Are physicalists & materialists more likely to support abortion & euthanasia & killing the enemy?

I mean the majority of those with these views. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just curious… I’m just as happy with a reason for ‘no’ as a reason for ‘yes’ or a reason why neither is appropriate...but not just a one word reply. Also are they likely to move any line drawn e.g. earlier abortions etc...

Do you mean scientists or in general?

As for the scientists I'd say no as based upon history--Guillotine invention was to make execution 'humane', Gatling's invention was to make a weapon so horrible that wars would be unthinkable, and many of the Manhattan Project Physicists petitioned Truman not to use the 'device'.
As for moralists one then would have to consider who is in favor of the death penalty and consider that the state with longest line to the gas chamber is Texas.

As for abortion and euthanasia---most rationalists that I know consider abortion to be a piss poor method of birth control and euthanasia as an individual decision.

I consider myself a materialist, but that is from my own definition. Don't ask, none of your business.

I support the right to abortion; I'm no fan of it and would rather other options work out. I support the right to euthanasia, or think I do, as assisted suicide but with qualms, thus case by case. I prefer cessation of intervention. I am extremely anti war, but even that, not entirely..

Do you conflate the views of people whom you call physicalists and materialists?

ossobuco wrote:

I consider myself a materialist, but that is from my own definition. Don't ask, none of your business.

I support the right to abortion; I'm no fan of it and would rather other options work out. I support the right to euthanasia, or think I do, as assisted suicide but with qualms, thus case by case. I prefer cessation of intervention. I am extremely anti war, but even that, not entirely..

Ok, thanks! Do you think that materialists in general would be more likely to find reasons to 'move the line' i.e. later abortions, more reasons for euthanasia, more justifications for war than the general public plus non-materialist & physicalists?

No. Maybe the opposite. But I don't think I get your connection. Do you think materialists don't care about human life?

ossobuco wrote:

Do you conflate the views of people whom you call physicalists and materialists?

Only in the broadest sense i.e. I’m not looking at the less broad differences.

I am guessing that you think materialists have no sense of the preciousness of human life. You would be wrong.

Wars have started, of course, for religious reasons. Or territorial reasons, which I suppose takes all kinds.

I consider myself a materialist, but that is from my own definition. Don't ask, none of your business.

Ok, thanks! Do you think that materialists in general would be more likely to find reasons to 'move the line' i.e. later abortions, more reasons for euthanasia, more justifications for war than the general public plus non-materialist & physicalists?

No. Maybe the opposite.

But I don't think I get your connection. Do you think materialists don't care about human life?

Do you conflate the views of people whom you call physicalists and materialists?

I am guessing that you think materialists have no sense of the preciousness of human life. You would be wrong.
Wars have started, of course, for religious reasons. Or territorial reasons, which I suppose takes all kinds.

I consider myself a materialist, but that is from my own definition. Don't ask, none of your business.

Ok, thanks! Do you think that materialists in general would be more likely to find reasons to 'move the line' i.e. later abortions, more reasons for euthanasia, more justifications for war than the general public plus non-materialist & physicalists?

No. Maybe the opposite.

But I don't think I get your connection. Do you think materialists don't care about human life?

This is conflation -

" I'm wondering if they would cater for the majority and be more radical with early life and end of life and the enemy."

Do you conflate the views of people whom you call physicalists and materialists?

Only in the broadest sense i.e. I’m not looking at the less broad differences.

Are physicalists & materialists more likely to support abortion & euthanasia & killing the enemy?

Quote:

Are physicalists & materialists more likely to support abortion & euthanasia & killing the enemy?

I think they are less likely to cloud the issues with religious dogma, but there is a whole bunch of other stuff they can introduce to the issue that would cloud it just as much.

Sometimes death is a mercy. When morals make people suffer I find it distasteful, and it seems to me that it is the materialistic view of life that advocates this strict "no mercy policy". Someone who believes in a life after death would not be so opposed to ending suffering when death was near and inevitable anyway.

Religious people don't form a monolithic mass, all members with the same opinions, and neither do non religious people.

...I think bottom line what nobody forgives them is the incoherence in which they live...when it comes to business they don´t play by faith alone, they are in fact very rational when it comes down to day to day life decisions...

..."religious maniacs" who else ? "Nespresso" ?