The ethics of morality

[John21652]

Can you show that they do this?

With regard to abortion, casual sex and porn, if you need to ask this question, then you need to widen out your reading. Try starting with the ‘objectification of women’, or perhaps ‘the sexualisation of young girls’. There happens to be a world wide movement against these things.People from all walks of life and from various societies have had enough. Once you understand the issues, perhaps you might ask yourself why it is that people have had enough.

False. A fetus and an embryo can not be killed because they are not ‘alive’. This should clarify the issue.

Wikipedia?! OMG. According to the definition (or is it definitions?) given there, anyone in a wheelchair is dead! You might be interested to know that even Princton’s utilitarian and pro-abortion Professor of Ethics, Peter Singer, believes life begins at conception. More homework required of you Filthy.

I don’t know that such a thing is possible, could you clarify the process by which this occurs and what stimulus it is based upon?

Obviously you don’t know a lot of things. In part, 4Horseman’s phrase is metaphor. To learn more, simply research the effects of abortion on women. You will find that not only are there physical efects, but emotional and spiritual effects also. many, many women need a lot of counselling after they have followed the dictates of fashion, believed the nonsense about foetuses not being human and then realising the enormity of what they have done.

I think you’ll find that this is entirely subjective and making claims of what it does not do does not necessarily represent truth for everyone.

4Horsemen wrote that *"…casual sex belittles the sacredness of marriage…" * and wrote that it is often the cause of divorce and harms children. You seem to agree partly, because you wrote -

When in marriage I’m sure it does.

That response suggests you do indeed see a belitling of marriage by casual sex within the context of a marriage. The question then is are you able to see that the same principles can apply prior to marriage? If not, then I suggest you do some research on the effects of sex upon individual emotional development and in particular on the bonding process that human sex causes. Playing around with and denying that process is causing harm to individuals and societies. Much has been written on this subject, particularly in light of the experiences of many who were caught up in the permissiveness and promiscuity of the 1960s and 1970s. To cut a long story short, a whole lot of people got hurt and learnt the hard way that sex is a powerful human experience and not to be trifled with. Start here, then here. This article links two of the issues and even your favourite tool Wikipedia has enough to get you started on these issues.

I’m confident that porn only exists in humanity and subsequently it is embracing a certain form of humanity rather than ‘robbing’ from it.

You are confident pornography only exists in humanity?! Wow, that’s an edifying statement. It’s also tautological, particularly when 4 horsemen was writing about human society. He obviously isn’t interested in porn in some parallel universe.

As for the logic contained in your observation that porn is just another manifestation of ‘humanity’, it would allow us to accept any form of human behaviour as ‘just another form of humanity’, from bank robbing to uncontrolled and unregulated drug usage. Did it not occur to you that there are certain types of behaviour that are perversions of what is considered as ‘normal’? Or do you reject the notion of a human norm when we are speaking, or writing, about human behaviour? If there is such a thing as normative human behaviour, what is it? It can’t be subjective, because then the idea of ‘normative’ would have no logical status.

 

[tonyrey]

I think we generally agree on this subject.

I’m delighted! It just goes to show that morality has a rational basis and is not just a matter of taste…

 

[tonyrey]

To learn more, simply research the effects of abortion on women. You will find that not only are there physical effects, but emotional and spiritual effects also. many, many women need a lot of counselling after they have followed the dictates of fashion, believed the nonsense about foetuses not being human and then realising the enormity of what they have done.

Abortion also has an effect on the father of the aborted child. He often has a sense of guilt if he has any moral principles…

 

[tonyrey]

This, of course, makes no difference to those who see it as an issue of the sanctity of (specifically human) life, but is an important factor for anyone who sees sentience as a key criterion for moral consideration.

Do you believe sentience is the sole criterion for moral consideration?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

With regard to abortion, casual sex and porn

Referencing certain movements doesn’t really reinforce the concept that casual sex, porn and abortion are objectively immoral, it just means that some people subjectively feel that they are. Even if the majority agree or even everyone, it does nothing to support the concept of something being objectively moral or immoral.

According to the definition given there, anyone in a wheelchair is dead!

No, if you read later on I realized that it did not link correctly as I tried to link it to the biological definition, something I also quoted later on.

You might be interested to know that … Peter Singer, believes life begins at conception.

He can think whatever he wants, biologically speaking an embryo or a fetus is not ‘alive’. Again, if you read ahead I explain this in detail.

In part, 4Horseman’s phrase is metaphor. To learn more, simply research the effects of abortion on women.

I have and the opinions vary, some regret their decision others are saddened by their decisions but do not regret the choice they made and others are not even saddened. I do not fight for the legality of abortion because I support the prevention of birth, I support it because I support women having the right to decide whether or not they have children.

You will find that not only are there physical efects, but emotional and spiritual effects also.

The concept of “spiritual effects” I do not understand in the slightest but the other two I am well aware of.

…counselling after they … believed the nonsense about foetuses not being human … enormity of what they have done.

That nonsense happens to be the biological and most concise and accurate definition of life there is.

4Horsemen wrote that *"…casual sex belittles the sacredness of marriage…" * and wrote that it is often the cause of divorce and harms children. That response suggests you do indeed see a belittling of marriage by casual sex within the context of a marriage. The question then is are you able to see that the same principles can apply prior to marriage?

It depends on the people involved, the concept is subjective and I’m not going to tell people what is right and wrong based on my own or other peoples opinions of it, it’s not my place to dictate morals.

If not, then I suggest you do some research on the effects of sex upon individual emotional development and in particular on the bonding process that human sex causes.

I do have experience in these matters and although you keep referencing books and other peoples opinions on the matters, it does not reinforce your point on objective morals, it just presents more subjective opinions.

Playing around with and denying that process is causing harm to individuals and societies.

I would suggest that it depends on the individuals.

… particularly in light of the experiences of many who were caught up in the permissiveness and promiscuity of the 1960s and 1970s… a whole lot of people got hurt and learnt the hard way that sex is a powerful human experience and not to be trifled with.

I am well aware of much of the literature written on these subjects but I do not debate with links, if you feel some of the information on those websites is pertinent to this debate, quote it and explain why it reinforces your point.

You are confident pornography only exists in humanity?! Wow, that’s an edifying statement.

I agree.

It’s also tautological, particularly when 4 horsemen was writing about human society. He obviously isn’t interested in porn in some parallel universe.

It is doubtful that he would be. You’re correct sir, it is tautological, this is where I find the concept of “robbing from humanity” to be an odd one because it seems to presuppose a definition of “humanity” that I am unaware of and is usually very opinionated.

As for the logic contained in your observation that porn is just another manifestation of ‘humanity’, it would allow us to accept any form of human behaviour as ‘just another form of humanity’,

I would say, “just another form of human behavior.” Humans are capable of savagery and sadism and there are many horrible things that are apart of humanity alone. Using phrases like, “robs us of our humanity” or other appear to be appealing to a standard adhered to by the individual.

from bank robbing to uncontrolled and unregulated drug usage. Did it not occur to you that there are certain types of behaviour that are perversions of what is considered as ‘normal’?

Considered as ‘normal’ by whom? To a casual or habitual drug user, the concept of ‘normal’ would be very different to that of a politician who supports bans on illicit drugs.

Or do you reject the notion of a human norm when we are speaking, or writing, about human behaviour? If there is such a thing as normative human behaviour, what is it? It can’t be subjective, because then the idea of ‘normative’ would have no logical status.

The idea of “normative human behavior” changes between individuals, I can’t see any reason to classify one form of human behavior as more “normal” than others. Normal behavior within 1st world countries is drastically different to that of third world countries, communities that live in rural areas compared to a metropolis, the rich compared to the poor. So many different standards of normal exist. The most normative human behavior would have to be the consumption of resources.

 

[Sair]

Do you believe sentience is the sole criterion for moral consideration?

The ability to be aware of pleasure or pain (or of happiness or suffering) is the foundation of any sound understanding of morality. Other moral considerations flow from this. I understand that there are certain religions that hold unrealised and even largely undefined ‘ultimate’ purposes in higher regard than the experience of sentient beings, but it’s hard to demonstrate that such purposes carry any moral weight.

What it boils down to is that sentience is a consistent criterion upon which to judge the morality of an action. Other criteria - such as class, race or species membership - are arbitrary when it comes to judging the ethical weight of actions or attitudes.

 

[Curious_Seed]

In the “The existence of Objective Morality” thread, Pieman333272 made the claim that atheists are more likely to have [legal] abortions, have “mindless sex” (by which I assumed he meant casual sex), and watch porn.

Well, I provided some statistics that suggested his claim was wrong, but the strong implication from Pieman was that he feels that these activities are immoral, so I asked him what he felt were the objective ethical reasons why this was so.

He said he thought that the question was off-topic. I disagreed, but agreed to start a new thread. Here it is.

So, I invite contributors to pick one of those activities, and provide **objective **ethical reasons why it is wrong. By which, I mean that you have to provide good, solid rationales.

Thanks
W

Abortions are wrong because God said so.

Mindless sex is wrong because God said so.

Watching pornography is wrong because God said so.

Because God said so is the only objective truth to which humans are subject.

Anything else is ultimately simply someone’s opinion, and only as meaningful, as it is agreed to be meaningful.

Right and wrong are not based on rationale, but on the Word of God [not that there be disparity].

No God, then no rationale is sufficient per se.

No God, then physical force [military, police, jails] becomes required to coerce behavior, not someone’s concept of what is rational.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you believe sentience is the sole

There is a vast difference between pleasure and happiness. Often they are opposed.

Other moral considerations flow from this. I understand that there are certain religions that hold unrealised and even largely undefined ‘ultimate’ purposes in higher regard than the experience of sentient beings, but it’s hard to demonstrate that such purposes carry any moral weight.

Love is a higher purpose because it is a source of unity, joy and fulfilment which often overrides individual happiness.

What it boils down to is that sentience is a consistent criterion upon which to judge the morality of an action. Other criteria - such as class, race or species membership - are arbitrary when it comes to judging the ethical weight of actions or attitudes.

Sentience is arbitrary because it is essentially physical and neglects personal development and fulfilment. Its use as a criterion to determine whether abortion is justified demonstrates that it is not only defective but unjust.

 

[4Horsemen]

Yes, if you accept the concept of destiny and determinism then the counselor was always going to be there due to his own convictions that are a result of previous occurrences in his life. The problem with the position that the universe is not deterministic means that events can occur that have no relation to past events. Like deciding for absolutely no reason whatsoever that you should start collecting stamps, not because you like them or have any motive to do so, just because.

You can’t say the counselor was destined to be there because of her convictions but because of her free will. That’s your deterministic ideas that can lead to fatalism -accepting all events as inevitable. The counselor may have had to change her mind that day due to a sudden change of events, anything random like being stuck in traffic for one or deciding to go on vacation or whatever.

Define how you’re using freewill. As far as I’m aware, what and who I am is the result of the past, what has happened to me and those before me including my genetic structure are determined by events such as conception, how I was raised, whether I had parents or not. There are a multitude of causes for behavior and everything that relates to a person and I’m yet to see one cause that is not determined by previous causes. Most people that support the Cosmological argument agree that the universe is deterministic.

Nature and nuture both play a role in our development. In spite of how we are raised or in what conditions or our biological blueprint, we can become a rising star . . . or a dud. There are so many success stories out there to read. If I remember correctly, wasn’t Beethovven born the 9th child in impoverished circumstances to a brutish father and sickly mother. Some young men and women in the ghetto rise from their early childhood circumstances. The part in bold is true when you’re not talking about human beings’ free will. (Remember, you’re all about “choice.”) One cause has a previous cause until we get to the Final Cause – the God who created the universe.

So you’ve ignored previous discussion about why abortion is not “killing”.

You want to call killing “choice.” Even if you say you’re pro-choice in letting women decide, you demonstate an agreement if her choice happens to be death for the unborn.

These methods I disagree with, I wouldn’t recommend aborting after the first trimester.

It used to be said that women were “with child” when they were pregnant, even though people didn’t talk about stages back then.

Should I have to? I’m telling you right now, I enjoy life and encourage the act of bringing life into this world. It is not my place to tell others if they should or shouldn’t but I personally recommend having children to committed couples.

Happiness is what we all seek as part of our human nature. It is well known that perfect happiness is elusive on this earth because we can find perfect happiness only in God. That is our ultimate end. The pathway to perfect happiness is the practice of virtue. So, you see, there are two concepts of happiness. One is the ordinary happy feelings we feel when things go our way. But whatever happiness we can achieve in this life falls short of the ideal. The ‘ideal’ is an absolute and objective.

Indeed and a fetus is apart of the mother, it’s life is not individual nor recognized as a separate form of life as it cannot control most of the functions that life is determined by, the mother has to do that for the fetus.

Science recognizes two humans. Any good obstetrician knows that.

Indeed but the requirements for something to be considered alive are not met by a fetus.

False.

I agree that people should have the right to choose but if it were legalized it would have to be heavily restricted so as to ensure people going through bouts of depression did not abuse it. There are many other concerns with it’s legalization but I respect someones right to choose death.

You agree with choosing death at the beginning of life and at the end of life. That supports an anti-life position.

According to you and your subjective opinions on God and morality. I mentioned objective for a reason.

You are the one with relativistic ideas.

 

[John21652]

Referencing certain movements doesn’t really reinforce the concept that casual sex, porn and abortion are objectively immoral, it just means that some people subjectively feel that they are. Even if the majority agree or even everyone, it does nothing to support the concept of something being objectively moral or immoral.

Referencing “certain movements” does indeed reinforce the objective wrongness of those things. Those “certain movements” show that knowledge exists independently of your own experience. Science discerns the objectivity of results by demanding that results be verifiable. That, by definition, requires referring to the discened results of others.

He can think whatever he wants, biologically speaking an embryo or a fetus is not ‘alive’. Again, if you read ahead I explain this in detail.

Well, it aint dead, so it must be alive!

I have and the opinions vary, some regret their decision others are saddened by their decisions but do not regret the choice they made and others are not even saddened.

You have missed the point, which is the fact that the amount of evidence which supports the fact that women are harmed by abortion is growing. It grows because women are more and more seeing through the propoganda thrown at them that abortion is OK and that they are not really killing a person. The results that are coming in suggest otherwise. Now, refer back to my first response in this post.

I do not fight for the legality of abortion because I support the prevention of birth, I support it because I support women having the right to decide whether or not they have children.

No, you are not supporting the right of women to decide whether or not they want to have children. Women have always had this right. What you are supporting is the right of a woman to terminate the life of a baby.

What you are supporting is the creation of a class of human beings which have no say over whether or not they live or die and you also support the status of women as to include the power to be the final judge over whether this helpless and silent class of humans lives or dies. Right up there with the powers of Stalin and Pol Pot!!

The concept of “spiritual effects” I do not understand in the slightest but the other two I am well aware of.

I suggest you start reading Anthropological works. The “spiritual” aspects of human societies has been recognised as a universal aspect of human cultures around the world. It has many manifestations, but a common theme.

That nonsense happens to be the biological and most concise and accurate definition of life there is.

Do you need a definition of what life is? Can’t you recognise it for yourself?

It depends on the people involved, the concept is subjective

You are here falling for the circularity which is involved in relativity. That is, there can never ever be anything other than a collection of subjective experiences and therefore objectivity is impossible. You expose the illogicality of your position when you then use the term “concept”.

and I’m not going to tell people what is right and wrong based on my own or other peoples opinions of it, it’s not my place to dictate morals.

You state it is not your place to dictate morals, yet you earlier stated your support for the pro-abortion position. Despite your denial, you have entered into a moral discourse.
It is the commonality of experiences that give us objectivity in moral discourse. That is how concepts are arrived at!

I do have experience in these matters and although you keep referencing books and other peoples opinions on the matters, it does not reinforce your point on objective morals, it just presents more subjective opinions.

Those external references and other people’s opinions should be telling you something. Your use of the term “concept” should be telling you something also.

… You’re correct sir, it is tautological, this is where I find the concept of “robbing from humanity” to be an odd one because it seems to presuppose a definition of “humanity” that I am unaware of and is usually very opinionated.

The concept of “humanity”, surely, shouldn’t require too much explanation? If it does, then again I suggest you start reading as many Anthropological tomes as you can lay your hands on. They empirically demonstrate the commonalities associated with what it is that constitutes humanity. That empirical evidence supports what philosophers have been mulling over for centuries. It then doesn’t take a whole lot of brain power to realise that there are certain behaviours which do indeed detract from what it is that constitutes normal human behaviour.

By the way, I really need to know how it is that you can refer to definitions of humanity that you are unaware of, that are “presupposed” and yet which you give yourself licence to label as being "very opinionated’?

Cont.d

 

[John21652]

Cont.d

I would say, “just another form of human behavior.” Humans are capable of savagery and sadism and there are many horrible things that are apart of humanity alone. Using phrases like, “robs us of our humanity” or other appear to be appealing to a standard adhered to by the individual.

Here, again, the illogicality of your argument is apparent. You swing between using collective terms such as “humanity” and then reference individuals. When we reference “humanity”, that is, the collective whole, we need to use terms which conceptualise the entirety of human behaviour. This is how behavioural norms are arrived at. If you doubt that, then consult a psychological journal. After all, they do need guidlines about what is normal! You, however, dismiss the concept of ‘normal’ by suggesting that some behaviours are just a part of humanity. Well, of course they are part of human behaviour, because to suggest otherwise is to re-establish the tautological argument you introduced earlier and which you recognised. The point is, because some behaviour is undertaken by some humans, does not make it ‘normal’.

Considered as ‘normal’ by whom? To a casual or habitual drug user, the concept of ‘normal’ would be very different to that of a politician who supports bans on illicit drugs.

The criminality of a person before a Judge is decided using objective tests which decide on the “normality” of behaviour. An individual visiting a psychiatrist is diagnosed according to objective criteria which informs the counsellor of the normality or otherwise of an individual’s behaviour and attitudes. A doctor examining a patient measures the pateint’s well being against established criteria which show normal health. According to your logic, however, a Judge shouldn’t be too harsh on a bank robber because the bank robber will have a different view!!

The idea of “normative human behavior” changes between individuals, I can’t see any reason to classify one form of human behavior as more “normal” than others. Normal behavior within 1st world countries is drastically different to that of third world countries, communities that live in rural areas compared to a metropolis, the rich compared to the poor. So many different standards of normal exist. The most normative human behavior would have to be the consumption of resources.

In 1935 and 1936 Stalin caused to be shot around three quarters of a million people, for various reasons. That was after he starved another few million. According to your logic, what he did is just another example of “normal”.

I would recommend that you get a hold of a book called Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, by Harvard History Professor Timothy Snyder. There you can read first hand what constitutes “normal” and discover for yourself how stepping outside the bounds of “normative human behaviour” is indeed a very slippery slope. It is stunningly confronting just how normal p[eople can justify and rationalise away what is horrifyingly abnormal behaviour.

The normative refers to what is most common, typically human. So, how can the atypical mean there is not a norm? You can’t have one without the other, can you?

As for your examples of different societies behaving differently, did it ever occur to you that the behaviours are towards the same ends, just done in different ways? Is the peasant tilling the fields all day doing anything differently from the Manhatten resident who works all day and then buys food in a supermarket? Is the forest dweller doing things differently from the Manhatten resident because he is differently human? Perhaps if you take the blinkers off, you will see and understand what it is the Anthropologists can tell you. That people everywhere have certain things in common. You mentioned one, the consumption of resources. Can you think of any others? I can. Lots of them.

It is those “lots of them” that are used to conceptualise normative human behaviour. That is what ethics is!

Now get studying and let me know where and when the things that are being argued about here have ever been considered as being a part of normative human behaviour.

 

[4Horsemen]

Um, those are the scientific/medical, not to mention commonly used terms. Why would little one be derogatory? They are little.

I explained it in the next quote. The pro-aborts don’t think of “little one” regarding a fetus. They think of an alien or something.

True, I do not call an embryo or fetus a child. I see them as a potential human being. I have no problem with it being removed if that’s what someone wants to do. However, I think I use the word baby sometimes when referring to the potential human being present in the womb of a woman.

Of course it’s her baby. Just because we have scientific terminology for various levels of development doesn’t make it any less her child.

What’s so bad about terminology that is not warm and fuzzy? They remind me of aliens. And they’re covered in icky stuff when they come out. Gross.

I guess you’ve never been covered in “icky stuff” when you came out of the womb. It’s a protective coating. Ever seen any real icky stuff? Try blood and guts in war and bodies busted and bleeding, soldiers without legs and arms.

What’s so wrong about calling a pro-life person anti-choice? I mean they suggest the choices of raise it yourself and giving it up for adoption, but they are purposely rejecting another choice available - to end the pregnancy. Anti-choice seems like an accurate term to use, although I would not use it myself, bc it’s not like anyone (in countries where abortion is legal) can really stop the woman from getting an abortion. They can just dissuade her. They can’t literally take away the choice.

Like I said in an earlier post, the word “choice” has been hijacked by the pro-aborts. Choice is a good word. It stands for our freedom, our free will. Pro-lifers are for choice about choice of schools for their children and mundane decisions about what to do with tax money and whether to pick organic fruit or not or buy eggs from chickens that roam, or buying various beverages in a restaurant. Enough of that!

The third choice after raising your baby on your own or allowing someone to adopt the child is having it killed. Not a very nice choice for the baby. The choice to kill can be taken away just as it was given in 1973. It happened in Poland after Communism fell. The abortion rate plummeted with the new pro-life law.

 

[4Horsemen]

That would considerably expand the range of material classified as pornography.

Right!

In regard to abortion, a couple of things struck me about your response. You mentioned Margaret Sanger’s views on abortion, without, I note, adding that she was a major advocate of birth control. Of course avoidance of unwanted pregnancy is always to be preferred to abortion. But it’s a telling detail that so many anti-abortion folks are also against the use of birth control - one suspects their goal is not to reduce the numbers of abortions, but to restrict bodily and sexual autonomy, particularly for women.

But I did mention that Margaret Sanger wrote for a birth control magazine, so I thought it would be obvious that she was pro-artificial birth control. The goal is to protect the youngest, most dependent members of society – the unborn, not take away a woman’s autonomy. But when she’s pregnant there are two bodies to consider. Ask a doctor, a real doctor, not an abortionist who’s in it not to help women but to make a lot of money.

Secondly, the majority of abortions, by a long stretch, are performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, before foetal development has progressed to the point that it would be capable of experiencing pain. This, of course, makes no difference to those who see it as an issue of the sanctity of (specifically human) life, but is an important factor for anyone who sees sentience as a key criterion for moral consideration.

Although most abortions are done in the first trimester, the unborn’s nervous system is in place by the 40th day, so there is some electrical stimulation going on with the brain since all body parts are in place by the 8th week and just need development. However, in the U.S. there are around a couple thousand or so abortions done on babies after viability. (I could tell you some horror stories heard from women who were employed at abortion mills).

 

[tonyrey]

Abortions are wrong because God said so.

Abortions are right because you said so!

Mindless sex is wrong because God said so.

Mindless sex is right because you said so!

Watching pornography is wrong because God said so.

Watching pornography is right because you said so!

Because God said so is the only objective truth to which humans are subject.

Because you said so is the only objective truth to which humans are subject!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Abortion is indeed a deeply troubling act.

No, I don’t think there’s “proof” that abortion is unethical.

However, I find that the best approach to ethics is as such:

1. Either you want to live an ethical life, or you don’t.
2. If you don’t, this is a waste of time, so let’s stop talking about it. It’s only worth discussing ethics with those that are interested in ethics.
3. If you do,let’s approach the problem in a scientific manner. Ethical rules must be universal, reverse-able and consistent.

Otherwise we’re resigning ethics to, “what kind of ice cream do you like best?”, “what does my pastor say?”, etc.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You can’t say the counselor was destined to be there because of her convictions but because of her free will. That’s your deterministic ideas that can lead to fatalism -accepting all events as inevitable. The counselor may have had to change her mind that day due to a sudden change of events, anything random like being stuck in traffic for one or deciding to go on vacation or whatever.

You’re not arguing against determinism here, you are arguing against our knowledge of the causes of events. I don’t know what could come up or not but again, there has never been an event witnessed or recorded that has not been caused by other events. The sudden change of events, the traffic, the decision to go on a vacation have determined causes.

Nature and nuture both play a role in our development. In spite of how we are raised or in what conditions or our biological blueprint, we can become a rising star . . . or a dud. There are so many success stories out there to read. If I remember correctly, wasn’t Beethovven born the 9th child in impoverished circumstances to a brutish father and sickly mother. Some young men and women in the ghetto rise from their early childhood circumstances.

Are you suggesting that these stories do not have physical causes? Could you support that claim? What other causes are there?

The part in bold is true when you’re not talking about human beings’ free will. (Remember, you’re all about “choice.”)

So free will has no causes? Is free will then arbitrary as it would subsequently not be based upon anything meaningful, like desires or lessons learnt from previous experience or any kind of thought pattern that is retained by the individual?

One cause has a previous cause until we get to the Final Cause – the God who created the universe.

I won’t really respond to this as it takes the thread off topic but that is an unsubstantiated assertion.

You want to call killing “choice.” Even if you say you’re pro-choice in letting women decide, you demonstate an agreement if her choice happens to be death for the unborn.

We’ve outlined that it is not by definition killing.

It used to be said that women were “with child” when they were pregnant, even though people didn’t talk about stages back then.

OK.

Happiness is what we all seek as part of our human nature.

Agreed, happiness is generally subjective as different things make different people happy.

It is well known that perfect happiness is elusive on this earth because we can find perfect happiness only in God. That is our ultimate end. The pathway to perfect happiness is the practice of virtue. So, you see, there are two concepts of happiness. One is the ordinary happy feelings we feel when things go our way. But whatever happiness we can achieve in this life falls short of the ideal. The ‘ideal’ is an absolute and objective.

Apparently.

Science recognizes two humans. Any good obstetrician knows that.

The fetus is not alive though, not according to the biological definition of life as it is incapable of several of the main attributes required for life.

False.

I just demonstrated that they were not two posts ago.

You agree with choosing death at the beginning of life and at the end of life. That supports an anti-life position.

No, are you even reading what I’m saying? I believe people have the right to choose their own death. Abortion is not killing nor results in death as the fetus is not alive.

You are the one with relativistic ideas.

Despite what people think, so are they. Your opinions of God are subjective to you, your opinions on morality are subjective to you. Some people might agree with your opinions, some disagree. Until an objective standard is presented and confirmed then relativism is all we have to go on.

 

[4Horsemen]

Abortion is indeed a deeply troubling act.

No, I don’t think there’s “proof” that abortion is unethical.

However, I find that the best approach to ethics is as such:

1. Either you want to live an ethical life, or you don’t.

2. If you don’t, this is a waste of time, so let’s stop talking about it. It’s only worth discussing ethics with those that are interested in ethics.

1. If you do,let’s approach the problem in a scientific manner. Ethical rules must be universal, reverse-able and consistent.

Otherwise we’re resigning ethics to, “what kind of ice cream do you like best?”, “what does my pastor say?”, etc.

I bolded your #s 1 & 2 because obviously not everyone is going to choose to lead an ethical life (free will ref.). So how would you arrange society? Allow those who want to live an ethical life to be mauraded by hoodlums who choose not to live an ethical life? Afterall, it’s their call. Just like a woman who chooses death for her unborn child. Even with our laws there are troublesome people out there who make life difficult or impossible for others. Don’t we think we need a set of ethical principles that govern everyone for all times? How about starting with the Ten Commandments?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Referencing “certain movements” does indeed reinforce the objective wrongness of those things. Those “certain movements” show that knowledge exists independently of your own experience.

Would that knowledge exist without people?

Science discerns the objectivity of results by demanding that results be verifiable. That, by definition, requires referring to the discened results of others.

Indeed it does, how does this have anything to do with morals that are objectively right or wrong?

Well, it aint dead, so it must be alive!

You are ignoring the other option of ‘non-living’ but in all honesty, the fetus is not a person in it’s own right until the late second trimester when it is capable of more qualities of life as presented by the biological definition of life.

You have missed the point, which is the fact that the amount of evidence which supports the fact that women are harmed by abortion is growing.

I agree, there are consequences for having an abortion and they are not good but that doesn’t mean women should be stripped of their choice. The consequence of having the baby could be worse and certainly could last longer.

It grows because women are more and more seeing through the propaganda thrown at them that abortion is OK and that they are not really killing a person.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

The results that are coming in suggest otherwise. Now, refer back to my first response in this post.

What exactly am I referring for?

No, you are not supporting the right of women to decide whether or not they want to have children. Women have always had this right. What you are supporting is the right of a woman to terminate the life of a baby.

I’ve explained in detail as to why the fetus, the zygote and the embryo are not biologically considered to be alive.

To be continued!

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Continued.

According to your logic, however, a Judge shouldn’t be too harsh on a bank robber because the bank robber will have a different view!!

It has nothing to do with how harsh a judge should be, the laws set up in a country against bank robbery are an objective standard created or otherwise agreed to by the individuals within that nation. Breaking the law may mean that the individual disagrees with the law or perhaps that they just disregard it in favor of their own needs and desires. Either way, they are breaking an agreement and the punishment for breaking certain laws, something also agreed to by the individuals of the nation, is publicly known or most definitely should be.

In 1935 and 1936 Stalin caused to be shot around three quarters of a million people, for various reasons. That was after he starved another few million. According to your logic, what he did is just another example of “normal”.

Normal for a psychopath with no concern for the wellbeing of certain groups he considered, “filth”

I would recommend that you get a hold of a book called Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, by Harvard History Professor Timothy Snyder. There you can read first hand what constitutes “normal” and discover for yourself how stepping outside the bounds of “normative human behaviour” is indeed a very slippery slope. It is stunningly confronting just how normal p[eople can justify and rationalise away what is horrifyingly abnormal behaviour.

Again, I don’t debate books or links, if you feel that some of the content in the book is relevant to the debate, quote it.

The normative refers to what is most common, typically human. So, how can the atypical mean there is not a norm? You can’t have one without the other, can you?

I’m suggesting the idea of ‘typical human behavior’ changes from person to person and certainly from culture to culture.

As for your examples of different societies behaving differently, did it ever occur to you that the behaviours are towards the same ends

, just done in different ways?

Well yes but that doesn’t change the fact that the ‘normal’ behavior for each community was different.

Is the peasant tilling the fields all day doing anything differently from the Manhatten resident who works all day and then buys food in a supermarket?

Yes, and in a lot of ways. The home they own, the quality of food and healthcare, the way they work, the nature of their political positions, the nature of their government and many many other things effect this persons behavior. A tyrannical or theocratic nation have massive effects on the behavioral pattern.

Is the forest dweller doing things differently from the Manhatten resident because he is differently human?

Not because he is differently human but that isn’t the nature of the discussion as we are referring to ‘normal’ behavior. If it were the nature of the question then Asians would be normal and every other race would be abnormal.

Perhaps if you take the blinkers off, you will see and understand what it is the Anthropologists can tell you. That people everywhere have certain things in common. You mentioned one, the consumption of resources. Can you think of any others? I can. Lots of them.

So can I, what of the behavior that is not shared between such massively different cultures?

It is those “lots of them” that are used to conceptualise normative human behaviour. That is what ethics is!

Indeed it is, however that normative behavior you speak of is difficult to define in some cases and is most certainly useless in many.

Now get studying and let me know where and when the things that are being argued about here have ever been considered as being a part of normative human behaviour.

Pass on the study, you can present what you feel is relevant here.

To be continued!
[/quote]

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Continued.

What you are supporting is the creation of a class of human beings which have no say over whether or not they live or die and you also support the status of women as to include the power to be the final judge over whether this helpless and silent class of humans lives or dies. Right up there with the powers of Stalin and Pol Pot!!

This appears to be a horrible misrepresentation and perhaps the beginnings of a strawman.

I suggest you start reading Anthropological works. The “spiritual” aspects of human societies has been recognised as a universal aspect of human cultures around the world. It has many manifestations, but a common theme.

Really because most of the time people relate this spirituality to some kind of supernatural force and as far as I’m aware there is no credible reason to conclude that the supernatural exists in any form.

Do you need a definition of what life is? Can’t you recognise it for yourself?

Clearly there is issues over what is considered life so a universal definition is required. I propose the biological definition as it appears to be the most objective standard to use.

You are here falling for the circularity which is involved in relativity. That is, there can never ever be anything other than a collection of subjective experiences and therefore objectivity is impossible. You expose the illogicality of your position when you then use the term “concept”.

You might need to explain this argument further as there appears to be a lot of assertions and very little evidence. Perhaps a new thread is in order as this could be a pretty big topic on it’s own.

You state it is not your place to dictate morals, yet you earlier stated your support for the pro-abortion position. Despite your denial, you have entered into a moral discourse.

This is what happens when you misrepresent something, it blurs the lines of what one actually supports and what you think they support. I am not ‘pro-abortion’ I am pro-choice, I support women having the right to choose. I personally encourage the process of birth.

It is the commonality of experiences that give us objectivity in moral discourse. That is how concepts are arrived at!

So to you, objective morals exist because people agree on moral or immoral behavior?

Those external references and other people’s opinions should be telling you something. Your use of the term “concept” should be telling you something also.

All it seems to tell me is that other people have other opinions.

The concept of “humanity”, surely, shouldn’t require too much explanation? If it does, then again I suggest you start reading as many Anthropological tomes as you can lay your hands on. They empirically demonstrate the commonalities associated with what it is that constitutes humanity. That empirical evidence supports what philosophers have been mulling over for centuries. It then doesn’t take a whole lot of brain power to realise that there are certain behaviours which do indeed detract from what it is that constitutes normal human behavior.

The problem is though, me and you would disagree on what normal human behavior is though. A big one most Catholics don’t like is masturbation. I most definitely consider it normal, especially for a teenager.

By the way, I really need to know how it is that you can refer to definitions of humanity that you are unaware of, that are “presupposed” and yet which you give yourself licence to label as being "very opinionated’?

I meant opinionated as different people have different opinions of what constitutes “humane behavior”.

Here, again, the illogicality of your argument is apparent. You swing between using collective terms such as “humanity” and then reference individuals. When we reference “humanity”, that is, the collective whole, we need to use terms which conceptualise the entirety of human behaviour.

That was my original point, viewing porn, having casual sex and drug use and many other actions are apart of human behavior so using a term like, “robs us of our humanity” is appealing to a personal standard of what “humane” is.

This is how behavioural norms are arrived at. If you doubt that, then consult a psychological journal. After all, they do need guidlines about what is normal! You, however, dismiss the concept of ‘normal’ by suggesting that some behaviours are just a part of humanity. Well, of course they are part of human behaviour, because to suggest otherwise is to re-establish the tautological argument you introduced earlier and which you recognised. The point is, because some behaviour is undertaken by some humans, does not make it ‘normal’.

No but the concept of normal is always changing from individual to individual. Trying to set a standard for normal that is supposed to apply to everyone is really quite meaningless.

The criminality of a person before a Judge is decided using objective tests which decide on the “normality” of behaviour. An individual visiting a psychiatrist is diagnosed according to objective criteria which informs the counsellor of the normality or otherwise of an individual’s behaviour and attitudes. A doctor examining a patient measures the pateint’s well being against established criteria which show normal health.

All of those objective standards are effectively a means to an end, they are set up to assist with completing a goal.