all students receiving a diploma are practicing at the time they receive their diplomas, therefore all would immediately transition to actual medical doctors, but the two factors are still necessary.

 

[Abrosz]

Given your understanding,

Huh?

Based on this, I have a friend, who either him or his wife, is not human because they are deemed as infertile.

I said nothing about infertility. You talk to yourself.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

Given your understanding,

Huh?

What do you perceive is the difference between being unable to participate in an offspring providing activity and being infertile?

When I google search the definition of infertile, it shares unable to reproduce.

 

[Abrosz]

What do you perceive is the difference between being unable to participate in an offspring providing activity and being infertile?

When I google search the definition of infertile, it shares unable to reproduce.

Not being able to procreate with a member of a different species is different.

 

[Vico]

jochoa:

What do you perceive is the difference between being unable to participate in an offspring providing activity and being infertile?

When I google search the definition of infertile, it shares unable to reproduce.

Not being able to procreate with a member of a different species is different.

Species | Definition, Types, & Examples | Britannica

Encyclopedia Britannica:

Individuals of a single species can mate and produce viable offspring with one another but almost never with members of other species. Separate species have been known to produce hybrid offspring (for example, the horse) and the donkey producing the mule, but, because the offspring are almost always inviable or sterile, the interbreeding is not considered successful.

 

[jochoa]

Not being able to procreate with a member of a different species is different.

Are you saying that even though my friend and his wife are unable to participate in an offspring providing activity, which according to your understanding of biology, which says, “To be a member of a species requires that you be able participate in an offspring providing activity,” are still both human beings?

If this is different, why is it different?

 

[jochoa]

The challenge of this definition is that the only means to know if one is of the same species with another is to have grandchildren.

Or is there another means?

I like the definition: the offspring of human beings.