The basis of secular values and ethics?

[Qoeleth]

**Qoeleth

Am I wrong?**

It is possible, but I suspect very rare, for a secular ethical system to put altruism ahead of hedonism. Since nature abhors a vacuum, it would be easy enough for those who think there is no God to adore themselves.

Yes. If I imagine assuming a worldview with no God or afterlife, I see it could be more or less equally plausible either to plunge oneself into hedonism, or to devote oneself to being totally charitable, or to thow oneself of a cliff. On the other hand, I suppose a secularist could also go on living as ‘average citizen’, doing a job, raising a family, etc., which is probably what most do.

In the absence of any transcendental or meaningful reason, all options would be equal ‘good’ and equally empty. Which brings me back to my initial hypoethesis- in the absence of God, there is no coherent basis for morality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Qoeleth

In the absence of any transcendental or meaningful reason, all options would be equal ‘good’ and equally empty. Which brings me back to my initial hypoethesis- in the absence of God, there is no coherent basis for morality.**

Now that’s an interesting thought. There might be a basis, but not a coherent basis. The godless Nazis (who sometimes lied about doing the will of God) had a basis for morality, but the basis was not coherent. There was no place in their morality for altruism other than to sacrifice oneself on the altar of cruelty for the insane Fuhrer; therefore the morality they adopted proved not to serve them so well as they thought it would.

 

[polytropos]

Arthur Leff argued that a rational grounding of secular ethics is impossible, since no human has any particular moral claim against any other human. One can, of course, aim to find intuitive principles and rules that “benefit” most people, but such systems are not rationally grounded, and only can resolve disputes between people who agree with them with recourse to populism or disputed axioms.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Arthur Leff argued that a rational grounding of secular ethics is impossible, since no human has any particular moral claim against any other human. One can, of course, aim to find intuitive principles and rules that “benefit” most people, but such systems are not rationally grounded, and only can resolve disputes between people who agree with them with recourse to populism or disputed axioms.

The Leff article is brilliant! A primer for anyone who thinks they really understand the grounds for secular moral (and legal) rights.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What is most disturbing is the secular morality that claims victimless crimes are permissible.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime.If you commit a crime, you harm someone, and most of all yourself.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yes, but take God out of the picture, and what happiness is there for man? None.

Well objectively speaking if you took God out of the picture there would of course be no possibility for human happiness; nothing would exist or everything would cease to exist.

But subjectively speaking, No. The natural moral law is written in our very nature. It is an inescapable aspect of our human existence. The desire to be happy does not go away because someone rashly denies God’s existence. The natural moral law is accessible to human reason and, combined with his natural desire to be happy, persists even if God is denied. However, denying God and the truths of revealed religion or any truth frustrates man’s ability to achieve or realize happiness.

Now, for a Christian the final end of the universe is God- which gives a basis for ethics. But, for a secularist, there can be no final end to anything.

Not true.

While it is certainly not easy for reason to clearly grasp and also articulate the existence of ends or final causes in nature; notwithstanding, they are there and we tend to recognize them in practice even if in theory they are being denied. The reason is because in practice pretending things don’t serve any specific or certain purpose results in chaos and unhappiness - bad health, whether physical or psychological or both. Even elimitavists use things in keeping with their ordinary or natural uses or purposes because nature herself and our reason encouages this and rewards it. You can only declare war on reality up to a point until you become so dysfunctional as to be utterly and pointlessly miserable. Eventually in most people our desire to be reasonably happy and sane trumps any errors: they might be living somewhat more or less schizophrenically, so to speak; but, notwithstanding, at least they are still living or managing to stay alive. You don’t see many atheists or elimativists eating glass; and you see plenty of them seeking to be healthy by taking care in what they eat or by doing exercise and so on. All of this entails a submission to and acknowledgement of the natural law.

 

[Qoeleth]

Well objectively speaking if you took God out of the picture there would of course be no possibility for human happiness; nothing would exist or everything would cease to exist.

But subjectively speaking, No. The natural moral law is written in our very nature. It is an inescapable aspect of our human existence. The desire to be happy does not go away because someone rashly denies God’s existence. The natural moral law is accessible to human reason and, combined with his natural desire to be happy, persists even if God is denied. However, denying God and the truths of revealed religion or any truth frustrates man’s ability to achieve or realize happiness.

Not true.

While it is certainly not easy for reason to clearly grasp and also articulate the existence of ends or final causes in nature; notwithstanding, they are there and we tend to recognize them in practice even if in theory they are being denied. The reason is because in practice pretending things don’t serve any specific or certain purpose results in chaos and unhappiness - bad health, whether physical or psychological or both. Even elimitavists use things in keeping with their ordinary or natural uses or purposes because nature herself and our reason encouages this and rewards it. You can only declare war on reality up to a point until you become so dysfunctional as to be utterly and pointlessly miserable. Eventually in most people our desire to be reasonably happy and sane trumps any errors: they might be living somewhat more or less schizophrenically, so to speak; but, notwithstanding, at least they are still living or managing to stay alive. You don’t see many atheists or elimativists eating glass; and you see plenty of them seeking to be healthy by taking care in what they eat or by doing exercise and so on. All of this entails a submission to and acknowledgement of the natural law.

So, the secularist, because they naturally tend to live in accordance with what bring the greatest happiness (or minimizes pain), as well as in accord with ‘instinct’, will tend to follow natural law?

 

[1AugustSon7]

So, the secularist, because they naturally tend to live in accordance with what bring the greatest happiness (or minimizes pain), as well as in accord with ‘instinct’, will tend to follow natural law?

Yes, he will -as you aptly put it - " tend to ": i.e., tend towards it. Instinct, however, is in my opinion actually very weak in man. We act for reasons and purposes based on the possibilities present and make choices in accordance with what we think is or will be best or at least best for us. Our ‘instinct’ is to act in accordance with reason. Man above all creatures must be taught and must learn if he is to survive and thrive: qua mere animal, we are virtually (if not indeed actually) helpless.

Again though, while hedonism does seem to be the general philosophy and opinion of the majority of men; notwithstanding, its limits do not change because of our opinion or belief. Hedonism will not ultimately satisfy nor achieve that maximum possible happiness that remains, notwithstading, the ever-constant desire of man.

 

[Bagheera]

Qoeleth:

So, a person who is wildly optimistic could conceivably find a secularist philosophy acceptable. They might say human society, human achievement, the joy of living, all make it worthwhile, not only to ‘be good’, but to ‘be’ at all.

But a person who is a pessimist, who finds the things of the world to be meaningless and the evils of life to outweigh the goods, would not be able to derive a meaningful positive morality from secularism- except perhaps a purely ‘remedial’ morality based on compassion, of minimizing the sufferings of others.

Why the extremes? Most people are sometimes optimistic, sometimes pessimistic. Some are believers, some are not. There is no way to make a rational prediction about anyone’s value system if the only information you have is their belief of some supernatural being or lack of it. Most people never even think about their own motivations about their values.

It happened quite a few times that believers were asked what would be their reaction if God’s existence would be “disproven”. The result was very interesting. There was a sizable percentage of the respondents, who said that they would go on a killing spree, or would delve into sexual escapades, or outright hedonism. They said that they only refrain from such activities because they are afraid of the penalty in the “afterlife”. Now compare this with the percentage of the actual, outspoken atheists, who are serial killers, or rapists or selfishly engage in some hedonistic lifestyle. It will be a precious small percentage, even though they are not afraid of “penalty” in the hereafter. Of course none of these are rigorously executed samplings.

But nevertheless this should tell you that there is no correlation between someone’s belief system and their ethical system.

 

[polytropos]

Why the extremes? Most people are sometimes optimistic, sometimes pessimistic. Some are believers, some are not. There is no way to make a rational prediction about anyone’s value system if the only information you have is their belief of some supernatural being or lack of it. Most people never even think about their own motivations about their values.

I agree that most people do not reflect on their value systems. But that is not really what is at issue. The question is not why both you and I agree that murder of an adult human is wrong. Humanity might have no rational basis for such a judgment, but it could still survive by stipulating that murder is bad because people generally agree with that. What is at issue is whether or not secular values can establish a consistent, generally applicable basis for ethics - which might be necessary if we are to resolve tougher issues like abortion.

For example, consider what you take to be an obvious solution:

Not everyone is selfish, and most people realize that a good balance of cooperation and confrontation (when necessary) is the optimal way to maximize one’s well-being. And those people who study game-theory find a mathematical proof for this balancing act.

I am sure you were not trying to defend a full system of ethics in this post. But what you offer is pretty nebulous. We are supposed to cooperate to maximize well-being. But what is “well-being”? Is it just what each person defines as his own preferences? How do we know when confronation rather than cooperation is necessary? When the incompatible preferences of two people conflict, who yields? If one’s metaphysics are inconsistent with any substantive human dignity, then how can one justify extending that dignity to some but not others (ie. in the case of abortion)?

Your ethical system seems to be a hybrid of utlitarianism and intuitionism (since you indicate that maximizing well-being is its aim, and that its premises should be obvious to rational and secular persons), which both face notorious problems when it comes to resolving conflicts. If one resolves a given conflict, though, by defining a group as nonhuman so that their maximum well-being is not of concern, then the system has simply devolved into totalitarianism.

It happened quite a few times that believers were asked what would be their reaction if God’s existence would be “disproven”. The result was very interesting. There was a sizable percentage of the respondents, who said that they would go on a killing spree, or would delve into sexual escapades, or outright hedonism. They said that they only refrain from such activities because they are afraid of the penalty in the “afterlife”. Now compare this with the percentage of the actual, outspoken atheists, who are serial killers, or rapists or selfishly engage in some hedonistic lifestyle. It will be a precious small percentage, even though they are not afraid of “penalty” in the hereafter. Of course none of these are rigorously executed samplings.

Since it has happened “quite a few times,” could you produce some peer reviewed studies that document believers, in substantial numbers, saying that they would “go on a killing spree, or would delve into sexual escapades, or outright hedonism” without God? I have doubts - although, it seems that such a study would just show that religion is indispensable to humanity. On this view, no consequentialist could justify “disillusioning” those silly theists.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now compare this with the percentage of the actual, outspoken atheists, who are serial killers, or rapists or selfishly engage in some hedonistic lifestyle. **It will be a precious small percentage, even though they are not afraid of “penalty” in the hereafter. Of course none of these are rigorously executed samplings.
**
But nevertheless this should tell you that there is no correlation between someone’s belief system and their ethical system.

We would need to ignore the fact that a very large proportion of genocide over the past one hundred years has been committed at the hands of atheistic political leaders. An inference could be drawn that perhaps, in part, the reason for this lies in their not being afraid of “penalty” in the hereafter.

Another problem lies in the fact that you distinguish “outspoken” atheists from serial killers, rapists or selfish engagers in hedonism. I find this interesting because many atheists insist their atheism is simple “non-belief.” Yet, if this is the case, then the best representatives of atheism should be those who are completely silent (and not outspoken) about their atheism, since their silence would be the most fitting possible statement of “non-belief.” Rapists, serial killers and extreme hedonists who simply act as if no moral authority obligates them in any way are, in a very clear way, stating their atheism. By their very actions they are living out their “lack of belief” in any moral authority over them.

 

[Bagheera]

polytropos:

The question is not why both you and I agree that murder of an adult human is wrong. Humanity might have no rational basis for such a judgment …

I think it is rational. We come to the same conclusion using different methods. On my side the method rests upon the concept of “reciprocity”, which is formalized into the negative version of the “golden rule” – namely: “do NOT do onto others, what you would not want others do onto you”. And I am sure you realize that this is a fully secular concept.

polytropos:

What is at issue is whether or not secular values can establish a consistent, generally applicable basis for ethics - which might be necessary if we are to resolve tougher issues like abortion.

Since the fetus is not an adult human, there needs to be a different principle involved in this question. Where a problem arises is that many theists with to establish an “ironclad”, no exception based, “absolute” ethical system, while unbelievers are satisfied with an objective, but not absolute system. Of course the believers immediately shoot themselves in the foot, when they stipulate that their “absolute” ethical system is not applicable to God – and thus they admit that their ethical system is not “absolute” at all.

polytropos:

We are supposed to cooperate to maximize well-being.

Not exactly. We need to balance cooperation and competition in this “game of life”. And the game theory comes to the help in conflict resolution.

polytropos:

But what is “well-being”? Is it just what each person defines as his own preferences?

Since we are all biological beings, we have a common ground to negotiate such questions. Rational people understand that both fully selfish and fully unselfish behavior leads to incorrect solutions; therefore there is a need to balance these behaviors. Again, this is only a principle, and to “fill it with meat” one needs actual situations.

polytropos:

When the incompatible preferences of two people conflict, who yields?

This question cannot be answered without the specifics.

polytropos:

Your ethical system seems to be a hybrid of utlitarianism and intuitionism (since you indicate that maximizing well-being is its aim, and that its premises should be obvious to rational and secular persons), which both face notorious problems when it comes to resolving conflicts.

There are no “absolute” methods to resolve conflicts. It is very sad that after tens of thousands of years one of the “most prevalent methods” to resolve conflicts is the use of force. Our progress toward “civilized” behavior is abysmally slow, but it exists. There are some higher apes (the bonobos) “who” are much more “civilized” than humans. They actually live by the principle: “make love, not war”. When they are frustrated, they engage in gratuitous sex, and not fight. If only we, humans would grow up - ethically speaking – to their level. If only the church would realize that sex is a great therapeutic endeavor, and not some “sacred” activity. But that is too much to hope for.

polytropos:

Since it has happened “quite a few times,” could you produce some peer reviewed studies that document believers, in substantial numbers, saying that they would “go on a killing spree, or would delve into sexual escapades, or outright hedonism” without God?

Of course not. It was just an informal poll, conducted here, though it was presented several times. It would be a huge mistake to try and derive some general conclusion. Its significance was that even very “conservative” catholics disagree with the catholic principles, and they only “submit” to the catholic ethics because of the “carrot-and-stick” principle. I am also pretty sure that these people form only an insignificant minority and it would be an error to project their “confession” to the overwhelming majority of catholics. Just like those handful “atheistic” tyrants who were responsible for the atrocities in the 20th century are not a representative sample of atheists.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Since the fetus is not an adult human, there needs to be a different principle involved in this question. Where a problem arises is that many theists with to establish an “ironclad”, no exception based, “absolute” ethical system, while unbelievers are satisfied with an objective, but not absolute system. **Of course the believers immediately shoot themselves in the foot, when they stipulate that their “absolute” ethical system is not applicable to God – and thus they admit that their ethical system is not “absolute” at all. **

It is a “stretch” to say believers “shoot themselves in the foot” claiming relevant moral differences between humans and God because a basic principle of logic is to treat “like things alike.” A believer can be logically consistent in holding that all human beings are obligated by moral principles that apply ABSOLUTELY to all rational and moral human agents without being, thereby, held to claiming that such principles apply categorically to all other (non-human) agents. I see no reason to assume that they would. The onus is on you to show why they should.

No one would claim all human moral obligations apply to animals precisely because there are morally relevant differences between humans and animals. Likewise, it is quite consistent to claim human moral obligations need not apply to God because there are relevant moral differences between humans and God. The burden is yours.

 

[polytropos]

I think it is rational. We come to the same conclusion using different methods. On my side the method rests upon the concept of “reciprocity”, which is formalized into the negative version of the “golden rule” – namely: “do NOT do onto others, what you would not want others do onto you”. And I am sure you realize that this is a fully secular concept.

It is fully secular. It is also fully axiomatic. The fact that you derive it from a stipulation does not make it rational, nor does it give you any basis other than assertion and general agreement.

Since the fetus is not an adult human, there needs to be a different principle involved in this question. Where a problem arises is that many theists with to establish an “ironclad”, no exception based, “absolute” ethical system, while unbelievers are satisfied with an objective, but not absolute system. Of course the believers immediately shoot themselves in the foot, when they stipulate that their “absolute” ethical system is not applicable to God – and thus they admit that their ethical system is not “absolute” at all.

The claim that “Since the fetus is not an adult human, there needs to be a different principle involve in this question” is not clear; right now it seems like special pleading although perhaps you can substantiate it. It is not like we have to make qualifications for any non-adult human. Your ethical system, presumably, applies to children, and we might also suppose, post-birth humans who are not fully rational (due to mental illness etc.). The prevailing view in America even applies to fetuses of some age. So clearly it is not just the fact that the fetus is not an adult human which justifies either overriding its rights or stipulating that it does not have rights.

So from what you have said here, I cannot find any particular reason for excluding fetuses of particular ages from your ethic of repricocity. To say that it is because they are not adults is arbitrary and inconsistent, which would mean that the ethical system is not objective, whether or not it is absolute.

I have not stipulated that my ethical system is not applicable to God, but God is not taken to be a human (even if humans are made in His image and He became man), so as Peter Plato says, the burden would be on you to show that there are not relevant moral differences between humans and God. Such an argument would have to be part of a consistent theology, which I suspect you have no intention of providing. I’d add that natural law ethics construe morality as deriving from the fulfillment of a things ends, in which case we would be constrained to acknowledge that God has no formal moral obligations because He has no ends. Since this reason is non-arbitrary, it is in no wise special pleading. But this is irrelevant to the present discussion, which is about secular values and ethics, so we are debating whether it is possible to construct a coherent secular system of ethics; what theists believe is irrelevant.

Not exactly. We need to balance cooperation and competition in this “game of life”. And the game theory comes to the help in conflict resolution.

Since we are all biological beings, we have a common ground to negotiate such questions. Rational people understand that both fully selfish and fully unselfish behavior leads to incorrect solutions; therefore there is a need to balance these behaviors. Again, this is only a principle, and to “fill it with meat” one needs actual situations.

Selfishness and unselfishness lead to “incorrect” solutions? What makes a solution “incorrect,” as “rational people” apprehend it? Is correctness only informed by biology? What in particular would make cohesion with biological tendencies (say, characteristics derived from natural selection) the good of your ethical system (if they are - I cannot tell)? What makes biology an objective standard?

There are no “absolute” methods to resolve conflicts. It is very sad that after tens of thousands of years one of the “most prevalent methods” to resolve conflicts is the use of force. Our progress toward “civilized” behavior is abysmally slow, but it exists. There are some higher apes (the bonobos) “who” are much more “civilized” than humans. They actually live by the principle: “make love, not war”. When they are frustrated, they engage in gratuitous sex, and not fight. If only we, humans would grow up - ethically speaking – to their level. If only the church would realize that sex is a great therapeutic endeavor, and not some “sacred” activity. But that is too much to hope for.

It is indeed very sad that after all this time, we resolve conflicts by force. Say, by injecting a fetus with a fatal solution or by snipping its spinal cord. One might even get the notion that modern progress is not just slow but regressive, when we resolve the conflict between a mother and her unwanted child by killing the child.

As for sex, it is a good, but it is not an unqualified good, owing to the emotional ties that people make through sexual intercourse. Monogamous sex partners report the highest satisfaction. It is not clear that we’d all be better off if we made like the great apes.

 

[Qoeleth]

Why the extremes? Most people are sometimes optimistic, sometimes pessimistic. Some are believers, some are not. There is no way to make a rational prediction about anyone’s value system if the only information you have is their belief of some supernatural being or lack of it. Most people never even think about their own motivations about their values.

It happened quite a few times that believers were asked what would be their reaction if God’s existence would be “disproven”. The result was very interesting. There was a sizable percentage of the respondents, who said that they would go on a killing spree, or would delve into sexual escapades, or outright hedonism. They said that they only refrain from such activities because they are afraid of the penalty in the “afterlife”. Now compare this with the percentage of the actual, outspoken atheists, who are serial killers, or rapists or selfishly engage in some hedonistic lifestyle. It will be a precious small percentage, even though they are not afraid of “penalty” in the hereafter. Of course none of these are rigorously executed samplings.

But nevertheless this should tell you that there is no correlation between someone’s belief system and their ethical system.

Yes, you might be right. I know sometimes I think “if there was no God, I would go on a fornication spree.” But probably I really wouldn’t- it would be more trouble and expense than it’s worth, and somehow degrading. I suspect it’s the same with most Christians who say they would go off the rails, ethically speaking, without God. We are largely creatures of habit, and, I suspect, conscience is not totally dependent on beliefs. When I went through stages of not really believing in God, acting charitably and kindly still seemed like the only decent things to do.

But could it be that non-believers have not really put into full practice the implications of their philosophical system? In the absence of God, wouldn’t the best thing to do be to administer painless euthanasia injection to the entire human race (perhaps all living things), and thus solve the problem of suffering, disease, poverty, hunger, and achieve peace, once and for all? Isn’t this the inevitable result of philosophical system which recognises no transcendent good?

Life NEEDS to have some purpose beyond itself, otherwise it is an exercise in pointless random suffering, and, in the absence of that, tedium. Or, is it that a secularist is more or less forced to become a blind optimist?

 

[tonyrey]

I think it is rational…

Rational people understand that both fully selfish and fully unselfish behavior leads to incorrect solutions…

You take rationality for granted without explaining how it originated in an “irrational universe” - which is the issue at stake…

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, you might be right. I know sometimes I think “if there was no God, I would go on a fornication spree.” But probably I really wouldn’t- it would be more trouble and expense than it’s worth, and somehow degrading. I suspect it’s the same with most Christians who say they would go off the rails, ethically speaking, without God. We are largely creatures of habit, and, I suspect, conscience is not totally dependent on beliefs. When I went through stages of not really believing in God, acting charitably and kindly still seemed like the only decent things to do.

But could it be that non-believers have not really put into full practice the implications of their philosophical system? In the absence of God, wouldn’t the best thing to do be to administer painless euthanasia injection to the entire human race (perhaps all living things), and thus solve the problem of suffering, disease, poverty, hunger, and achieve peace, once and for all? Isn’t this the inevitable result of philosophical system which recognises no transcendent good?

Life NEEDS to have some purpose beyond itself, otherwise it is an exercise in pointless random suffering, and, in the absence of that, tedium. Or, is it that a secularist is more or less forced to become a blind optimist?

“blind” is the key word…

 

[Bagheera]

Qoeleth:

Yes, you might be right. I know sometimes I think “if there was no God, I would go on a fornication spree.” But probably I really wouldn’t- it would be more trouble and expense than it’s worth, and somehow degrading. I suspect it’s the same with most Christians who say they would go off the rails, ethically speaking, without God. We are largely creatures of habit, and, I suspect, conscience is not totally dependent on beliefs. When I went through stages of not really believing in God, acting charitably and kindly still seemed like the only decent things to do.

I agree. Even though there is an ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture, it cannot be denied that our upbringing played an important part of “forming” us. I don’t think that only the fear of the possible repercussions hold people on the “right” track. That would be a simplistic view. But I believe that many believers “peek” over the fence, and contemplate that the grass is greener over the “septic tank” – sexually speaking.

Qoeleth:

But could it be that non-believers have not really put into full practice the implications of their philosophical system?

Nobody does. Christians believe that the “final destination” is to be with God in heaven. Therefore it would be logical to get there as soon as possible. Therefore it would be to the best advantage of the newborn to have them baptized, and immediately kill them to ensure that they will get to heaven. Of course they do not act this way. (The Spanish conquistadores did!) Partially because there is a command against it, but that does not make the act rational.

Furthermore, there is a saying that “man has no greater love than to lay down his life for someone else”. Of course for believers this life is only a prelude, something to get over with as soon as possible. Therefore to give up one’s life is only giving up something worthless. The real “sacrifice” would be giving up one’s eternal life as an absolute sign of “love”. So the truly sacrificial love would be to go on, baptize that infant, and kill it. And of course such a pure, sacrificial “love” should be rewarded by the eternal, heavenly bliss.

Qoeleth:

In the absence of God, wouldn’t the best thing to do be to administer painless euthanasia injection to the entire human race (perhaps all living things), and thus solve the problem of suffering, disease, poverty, hunger, and achieve peace, once and for all? Isn’t this the inevitable result of philosophical system which recognises no transcendent good?

No, it is not. Many believers see this existence as the vale of tears, longing for the “next” life. But they are a minority. Most people understand that there are ups and downs. And as long the “plusses” outweigh the “minuses”, they are willing to endure the minuses. When someone’s life has more minuses than can be endured, then indeed they commit suicide. Most people do not find their existence to be composed of “suffering, disease, poverty and hunger”.

Qoeleth:

Life NEEDS to have some purpose beyond itself, otherwise it is an exercise in pointless random suffering, and, in the absence of that, tedium. Or, is it that a secularist is more or less forced to become a blind optimist?

Maybe for some people there is a “need” like that. But for most people that “need” simply does not exist.

 

[Bagheera]

polytropos:

It is fully secular. It is also fully axiomatic.

No, it is not axiomatic. It is a very good basic principle, and most societies understood it.

polytropos:

The claim that “Since the fetus is not an adult human, there needs to be a different principle involve in this question” is not clear; right now it seems like special pleading although perhaps you can substantiate it.

There are all sorts of “special” rules and requirements for not “fully” adults. We do not allow underage people to drive a car, or drink beer, or obtain weapons. So the different treatment of people depending on their age is perfectly accepted in our societies. The extent of this different treatment can be disputed, but the principle cannot.

polytropos:

So clearly it is not just the fact that the fetus is not an adult human which justifies either overriding its rights or stipulating that it does not have rights.

Rights are social constructs. There are no “natural” rights.

polytropos:

So from what you have said here, I cannot find any particular reason for excluding fetuses of particular ages from your ethic of repricocity. To say that it is because they are not adults is arbitrary and inconsistent, which would mean that the ethical system is not objective, whether or not it is absolute.

Why would it be arbitrary? Of course the basic contention here is the definition of a “human being”. To equate a human being with its DNA is truly arbitrary, since this definition would make a tumor also a human “being” and besides, there IS no such thing as human DNA. The best definition I have seen so far stipulated that the brain’s electro-chemical activity should be the dividing point. To equate a freshly fertilized egg (which has a huge chance to be expelled from the woman’s body) with a full human being is ridiculous. Besides, not even the church wishes to stipulate the moment of “ensoulment”.

polytropos:

Selfishness and unselfishness lead to “incorrect” solutions?

Sure. Mathematically sub-optimal solutions in conflict resolution.

polytropos:

It is indeed very sad that after all this time, we resolve conflicts by force. Say, by injecting a fetus with a fatal solution or by snipping its spinal cord.

Yes, it would be a much better solution to prevent that pregnancy as long as that pregnancy is not desired. As soon as the catholic church would become the champion of prevention, it would gain credibility in the matter. But to preach abstinence even in marriage, when the partners are not ready for a child is pretty “far-out”. There was a good saying: “of all the sexual perversions, the most unnatural one is chastity”. And another one: “For christians, sex is an obsession. For everyone else it is a simple fact of life”.

polytropos:

As for sex, it is a good, but it is not an unqualified good, owing to the emotional ties that people make through sexual intercourse. It is not clear that we’d all be better off if we made like the great apes.

Even a not-so-satisfying encounter is much better than a highly satisfying fight.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are all sorts of “special” rules and requirements for not “fully” adults. We do not allow underage people to drive a car, or drink beer, or obtain weapons. So the different treatment of people depending on their age is perfectly accepted in our societies. The extent of this different treatment can be disputed, but the principle cannot.

You do understand that all these special rules - stipulated for those who are not fully adult or capable - are in place because the activities in question (driving, drinking, using firearms) involve a functional ability of some kind and a corresponding responsibility for that function which immature human beings generally lack a full capacity to carry out, hence the need for restrictions.

To insist that a “right to life” require a similar stipulation, would mean the burden is on you to demonstrate that only mature humans should be accorded that right in a full sense because immature humans are incapable of being responsible for the activity in question. It is not clear to me that “life” is the kind of activity that requires restriction of rights for immature humans. The activity “being human” is not susceptible to that kind of restriction since merely “being” a human does not, in itself, potentially endanger the welfare of others or oneself, as firing weapons, driving automobiles and drinking alcohol might, which is why these bear maturity or some other demonstrable capability requirement. How does simply “being human,” of itself, potentially endanger others to the extent that it ought to carry maturity restrictions?