The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
My own personal belief? That it was an act of God. But for discussion purposes, assume that I believe it is a result of evolution.
Those seem mutually exclusive to me, but okay.
I think evolution destroys your argument, Podly. Which genetic mutation is responsible for the special-case human soul that you were talking about? Or are you admitting that the special-case human soul is not actually special-case, but rather an emergent property from a variety of genetic mutations governing the structure of primate brains?
think evolution destroys your argument, Podly. Which genetic mutation is responsible for the special-case human soul that you were talking about? Or are you admitting that the special-case human soul is not actually special-case, but rather an emergent property from a variety of genetic mutations governing the structure of primate brains?
I don't think that it destroys my argument. I find that philosophers are most effective when they grant the biggest concessions and still prove their point, and then build positions on top of that.
For example, if is is from evolution, than it would seem to be a sort of resonant-structure within the complexity of the brain which produces a totally non-material function -- that of of the ontological awareness and existential definition. Thus, it is not tied to some sort of human essence. Perhaps something else will evolve in a similar fashion and develop similar capabilities. In that case, it would be wrong to abort those beings as well, because it is an attack on their existential PURDURANCE.
Another example of complexity: A child at a certain age, if you flap your arms and pat your head, drink some water and give it the water, it will overimitate you. That is, it will flap its arms, pat its head, drink the water. (Well as best as it can, since kids are clumsy) humans are naturally selected through evolution to think that the structure, actions, ideas, behaviors, etc, surrounding an action are just as important as the action.
If you do it to a monkey the monkey stares at you then drinks the water.
The ability to learn behavior through imitation is fundamental to everything about human civilization. "Learned behavior" may as well be another word for "idea."
I agree with you that the ability to learn behavior is an evolved trait, and a very important one. Pavlovian responses like the one you've detailed with the child are one example, but many mammals (and I'm pretty sure some birds) can also imitate behavior coinciding with rewards. More intelligent mammals, like apes and humans, can imitate more precise behaviors and have brains capable of categorizing those behaviors and rewards in a sufficiently detailed way that allows us to have nifty things like tools and language.
Qingu: To me morality is just an excuse for not challenging your prerational stereotypes and implicit automatic thoughts about an idea, concept, action, behavior, situation, person, etc. I do not take it as an excuse, it is not an unassailable platform to me, and I do and will call people on their morals and make them lay the logic of them out and explain them.
If they cannot I dismiss them.
I think we are operating under different definitions of morality. I think it's possible to have a largely rational moral system.
I'm also not sure whether or not you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
For example, if is is from evolution, than it would seem to be a sort of resonant-structure within the complexity of the brain which produces a totally non-material function -- that of of the ontological awareness and existential definition. Thus, it is not tied to some sort of human essence. Perhaps something else will evolve in a similar fashion and develop similar capabilities. In that case, it would be wrong to abort those beings as well, because it is an attack on their existential PURDURANCE.
Would it be wrong to abort a Neandertal?
Homo habilis?
Chimpanzee?
Where's the cut-off, and why do you cut it off there?
Qingu on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
For example, if is is from evolution, than it would seem to be a sort of resonant-structure within the complexity of the brain which produces a totally non-material function -- that of of the ontological awareness and existential definition. Thus, it is not tied to some sort of human essence. Perhaps something else will evolve in a similar fashion and develop similar capabilities. In that case, it would be wrong to abort those beings as well, because it is an attack on their existential PURDURANCE.
Would it be wrong to abort a Neandertal?
Homo habilis?
Chimpanzee?
Where's the cut-off, and why do you cut it off there?
It is unfounded to talk about anything dealing with the subjective experience of something like Neanderthals. Chimpanzees? No, I do not think it would be wrong to abort a chimpanzee, though I can't think of many cases when this would happen. I suppose if one chimpanzee got pregnant in high school and had dreams of becoming the world's leading cardiac surgeon, she should get an abortion.
It is unfounded to talk about anything dealing with the subjective experience of something like Neanderthals.
What does this even mean?
You're saying it's wrong to abort a human because there's something about the human soul that is innately special and worth preserving. Would it be wrong to abort a similar primate, such as a Neandartal? What information would you need in order to assess its wrongness?
Chimpanzees? No, I do not think it would be wrong to abort a chimpanzee, though I can't think of many cases when this would happen. I suppose if one chimpanzee got pregnant in high school and had dreams of becoming the world's leading cardiac surgeon, she should get an abortion.
Cute, but I think you know what I'm trying to get at.
Qingu on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Another example of complexity: A child at a certain age, if you flap your arms and pat your head, drink some water and give it the water, it will overimitate you. That is, it will flap its arms, pat its head, drink the water. (Well as best as it can, since kids are clumsy) humans are naturally selected through evolution to think that the structure, actions, ideas, behaviors, etc, surrounding an action are just as important as the action.
If you do it to a monkey the monkey stares at you then drinks the water.
The ability to learn behavior through imitation is fundamental to everything about human civilization. "Learned behavior" may as well be another word for "idea."
I agree with you that the ability to learn behavior is an evolved trait, and a very important one. Pavlovian responses like the one you've detailed with the child are one example, but many mammals (and I'm pretty sure some birds) can also imitate behavior coinciding with rewards. More intelligent mammals, like apes and humans, can imitate more precise behaviors and have brains capable of categorizing those behaviors and rewards in a sufficiently detailed way that allows us to have nifty things like tools and language.
Qingu: To me morality is just an excuse for not challenging your prerational stereotypes and implicit automatic thoughts about an idea, concept, action, behavior, situation, person, etc. I do not take it as an excuse, it is not an unassailable platform to me, and I do and will call people on their morals and make them lay the logic of them out and explain them.
If they cannot I dismiss them.
I think we are operating under different definitions of morality. I think it's possible to have a largely rational moral system.
I'm also not sure whether or not you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
No, I don't agree with that definition of morality. I take the view that, as it is mostly used, it's a prerational stereotype that a large degree of people don't question.
You can shape and manipulate morals just like any other stereotype once you recognise them, it just takes a long time and exposure.
The "largely rational moral system" you speak of I just call rationality. So not really the same concept. To me morals are prerational, and are just the triggering of automatic set of thoughts/feelings when presented with an idea, action, thing. People will often apply rationality to justify where the moral came from, but you must be familiar with the sort of person for whom when you wipe away their arguments fall back on "its just wrong" "just because" "i just feel it". Because theyre largely automatic and prerational, they have nowhere else to fall back to. They've never deal with them before. Many people consider such automaticity to be the be core elements of their existence, axiomatic and self-evident. Nevertheless, as research in prejudice has shown, automatic thinking can be changed.
Note this view doesn't come from any philisophical background on my part, so I'm sure philosophy has a definition of morality they use in their literature. I really don't know.
Oh and as I indicated you were right about the monkey, my memory is not infallible. :P
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I would like to say,for posterity's sake, that Judaism believes the fetus to be a limb of the mother. Of course, Judaism also has some strong prohibitions against self-mutilation, which I think chopping off a limb might count as, so I don't know where orthodox stand, although Lieberman is probably a good indicator.
They'll go around the mirror and try to find where the monkey is.
They show absolutely no understanding whatsoever that the mirror is reflecting them and not some other monkey.
A cat will see a cat in a mirror too.
I said apes, not monkeys.
Apes absolutely can recognize themselves in mirrors.
As well, octopi and dolphins recignize themselves in the mirror, so it's not even something that is unique to the development of humans (if you want to think of humans as some sort of evolutionary telos).
No, I don't agree with that definition of morality.
Then we're just arguing semantics, not substance. Which is sort of offtopic and, in my opinion, pointless.
Nonsense.
Clarifying an easily confused concept like morality should be the first thing you do in any argument such as this. You have not done this, so you are going to be wasting half the thread arguing with people over semantics.
Presenting a clear definition to be used in the present argument is something you should have learnt already considering what you know.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
You're saying it's wrong to abort a human because there's something about the human soul that is innately special and worth preserving.
I am not. Because there is no such thing as "the human soul." What I am saying is that human have a being, with which the identify their selves. They may have multiple selves, but they all come under the same being, the same Dasein, the same reach of existence. And there is no one essence which endures, but rather, slices of existence in spacetime which relate to eachother through the perdurance of the existential soul - that structure which allows being to spread-out-to-itself. The fetus is a being, the same being which I am - even though the horizons of my dasein are much further, it is still human, a separate being from the mother, and it would be wrong to take that being's being.
No, I don't agree with that definition of morality.
Then we're just arguing semantics, not substance. Which is sort of offtopic and, in my opinion, pointless.
Nonsense.
Clarifying an easily confused concept like morality should be the first thing you do in any argument such as this. You have not done this, so you are going to be wasting half the thread arguing with people over semantics.
Presenting a clear definition to be used in the present argument is something you should have learnt already considering what you know.
Fine: morality is simply codified behavior. This is a much broader definition than yours.
You're saying it's wrong to abort a human because there's something about the human soul that is innately special and worth preserving.
I am not. Because there is no such thing as "the human soul." What I am saying is that human have a being, with which the identify their selves. They may have multiple selves, but they all come under the same being, the same Dasein, the same reach of existence. And there is no one essence which endures, but rather, slices of existence in spacetime which relate to eachother through the perdurance of the existential soul - that structure which allows being to spread-out-to-itself. The fetus is a being, the same being which I am - even though the horizons of my dasein are much further, it is still human, a separate being from the mother, and it would be wrong to take that being's being.
Maybe I'm missing this because I'm not high or whatever, but where is your explanation for why it's not wrong to abort a Neandartal or a chimpanzee?
I'm not seeing the fundamental difference between these animals and human beings that leads you to give special protection to human beings.
Qingu on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
A large part of self identity is socially generated though Podly.
Arguable, yes, though I don't think you know the gigantic can of philosophical worms you're opening. (marxist, Foucaultian, Deleuzian, Adornian, etc.)
No, but if you wanna go psychological vs philisophical I'll take you on any time arts boy.
I kid, but I'm not impressed by theories or theorists Podly. Feel free to bring them out if you want, I'm interested to see how the sociological/philisophical perspective approaches it and if they end up with the same theories in the end as what I've learnt in social psych. Never know when an idea might be useful. After all much of current social psych that isn't focusing on prejudice or acculturation is based on western cultures.
(I have an appointment an hour's travel time away I need to leave for now so I wont reply for a few hours though)
Something else that occured to me though is that human children don't tend pass the mirror test till around 18 months.
So if one half of this dichotomy is being based on having a sense of identity then by that logic kids are fair game for chop chop until they can pass that test, which I'm damn sure everybody here agrees is absurd. (Or they should) It's not a particularly sound basis for differentiation to use identity in this case. That applies more to adults.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Is this seriously part of your argument? I can see the other one--not saying I agree or disagree with it, necessarily, but it's reasonable---but by this argument, if a mother chooses to cut the throat of her one-year-old child, she should be considered blameless because "she gets to decide how the child votes". You can't really think this is how the law should work.
The one year old does not require the mother to take care of it. She loses no control over her body by giving it up for adoption. See the difference?
I'd also like to see partial birth abortions stay banned, and if it isn't, I'd like to see third trimester abortions also banned.
I see this sentiment a lot from people who don't know what "partial birth abortion" actually entails, or what alternatives we're forced to resort to as a result of it being banned. Hint: the alternative procedure is by far more dangerous to the mother, and is no less icky (and let's be honest - the motives for specifically banning "partial-birth abortions" all boil down to either "that's icky" or "I'm opposed to abortion, period").
Do you think that third-trimester abortions should be banned even if the health of the mother is endangered?
IMO, the most important thing a person loses when they die is their potential future experiences. We value a person's life because we assume that have years ahead of them full of love, anger, pain, joy, etc.etc. - a human existence that is irreplaceable and irrecoverable if we pass away. We assume other people have a future because they have the potential for those experiences, ie. they don't have a defect or injury that would prevent them from living a human life.
I don't see how that applies any less to a fetus than to a 20 year old. If anything, the former has more to lose than the latter. Why do we say it's not okay to kill the 20 year old with but is okay to kill the fetus? Both lose their futures, which in my mind is the key point in death.
So I'm philosophically against abortion... But frankly, I don't really see a better alternative. Orphanages already have plenty of kids that don't get adopted. How do I say 'no' to a rape or incest victim? How would I promote people carrying children to term without some sort of screwed up incentive structure? And even if it was made illegal, people would just find a way to get them anyway.
So meh. Against abortion technically, but I'm not going to vote for any laws enforcing that ideal because, in my eyes, none of them really address the problem in a comprehensive way.
IMO, the most important thing a person loses when they die is their potential future experiences. We value a person's life because we assume that have years ahead of them full of love, anger, pain, joy, etc.etc. - a human existence that is irreplaceable and irrecoverable if we pass away. We assume other people have a future because they have the potential for those experiences, ie. they don't have a defect or injury that would prevent them from living a human life.
I don't see how that applies any less to a fetus than to a 20 year old. If anything, the former has more to lose than the latter. Why do we say it's not okay to kill the 20 year old with but is okay to kill the fetus? Both lose their futures, which in my mind is the key point in death.
So I'm philosophically against abortion... But frankly, I don't really see a better alternative. Orphanages already have plenty of kids that don't get adopted. How do I say 'no' to a rape or incest victim? How would I promote people carrying children to term without some sort of screwed up incentive structure? And even if it was made illegal, people would just find a way to get them anyway.
So meh. Against abortion technically, but I'm not going to vote for any laws enforcing that ideal because, in my eyes, none of them really address the problem in a comprehensive way.
Doesn't that same ideology make you against abstinence too, though?
IMO, the most important thing a person loses when they die is their potential future experiences. We value a person's life because we assume that have years ahead of them full of love, anger, pain, joy, etc.etc. - a human existence that is irreplaceable and irrecoverable if we pass away. We assume other people have a future because they have the potential for those experiences, ie. they don't have a defect or injury that would prevent them from living a human life.
I don't see how that applies any less to a fetus than to a 20 year old. If anything, the former has more to lose than the latter. Why do we say it's not okay to kill the 20 year old with but is okay to kill the fetus? Both lose their futures, which in my mind is the key point in death.
So I'm philosophically against abortion... But frankly, I don't really see a better alternative. Orphanages already have plenty of kids that don't get adopted. How do I say 'no' to a rape or incest victim? How would I promote people carrying children to term without some sort of screwed up incentive structure? And even if it was made illegal, people would just find a way to get them anyway.
So meh. Against abortion technically, but I'm not going to vote for any laws enforcing that ideal because, in my eyes, none of them really address the problem in a comprehensive way.
Doesn't that same ideology make you against abstinence too, though?
Not at all, because until a human being has been created, I don't care. I assume people have a future because they already exist and, barring some horrific genetic defect, they have a human future.
Not at all, because until a human being has been created, I don't care. I assume people have a future because they already exist and, barring some horrific genetic defect, they have a human future.
Er, if you hadn't aborted that sperm with a condom it would have had a future as a human as well.
Not at all, because until a human being has been created, I don't care. I assume people have a future because they already exist and, barring some horrific genetic defect, they have a human future.
Er, if you hadn't aborted that sperm with a condom it would have had a future as a human as well.
If you start thinking about things that way, it's a stupidly slippery slope. Shooting some dude's balls off would count as like mass murder.
That's stupid.
I prefer to deal with things I *know* have a future than things that *might* at some nebulous point in the future.
Not at all, because until a human being has been created, I don't care. I assume people have a future because they already exist and, barring some horrific genetic defect, they have a human future.
Er, if you hadn't aborted that sperm with a condom it would have had a future as a human as well.
If you start thinking about things that way, it's a stupidly slippery slope. Shooting some dude's balls off would count as like mass murder.
That's stupid.
I prefer to deal with things I *know* have a future than things that *might* at some nebulous point in the future.
Don't fertilized eggs actually miscarry all the time?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
When its a human being that has the capacity to experience a human future.
I don't believe that this is a hard concept to wrap a head around.
Well it kinda seems like your position is "The definition of a person is something that has a future and you know when something has a future because it's a person". Which seems a little circular and circumvents the essential question of personhood.
Not at all, because until a human being has been created, I don't care. I assume people have a future because they already exist and, barring some horrific genetic defect, they have a human future.
Er, if you hadn't aborted that sperm with a condom it would have had a future as a human as well.
If you start thinking about things that way, it's a stupidly slippery slope. Shooting some dude's balls off would count as like mass murder.
That's stupid.
I prefer to deal with things I *know* have a future than things that *might* at some nebulous point in the future.
Don't fertilized eggs actually miscarry all the time?
Yes, actually, it's quite common. Something like 25% of the time, if memory serves me correctly.
When its a human being that has the capacity to experience a human future.
I don't believe that this is a hard concept to wrap a head around.
Well it kinda seems like your position is "The definition of a person is something that has a future and you know when something has a future because it's a person". Which seems a little circular and circumvents the essential question of personhood.
If you are a human being that is capable of living a human life (ie. you're not deprived of 4 of your 5 senses, you're not trapped in a vegetative state / coma for presumed eternity) you can be assumed to have a future. That future is what makes murdering you wrong, because that would take that future away from you. This applies to fetuses and adults.
It does not apply to sperm or eggs because I'm not talking about preventing people that might be, I'm talking about what's wrong with killing people that are.
It's not an absolute hard and fast philosophy, but then no one with a hard, fast, unbending philosophy can be taken seriously anyway :P
When its a human being that has the capacity to experience a human future.
I don't believe that this is a hard concept to wrap a head around.
Well it kinda seems like your position is "The definition of a person is something that has a future and you know when something has a future because it's a person". Which seems a little circular and circumvents the essential question of personhood.
If you are a human being that is capable of living a human life (ie. you're not deprived of 4 of your 5 senses, you're not trapped in a vegetative state / coma for presumed eternity) you can be assumed to have a future. That future is what makes murdering you wrong, because that would take that future away from you. This applies to fetuses and adults.
It does not apply to sperm or eggs because I'm not talking about preventing people that might be, I'm talking about what's wrong with killing people that are.
It's not an absolute hard and fast philosophy, but then no one with a hard, fast, unbending philosophy can be taken seriously anyway :P
Ok but that doesn't actually escape any of the old arguments of personhood, you've just put your bar at conception, as many do.
No one seems perfectly comfortable with saying at what point a living organism has a viable future. The posts above us have already gone into the inherent unviability of many zygotes. A considerable percentage of fetilised eggs have no future past the point of conception because of fatal flaws that will ensure their failure in a matter of days or weeks. Are these still people? In a number of pre-industrialised cultures infants mortality is so high that newborns are denied legitimate personhood until they have reached a certain age, usually symbolised in ritual fashion. Parents are not expected to grieve over the death of an infant because their chance of survival was so low to begin with. Are they still people?
The thing that always gets me about this debate, especially if we're exploring the "souls" argument, is the basic assumption that just because a group of people take issue with abortion based upon common though not universal religious beliefs, the government need make legislation on the matter. To me, it's a pretty simple matter with a pretty simple solution.
1) Some people think abortion is wrong, so these people should not get abortions
2) The people that don't should have the right to them, especially if other measures of birth control (particularly plan are legal.
My cousin, who was raised to be very, very religious, got pregnant after her plan B failed. She kept the baby, had it out of wedlock, and subsequently went through a very difficult time in her life. (Thankfully, she is happily married to the baby's father now and they're doing fine, but still.) It's all well and good that she followed her particular beliefs, but how is it even remotely justifiable that someone could think that abortion shouldn't be allowed given all of the other options that are available that basically amount to the same thing?
Some people would argue that we do have a duty to stop abortion because it is immoral, which is the same reason we outlaw stealing and killing. These people are misguided. killing and stealing are outlawed because they are disruptive to society; any rational society, secular or otherwise, would outlaw these acts because they prevent society from functioning normally.
Abortion is wrong, yes, but it does not intrinsically disrupt society, which is laws should be concerned with. In it's wrongness, we may see that one should refrain from getting abortions, but one is not obliged to stop it. The onus lies with the woman, her spouse, and the medical personnel involved. It is their decision, and while one can oppose it on moral grounds, it is no more rational to outlaw abortion than it is to outlaw adultery.
I like this, though the rationale seems to permit infanticide as well. But then, I'm not sure I'm totally against infanticide.
When its a human being that has the capacity to experience a human future.
I don't believe that this is a hard concept to wrap a head around.
Well it kinda seems like your position is "The definition of a person is something that has a future and you know when something has a future because it's a person". Which seems a little circular and circumvents the essential question of personhood.
If you are a human being that is capable of living a human life (ie. you're not deprived of 4 of your 5 senses, you're not trapped in a vegetative state / coma for presumed eternity) you can be assumed to have a future. That future is what makes murdering you wrong, because that would take that future away from you. This applies to fetuses and adults.
It does not apply to sperm or eggs because I'm not talking about preventing people that might be, I'm talking about what's wrong with killing people that are.
It's not an absolute hard and fast philosophy, but then no one with a hard, fast, unbending philosophy can be taken seriously anyway :P
Ok but that doesn't actually escape any of the old arguments of personhood, you've just put your bar at conception, as many do.
I'll admit that I don't deviate a lot from what many pro-lifers parrot with regards to that moment of conception thing, but I arrive at that decision by a circuitous route. If you knew an infant were going to be born with some sort of horrible defect that would - like I said before - render it incapable of living even a semblance of a human life, I wouldn't have a problem letting an abortion go forward. By that token, I wouldn't object to families being able to 'pull the plug' on family members in a vegetative state that have no hope of recovery.
But the zygote question is interesting. I'd have to go research about how long it takes for an egg to really become 'viable' once fertilized.
Those who oppose abortion argue that a fetus has a right to life because it is (or has significant potential to become) a human being. They are working on the assumption that being a human being is what in and of itself grants one the right to life. I'm not so sure that's the case.
Posts
I think evolution destroys your argument, Podly. Which genetic mutation is responsible for the special-case human soul that you were talking about? Or are you admitting that the special-case human soul is not actually special-case, but rather an emergent property from a variety of genetic mutations governing the structure of primate brains?
I don't disagree, but selection doesn't necessarily imply mutation. It can also be shaped by freak chance and other environmental factors.
I don't think that it destroys my argument. I find that philosophers are most effective when they grant the biggest concessions and still prove their point, and then build positions on top of that.
For example, if is is from evolution, than it would seem to be a sort of resonant-structure within the complexity of the brain which produces a totally non-material function -- that of of the ontological awareness and existential definition. Thus, it is not tied to some sort of human essence. Perhaps something else will evolve in a similar fashion and develop similar capabilities. In that case, it would be wrong to abort those beings as well, because it is an attack on their existential PURDURANCE.
Apes absolutely can recognize themselves in mirrors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8
The ability to learn behavior through imitation is fundamental to everything about human civilization. "Learned behavior" may as well be another word for "idea."
I agree with you that the ability to learn behavior is an evolved trait, and a very important one. Pavlovian responses like the one you've detailed with the child are one example, but many mammals (and I'm pretty sure some birds) can also imitate behavior coinciding with rewards. More intelligent mammals, like apes and humans, can imitate more precise behaviors and have brains capable of categorizing those behaviors and rewards in a sufficiently detailed way that allows us to have nifty things like tools and language.
I think we are operating under different definitions of morality. I think it's possible to have a largely rational moral system.
I'm also not sure whether or not you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
Homo habilis?
Chimpanzee?
Where's the cut-off, and why do you cut it off there?
It is unfounded to talk about anything dealing with the subjective experience of something like Neanderthals. Chimpanzees? No, I do not think it would be wrong to abort a chimpanzee, though I can't think of many cases when this would happen. I suppose if one chimpanzee got pregnant in high school and had dreams of becoming the world's leading cardiac surgeon, she should get an abortion.
Nevermind I just double checked and I was remembering the comparison example. Great apes can recognise themselves.
You're saying it's wrong to abort a human because there's something about the human soul that is innately special and worth preserving. Would it be wrong to abort a similar primate, such as a Neandartal? What information would you need in order to assess its wrongness?
Cute, but I think you know what I'm trying to get at.
No, I don't agree with that definition of morality. I take the view that, as it is mostly used, it's a prerational stereotype that a large degree of people don't question.
You can shape and manipulate morals just like any other stereotype once you recognise them, it just takes a long time and exposure.
The "largely rational moral system" you speak of I just call rationality. So not really the same concept. To me morals are prerational, and are just the triggering of automatic set of thoughts/feelings when presented with an idea, action, thing. People will often apply rationality to justify where the moral came from, but you must be familiar with the sort of person for whom when you wipe away their arguments fall back on "its just wrong" "just because" "i just feel it". Because theyre largely automatic and prerational, they have nowhere else to fall back to. They've never deal with them before. Many people consider such automaticity to be the be core elements of their existence, axiomatic and self-evident. Nevertheless, as research in prejudice has shown, automatic thinking can be changed.
Note this view doesn't come from any philisophical background on my part, so I'm sure philosophy has a definition of morality they use in their literature. I really don't know.
Oh and as I indicated you were right about the monkey, my memory is not infallible. :P
Nonsense.
Clarifying an easily confused concept like morality should be the first thing you do in any argument such as this. You have not done this, so you are going to be wasting half the thread arguing with people over semantics.
Presenting a clear definition to be used in the present argument is something you should have learnt already considering what you know.
I am not. Because there is no such thing as "the human soul." What I am saying is that human have a being, with which the identify their selves. They may have multiple selves, but they all come under the same being, the same Dasein, the same reach of existence. And there is no one essence which endures, but rather, slices of existence in spacetime which relate to eachother through the perdurance of the existential soul - that structure which allows being to spread-out-to-itself. The fetus is a being, the same being which I am - even though the horizons of my dasein are much further, it is still human, a separate being from the mother, and it would be wrong to take that being's being.
Arguable, yes, though I don't think you know the gigantic can of philosophical worms you're opening. (marxist, Foucaultian, Deleuzian, Adornian, etc.)
I'm not seeing the fundamental difference between these animals and human beings that leads you to give special protection to human beings.
No, but if you wanna go psychological vs philisophical I'll take you on any time arts boy.
I kid, but I'm not impressed by theories or theorists Podly. Feel free to bring them out if you want, I'm interested to see how the sociological/philisophical perspective approaches it and if they end up with the same theories in the end as what I've learnt in social psych. Never know when an idea might be useful. After all much of current social psych that isn't focusing on prejudice or acculturation is based on western cultures.
(I have an appointment an hour's travel time away I need to leave for now so I wont reply for a few hours though)
Something else that occured to me though is that human children don't tend pass the mirror test till around 18 months.
So if one half of this dichotomy is being based on having a sense of identity then by that logic kids are fair game for chop chop until they can pass that test, which I'm damn sure everybody here agrees is absurd. (Or they should) It's not a particularly sound basis for differentiation to use identity in this case. That applies more to adults.
The one year old does not require the mother to take care of it. She loses no control over her body by giving it up for adoption. See the difference?
I see this sentiment a lot from people who don't know what "partial birth abortion" actually entails, or what alternatives we're forced to resort to as a result of it being banned. Hint: the alternative procedure is by far more dangerous to the mother, and is no less icky (and let's be honest - the motives for specifically banning "partial-birth abortions" all boil down to either "that's icky" or "I'm opposed to abortion, period").
Do you think that third-trimester abortions should be banned even if the health of the mother is endangered?
I don't see how that applies any less to a fetus than to a 20 year old. If anything, the former has more to lose than the latter. Why do we say it's not okay to kill the 20 year old with but is okay to kill the fetus? Both lose their futures, which in my mind is the key point in death.
So I'm philosophically against abortion... But frankly, I don't really see a better alternative. Orphanages already have plenty of kids that don't get adopted. How do I say 'no' to a rape or incest victim? How would I promote people carrying children to term without some sort of screwed up incentive structure? And even if it was made illegal, people would just find a way to get them anyway.
So meh. Against abortion technically, but I'm not going to vote for any laws enforcing that ideal because, in my eyes, none of them really address the problem in a comprehensive way.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Doesn't that same ideology make you against abstinence too, though?
Not at all, because until a human being has been created, I don't care. I assume people have a future because they already exist and, barring some horrific genetic defect, they have a human future.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If you start thinking about things that way, it's a stupidly slippery slope. Shooting some dude's balls off would count as like mass murder.
That's stupid.
I prefer to deal with things I *know* have a future than things that *might* at some nebulous point in the future.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Don't fertilized eggs actually miscarry all the time?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
When its a human being that has the capacity to experience a human future.
I don't believe that this is a hard concept to wrap a head around.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Well it kinda seems like your position is "The definition of a person is something that has a future and you know when something has a future because it's a person". Which seems a little circular and circumvents the essential question of personhood.
Yes, actually, it's quite common. Something like 25% of the time, if memory serves me correctly.
If you are a human being that is capable of living a human life (ie. you're not deprived of 4 of your 5 senses, you're not trapped in a vegetative state / coma for presumed eternity) you can be assumed to have a future. That future is what makes murdering you wrong, because that would take that future away from you. This applies to fetuses and adults.
It does not apply to sperm or eggs because I'm not talking about preventing people that might be, I'm talking about what's wrong with killing people that are.
It's not an absolute hard and fast philosophy, but then no one with a hard, fast, unbending philosophy can be taken seriously anyway :P
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Ok but that doesn't actually escape any of the old arguments of personhood, you've just put your bar at conception, as many do.
No one seems perfectly comfortable with saying at what point a living organism has a viable future. The posts above us have already gone into the inherent unviability of many zygotes. A considerable percentage of fetilised eggs have no future past the point of conception because of fatal flaws that will ensure their failure in a matter of days or weeks. Are these still people? In a number of pre-industrialised cultures infants mortality is so high that newborns are denied legitimate personhood until they have reached a certain age, usually symbolised in ritual fashion. Parents are not expected to grieve over the death of an infant because their chance of survival was so low to begin with. Are they still people?
1) Some people think abortion is wrong, so these people should not get abortions
2) The people that don't should have the right to them, especially if other measures of birth control (particularly plan
My cousin, who was raised to be very, very religious, got pregnant after her plan B failed. She kept the baby, had it out of wedlock, and subsequently went through a very difficult time in her life. (Thankfully, she is happily married to the baby's father now and they're doing fine, but still.) It's all well and good that she followed her particular beliefs, but how is it even remotely justifiable that someone could think that abortion shouldn't be allowed given all of the other options that are available that basically amount to the same thing?
I like this, though the rationale seems to permit infanticide as well. But then, I'm not sure I'm totally against infanticide.
I'll admit that I don't deviate a lot from what many pro-lifers parrot with regards to that moment of conception thing, but I arrive at that decision by a circuitous route. If you knew an infant were going to be born with some sort of horrible defect that would - like I said before - render it incapable of living even a semblance of a human life, I wouldn't have a problem letting an abortion go forward. By that token, I wouldn't object to families being able to 'pull the plug' on family members in a vegetative state that have no hope of recovery.
But the zygote question is interesting. I'd have to go research about how long it takes for an egg to really become 'viable' once fertilized.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow