Abortion or Murder or just suits our self

real life wrote:

What relevance does that have to the question of whether dismembering the unborn with a scalpel, or chemically burning it to death in saline -- is moral or not?

I consider morality to be a convenient dodge of the self-rigtheous busybody. Allegations of what is or is not moral have absolutely no effect upon my opinions of what constitutes prudence in regard to the social contract.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
What relevance does that have to the question of whether dismembering the unborn with a scalpel, or chemically burning it to death in saline -- is moral or not?

I consider morality to be a convenient dodge of the self-rigtheous busybody. Allegations of what is or is not moral have absolutely no effect upon my opinions of what constitutes prudence in regard to the social contract.

Do you consider it morally wrong to make moral judgements?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you consider it morally wrong to make moral judgements?

That's rather a silly question. The concept of morality is subjective. Those who subjectively believe that there is such a thing as morality would certainly be rather loony to assert that there was anything morally wrong with making a moral judgment, so i don't expect that they would. For my own part, i am unimpressed by moral judgment, and only judge the merit of a contention made from someone's moral sense on the basis of a pragmatic consideration of the impact on the social contract.

0 Replies

<beat>

<beat>

<beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat><beat>

I guess it is easier to sit around making moral judgements than it is to actually see what is on your doorstep.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Do you consider it morally wrong to make moral judgements?

That's rather a silly question. The concept of morality is subjective. Those who subjectively believe that there is such a thing as morality would certainly be rather loony to assert that there was anything morally wrong with making a moral judgment, so i don't expect that they would.

Would you agree also that those who do not believe that there is such a thing as morality would be rather loony to assert that there was anything morally wrong with making a moral judgment?

Setanta wrote:

For my own part, i am unimpressed by moral judgment, and only judge the merit of a contention made from someone's moral sense on the basis of a pragmatic consideration of the impact on the social contract.

If someone's decision or action (in your opinion) has had a negative impact on society, is their action therefore wrong?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Would you agree also that those who do not believe that there is such a thing as morality would be rather loony to assert that there was anything morally wrong with making a moral judgment?

I know you think you're being clever, but you're not. I have made no such assertion.

Quote:

If someone's decision or action (in your opinion) has had a negative impact on society, is their action therefore wrong?

If society ordains that it is wrong, then it is wrong. Violation of the social contract, or a violation of one's personal ethos, are the only subjective bases upon which i would accept a contention that something were wrong. Those are, in fact, the only bases upon which "wrongness" can be asserted, as "wrongness" does not exist objectively, it only exists subjectively.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Would you agree also that those who do not believe that there is such a thing as morality would be rather loony to assert that there was anything morally wrong with making a moral judgment?

I know you think you're being clever, but you're not. I have made no such assertion.

Would it not be self contradictory for those who do not believe that there is such a thing as morality to assert that there was something morally wrong with making a moral judgment?

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
If someone's decision or action (in your opinion) has had a negative impact on society, is their action therefore wrong?

If society ordains that it is wrong, then it is wrong. Violation of the social contract, or a violation of one's personal ethos, are the only subjective bases upon which i would accept a contention that something were wrong. Those are, in fact, the only bases upon which "wrongness" can be asserted, as "wrongness" does not exist objectively, it only exists subjectively.

So when society considered it wrong to return a fleeing slave to it's master, you would have considered it wrong also?

When abortion was considered wrong (and illegal) , was it therefore wrong in your view also?

If you lived in China where their society considers it wrong to bear more than one child, would you consider it wrong also?

If you lived in one of the Muslim countries where it is considered wrong to violate sharia, would you consider it wrong also?

Does your view of right and wrong simply shift with the wind?

What if one's personal view of right and wrong do not agree with the society at large? Which one is right and which one is wrong?

Are both right?

Are Muslim societies right to enforce sharia? Is China right to perform abortions forcibly when the moment requires it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Would it not be self contradictory for those who do not believe that there is such a thing as morality to assert that there was something morally wrong with making a moral judgment?

You must be dull-witted. As i've already pointed out, i've made no such assertion.

As for the rest of your drivel, my notions of right or wrong are based on my personal ethos. That may or may not coincide with society's decisions of what is right or wrong. As i've pointed out, either way, it is a subjective judgment. I tire of your games, don't expect any more responses. You apparently don't understand, or are unwilling to acknowledge the substance of, the replies i've made.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Would it not be self contradictory for those who do not believe that there is such a thing as morality to assert that there was something morally wrong with making a moral judgment?

You must be dull-witted. As i've already pointed out, i've made no such assertion.

As for the rest of your drivel, my notions of right or wrong are based on my personal ethos. That may or may not coincide with society's decisions of what is right or wrong. As i've pointed out, either way, it is a subjective judgment. I tire of your games, don't expect any more responses. You apparently don't understand, or are unwilling to acknowledge the substance of, the replies i've made.

You have proposed two subjective bases on which right and wrong are determined -- the current opinion of society, and your own current opinion.

(Aside from the obvious fact that these both may change frequently back and forth), what is right and wrong when they are in conflict?

Are both society and the individual right even when their opinions are opposite?

If twenty individuals each have a different idea of what is right or wrong, are all twenty right?

0 Replies

There is an adage that says "If it is not a baby, then you are not pregnant" My view runs along the line of life begins at conception--the destruction of human life due to "inconvenience" has to be morally wrong in my view.

0 Replies

You're right, who needs doctors, biologists or scientists when you've got adages?

0 Replies

Yeah.. adages like.. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" show that it isn't a baby until its born.

We might as well argue adages. Makes as much sense as most of the pro life arguments.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

You're right, who needs doctors, biologists or scientists when you've got adages?

You've yet to cite any[/u] medical evidence to show that the unborn is not a living human being.

Just political adages from you about how you are concerned about women's health.

How about the dead girl babies that are victims of abortion? A definite women's health issue.

No concern for the millions that die through no choice of their own, just platitudes about how some might die attempting something illegal if abortion is prohibited.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Yeah.. adages like.. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" show that it isn't a baby until its born.

We might as well argue adages. Makes as much sense as most of the pro life arguments.

If someone steals your paycheck before you cashed it, you haven't lost any 'money' either, right?

It wasn't 'money', it was just 'potential money', right?

You didn't actually have 'money' yet, did you? Of course not.

Anyone who would examine your paycheck could tell you that it bears little resemblance to legal tender.

Different color, wrong words in wrong places, different paper.

It wasn't 'money' at all. Anyone can see that.

Why the words 'paycheck' and 'money' aren't even the same word! Anyone could see that!

----------------------------------------------

Really, now.....'Don't count your chickens...' ??

Is that all you've got? I would have been embarrassed to post that.

Do you have any rational argument whatever to show why the unborn should not be protected?

Anything at all to definitively prove that we are not talking about a living human being?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Would it not be self contradictory for those who do not believe that there is such a thing as morality to assert that there was something morally wrong with making a moral judgment?

You must be dull-witted. As i've already pointed out, i've made no such assertion.

As for the rest of your drivel, my notions of right or wrong are based on my personal ethos. That may or may not coincide with society's decisions of what is right or wrong. As i've pointed out, either way, it is a subjective judgment. I tire of your games, don't expect any more responses. You apparently don't understand, or are unwilling to acknowledge the substance of, the replies i've made.

You have proposed two subjective bases on which right and wrong are determined -- the current opinion of society, and your own current opinion.

(Aside from the obvious fact that these both may change frequently back and forth), what is right and wrong when they are in conflict?

Are both society and the individual right even when their opinions are opposite?

If twenty individuals each have a different idea of what is right or wrong, are all twenty right?

Now i'm certain that you are dull-witted. There is no right or wrong. Stating that something is right or wrong is a subjective expression of opinion. Right and wrong are not universal truths which exist outside of a being's judgment--they are only constructs denoting preference.

Keep your religious mumbo-jumbo to yourself. The rest of the world is not obliged to think as you do, nor to cripple one's ability to see the world as it is with your self-righteous morality.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If twenty individuals each have a different idea of what is right or wrong, are all twenty right?

Prior to the Civil War a majority of those who lived in the South believed in slavery. Your God of the Bible endorsed it. The Southerns felt the Yankees were immoral for abolishing one of God's institutions. Slavery was right.

Were they right or wrong?

If a woman in the early 20th century was exposing skin above a certain height from the ankle on a beach it was wrong. She was removed from the beach and in some cases arrested. Exposing to much skin was considered immoral.

Do you think our standards today would be morally acceptable to the Victorians? Would we be right or they?

Morality and the right/wrong based on those morals are subjective and change with time. When slavery is necessary, it's right. When it's not necessary, it's wrong.

Is exposing to much skin right or wrong? Well, by my morality, that would depend on what the woman looked like.

0 Replies

The crux here is that "real life" wants to assert moral imperatives. Don't try to confuse him with facts. If twenty individuals have twenty different notions of right and wrong, then in order to live together socially, they'll have to compound their differences, and come to a subjective judgment about what they will consider right and what they will consider wrong.

0 Replies

In other words they have to compromise. Each must surrender a part of what they consider morally right and accept a part that they believe is morally wrong. Failure to do so will lead to fragmentation and/or dissent.

Such differences has the potential to lead to violence and death.

If it should lead to killing then would these individuals believe it is morally right to kill for their moral principals.

You damn well better believe they will think it is morally right. Do you think they will purposely do something morally wrong to defend their morals? Did the Catholics believe burning people to death for their religious beliefs was morally wrong when they did it?

What I'm saying here is morals can be written by anyone to suit any purpose. Calling any behavior moral give it legitimacy.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Yeah.. adages like.. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" show that it isn't a baby until its born.

We might as well argue adages. Makes as much sense as most of the pro life arguments.

If someone steals your paycheck before you cashed it, you haven't lost any 'money' either, right?

It wasn't 'money', it was just 'potential money', right?

Your knowledge of the banking system seems to be rather limited. I once lost a paycheck. I didn't lose money. I was issued a new check. They canceled the other check.

Quote:

You didn't actually have 'money' yet, did you? Of course not.

Anyone who would examine your paycheck could tell you that it bears little resemblance to legal tender.

Different color, wrong words in wrong places, different paper.

It wasn't 'money' at all. Anyone can see that.

Why the words 'paycheck' and 'money' aren't even the same word! Anyone could see that!

----------------------------------------------

Really, now.....'Don't count your chickens...' ??

Is that all you've got? I would have been embarrassed to post that.

Do you have any rational argument whatever to show why the unborn should not be protected?

Anything at all to definitively prove that we are not talking about a living human being?

Do you have any evidence to show why they should be protected? Or is it all based on your "morality?" I have already posted what viability is. You have not told us how you can tell the EXACT moment of every conception. Until you can tell us that simple fact I have supplied more evidence than you have.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Yeah.. adages like.. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" show that it isn't a baby until its born.

We might as well argue adages. Makes as much sense as most of the pro life arguments.

If someone steals your paycheck before you cashed it, you haven't lost any 'money' either, right?

It wasn't 'money', it was just 'potential money', right?
Your knowledge of the banking system seems to be rather limited. I once lost a paycheck. I didn't lose money. I was issued a new check. They canceled the other check.

Quote:
You didn't actually have 'money' yet, did you? Of course not.

Anyone who would examine your paycheck could tell you that it bears little resemblance to legal tender.

Different color, wrong words in wrong places, different paper.

It wasn't 'money' at all. Anyone can see that.

Why the words 'paycheck' and 'money' aren't even the same word! Anyone could see that!

----------------------------------------------

Really, now.....'Don't count your chickens...' ??

Is that all you've got? I would have been embarrassed to post that.

Do you have any rational argument whatever to show why the unborn should not be protected?

Anything at all to definitively prove that we are not talking about a living human being?
Do you have any evidence to show why they should be protected? Or is it all based on your "morality?" I have already posted what viability is. You have not told us how you can tell the EXACT moment of every conception. Until you can tell us that simple fact I have supplied more evidence than you have.

As I've said repeatedly: That's the point. You often CANNOT determine the date of conception, nor the date of 'viability' (which keeps getting pushed back due to better medical care).

Therefore, should not the benefit of the doubt go to life instead of death? Should you not tread lightly lest you destroy a human life, rather than plunging recklessly forward?

If you came upon an accident, and you weren't sure if the victim was alive or not, would you not treat him as though he MAY be alive and make every effort to protect the life that may be at stake?

Or would you assume he was dead, and think little more about it since he didn't stand up to prove to you that he was alive and deserved medical attention?

0 Replies

Abortion or Murder or just suits our self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know