"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[Univalence]

If morality is objective: the conundrum of abortion lies in figuring out if a pregnant woman carries a person or just 'meat'.

This is going to be a tricky problem for philosophy since "person" is a juristic, not a scientific term.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... prisonment

[Peter Holmes]

This is either stupendous stupidity, or a wilful and dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. Either way, please fuck off and let intelligent and honest people have a discussion.

Well, no. I used to think you are arguing a philosophical position, but now I am convinced you are this dumb.

I notice that you are using the word IF a lot. Why? Surely you know that the premises are true? It's your own damn argument!
Why do you keep saying IF. Are you uncertain or what?

It's almost as if you are agreeing with me that morality is an epistemic problem.

Second point. You have already admitted that morality exists and that people have morality. Which (as far as I am concerned) already settles the issue on its objectivity. If morality exists then it is objective - because I subscribe to monism.

If you are dualist, well - I really can't help you.

Oh, you appear not to have fucked off. And you haven't apologised for your lying claim that I deny empirical investigation of factual claims.

And your ignorance of the logical purpose of hypothetical premises indicates a real problem.

And your claim is: if morality exists (?) and people 'have' morality (?), then morality is objective' - which is so ridiculous that it beggars belief.

So why not fuck off, for a while at least, and see if others can throw some light on what we're discussing? Never know, both of us may learn something. Please, really, fuck off.

[Univalence]

And your ignorance of the logical purpose of hypothetical premises indicates a real problem.

It's not my ignorance Peter. It's yours, because the exact line of counter-argumentation can be used against your premises.

If people believe that we live in a dualistic universe then the objective/subjective distinction is false.
If people believe that we live in a monistic universe then there is no such thing as "subjectivity", and since humans have morality it can only be objective.

And your claim is: if morality exists (?) and people 'have' morality (?), then morality is objective' - which is so ridiculous that it beggars belief.

No. it's an argument against dualism.

You already accepted that humans have morality. That's sufficient to call morality objective.

So why not fuck off, for a while at least, and see if others can throw some light on what we're discussing? Never know, both of us may learn something. Please, really, fuck off.

Because you aren't proposing a way forward for all the problems in your argument that you are happy to overlook.

[henry quirk]

Mebbe so.

But, as I say, the deeper question is: Is morality objective (a function of reality) or subjective (just an opinion)?

Seems to me: we gotta knock that one back first before we can futz around elsewhere.

[Univalence]

But, as I say, the deeper question is: Is morality objective (a function of reality) or subjective (just an opinion)?

As I have just pointed out to Peter - that's no good either. Because first you have to solve the monism/dualism debate.

If we live in a monistic universe then there's no distinction to be made between objective/subjective phenomena.
If morality exists then it is objective. Which leaves us with the problem of defining "morality".

Which is why I cut through the bullshit and go straight for empiricism and list the facts:
* 700 years reduction in murder (across continents, cultures and generations)
* Soldiers unwilling to fire at enemies
* Christmas Truce 1914

All of the above reduces the argument down to this: If the wiring in your brain autonomously prevents you from doing harm to another human, does that mean morality is "just opinion"?

If we are wired with psychological aversion against murder - does that make morality objective? I am going for a "yes".

[henry quirk]

[henry quirk]

You asked up-thread: is abortion right (morally justifiable) or wrong (morally unjustifiable)?

I responded:

Seems to me, the deeper question is: Is morality objective (a function of reality) or subjective (just an opinion)?

---

If morality is objective: the conundrum of abortion lies in figuring out if a pregnant woman carries a person or just 'meat'.

If a person, then aborting is wrong; if 'meat' then aborting is a-ok.

---

If morality is subjective: then do whatever the hell you like.

---

So: Is morality objective (a function of reality) or subjective (just an opinion)?

---

I got uni's take. I'd like yours, if you have a mind to offer one.

[Peter Holmes]

You asked up-thread: is abortion right (morally justifiable) or wrong (morally unjustifiable)?

I responded:

Seems to me, the deeper question is: Is morality objective (a function of reality) or subjective (just an opinion)?

---

If morality is objective: the conundrum of abortion lies in figuring out if a pregnant woman carries a person or just 'meat'.

If a person, then aborting is wrong; if 'meat' then aborting is a-ok.

---

If morality is subjective: then do whatever the hell you like.

---

So: Is morality objective (a function of reality) or subjective (just an opinion)?

---

I got uni's take. I'd like yours, if you have a mind to offer one.

1 'If morality is subjective: then do whatever you like.'

Not so, that doesn't follow at all. It's the 'subjective morality = no morality' canard, much favoured by theists: 'objective morality or no morality' - which is false. Moral rules and values freely accepted and developed by human societies (which is what actually happens) constitute morality.

But that doesn't mean a society's moral rules and values are factually right or wrong - because no moral rules and values are factually right or wrong. And that's why we can morally judge other societies' and our ancestors' behaviour. It's precisely because the fact/value barrier is insuperable that someone claiming 'this is right, so I can do it' doesn't make the action morally right. We're stuck with the subjective nature of moral judgements.

2 'If morality is objective: the conundrum of abortion lies in figuring out if a pregnant woman carries a person or just 'meat'. // If a person, then aborting is wrong; if 'meat' then aborting is a-ok.'

As I've argued here, claims about the nature of the fetus are irrelevant when it comes to the question 'is abortion right or wrong?' If we think the fetus is a person, then the moral question is: 'is it wrong to kill a person?' And the answer is a matter of judgement - maybe 'sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't'. There's no fact of the matter with any moral question. It always comes down to a moral judgement. There's no way around it.

[henry quirk]

If morality is subjective then it 'is' just an opinion, even if held by all members of a society.

Society A holds that come age 65, folks should submit to euthanasia.

If morality is subjective (just an opinion) this is all well & fine (bit of problem for those oldsters who might not wanna go to sleep forever). In this case: morality is a cultural artifact, one that shifts with the thinkin' of the population.

But, if morality is objective (a function of reality), demanding oldsters go to sleep forever might be 'wrong' (even if the majority sez otherwise).

---

"If we think the fetus is a person, then the moral question is: 'is it wrong to kill a person?'"

In a reality where morality is strictly subjective, you're right and we have to go no further. We consult our conscience, and mores and that's that.

But, in a reality where morality is objective, we may, after consulting our conscience and mores, determine the fetus is not a person and act accordingly, but we'd be in the wrong (cuz, perhaps, objectively, the fetus 'is' a person).

Now, we can't currently 'know' what kind of reality we're in. We are, as you might say, left to our own devices. All the more reason to -- as I say -- err on safety's side, and act as though reality has a bonafide moral dimension, one that's firm and true and unwavering. Even if a fiction, presuming 'personhood' for the unborn can't be a bad thing.

[Univalence]

Not so, that doesn't follow at all. It's the 'subjective morality = no morality' canard, much favoured by theists: 'objective morality or no morality' - which is false.

This is a straw-man, Peter and a false dichotomy.

The deathly blow to subjective morality is not that there is no morality. Is that there are at least two moralities (and possibly many more).

* A morality in which murder is right.
* A morality in which murder is wrong.
* A morality in which murder is right, but only on Sundays
* A morality in which murder is wrong, unless the victim is black.

You are using "morality" in a sense in which it means the same thing as "morally right". All you have done with your sophistry is moved the argument elsewhere.

The pertinent question is no longer: Is murder right or wrong?
The pertinent question has now become: Is murder moral or immoral?

Equivocation.

[Immanuel Can]

Not so, that doesn't follow at all. It's the 'subjective morality = no morality' canard, much favoured by theists...

Actually, It was Nietzsche who most clearly said it was so. Hardly a Theist, he. But he faced up to this with a degree of courage and consistency.

The problem with the "subjective morality is good enough" thesis, as he pointed out, is that subjective morality is not backed by anything objective or binding -- unless somebody has force enough to make it happen. Thus, as Nietzsche said, all of it merely masks "the Will to Power." "God is dead, and we have killed Him..." he said; but under that same knife, objective morality would die, he knew. We would be, to use his words, "beyond good and evil" altogether.

Note that he did not say, "Morality will still exist, and be okay." No, he said we would have to do without it henceforth. Whatever you can say about the guy, in this he was consistent -- and I give him props for that.

So it's not that we Theists don't believe a thing called "secular morality" can be forced upon people by a society that favours it. We know it can. It's that such a thing remains utterly impossible to justify, and no one has any ultimate duty to care about it or sustain it when it lacks immediate power. Violence of various types (whether social ostracism, fines and penalties, incarceration, execution, or whatever) alone is its guarantor; and when the threat of violence collapses, when people stop fearing it, or when it is met with a greater violence, subjective morality has no authority at all.

Yes, you can enforce a purely secular morality on people. But it's not based in fact, not justifiable, and not durable. It has no ultimate authority for anyone.

I trust that clarifies the actual Theist position.

[RCSaunders]

If morality is objective: the conundrum of abortion lies in figuring out if a pregnant woman carries a person or just 'meat'.

If a person, then aborting is wrong; if 'meat' then aborting is a-ok.

Moral or ethical principles, like all principles, provide the means for making right choices. Only individuals make choices. So-called collective choices are only the sum of individual choices.

There are actually two questions regarding abortion. 1. Is abortion ethically wrong? 2. Is interfering in the affairs of another human being who is not interfering in ours ethically wrong?

If #2 is correct, if one assumes that one may not ethically interfere in the life of another human being who is doing oneself no harm, the first question becomes one pertaining only to individuals. The individual must decide if what they do is ethically correct and bare the consequences of their own choices. If one chooses to squander their life in the pursuit of pleasure, or any other self-destructive behavior, it is unethical for anyone else to interfere in that individual's life, even for their own good.

If #2 is correct, #1 is strictly a matter of individual concern, and every individual must decide for themselves whether abortion is ethically wrong or not. It does not matter what one considers the fetus, it does not change the fact that what any individual chooses to do not directly related to oneself is none of their business.

If #2 is wrong, if interfering in others lives is not unethical, #1 ceases to possibly matter. Once the principle is accepted, "it is OK to interfere in the lives of others," there is no principle for deciding what interference is right: anything from jailing women who have abortions to slavery must be acceptable if enough people agree to it.

Though I personally know abortion is always an ethical mistake, a wrong choice that always harms the one choosing it, and is usually an attempt to evade the consequences of another bad choice, it is no one else's business except those who are making such choices.

In my article, "Controllers, Meddlers and Individualists," I describe the nature of all those who believe they have some kind of cosmic mission to make others live the way they think they ought to.

[Univalence]

There are actually two questions regarding abortion. 1. Is abortion ethically wrong? 2. Is interfering in the affairs of another human being who is not interfering in ours ethically wrong?

If #2 is correct, if one assumes that one may not ethically interfere in the life of another human being who is doing oneself no harm, the first question becomes one pertaining only to individuals. The individual must decide if what they do is ethically correct and bare the consequences of their own choices.

This argument falls apart when applied to murder.

John is busy murdering Jane.
It's ethically wrong (#1), but he's not interfering with me (#2) so I turn a blind eye.

Once you arrive at the position that "other people's murder is not my problem" how do you go on to make an argument for murder laws, never mind forming institutions, and employing members of your society to enforce this rule?

And if murder is not illegal, and every person in your society subscribes to "anything not directly related to myself is none of my business" - then what kind of consequences could there possibly for John?

Your Controllers, Meddlers and Individualists perspective doesn't speak about three different kinds of people. It speaks about the same person in three different contexts.

Everybody is an individualist, until their boundaries are crossed. Then they turn into a controller.

[henry quirk]

As a natural rights libertarian, I agree I shouldn't monkey 'round with other folks lives if they're walkin' 'round, mindin' their own business (or nestled in a womb).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta ... n_abortion

From the article...

Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception.

Dovetailin'...

I'm also a deist and believe self-ownership (yours, mine, his, hers, and little, as-yet-unnamed, floatin' in the womb, fetus-person's) is intrinsic to the individual and not subject to shifting & shifty cultural judgement.

Absolutely Jane gets to do whatever she likes with herself, but she doesn't get to off her invalid mom (for her own ease) and she shouldn't get to off her fetus-person (for her own ease) either.

[RCSaunders]

There are actually two questions regarding abortion. 1. Is abortion ethically wrong? 2. Is interfering in the affairs of another human being who is not interfering in ours ethically wrong?

If #2 is correct, if one assumes that one may not ethically interfere in the life of another human being who is doing oneself no harm, the first question becomes one pertaining only to individuals. The individual must decide if what they do is ethically correct and bare the consequences of their own choices.

This argument falls apart when applied to murder.

John is busy murdering Jane.
It's ethically wrong (#1), but he's not interfering with me (#2) so I turn a blind eye.

Once you arrive at the position that "I don't care if Jane is murdered" how do you go on to make an argument for making murder illegal?
And if murder is not illegal - then what kind of consequences are there for John?

No, the argument stands. If it is wrong to ever interfere in the life of another, it is without exception. If the argument is made that something other than a threat against oneself justifies interference in another's life, it means #1 is not correct. You accept at least one exception to #1, the murder of another, so you simply reject #1.

That's OK. Most people agree with you, though most are unwilling to admit that they believe some things justify the initiation of coercion of other's lives--for the sake of others, for the protection of the unborn, for public morality, for the sake of society, etc.

As for laws, what do I need any laws for? I have no interest in killing anyone or harming anyone in any way. To make a law, backed up by force, to prevent me from doing what I would never do anyway is an insult. You certainly are not naive enough to think laws actually prevent things like murder, assault, theft, etc.

By the way, are you comfortable with a law that requires people to report to the government any violation of a government law?