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

[henry quirk]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians_for_Life

From the article...

Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

Abortion is homicide – the killing of one person by another.

There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

[Immanuel Can]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians_for_Life

From the article...

Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

Abortion is homicide – the killing of one person by another.

There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Wow. Nicely put.

[Univalence]

No, the argument stands. If it is wrong to ever interfere in the life of another, it is without exception.

There is not a single human being on this planet who believes that. Not even you.

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.

Ok, then #1 is rejected unanimously. Show me a person who sits idly and watches their parents be murdered. Show me a person who sits idly and watches their daughter be raped.

Are you such a person?

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.

Did you leave out "the protection of family" on purpose? What about the prevention of never-ending blood feuds?

You certainly are not naive enough to think laws actually prevent things like murder, assault, theft, etc.

Then you would have to explain how this this happened.
You are certainly not naive enough to think that 70 per 100000 murder rate is the same as 1 per 100000 murder rate.

Or are you as statistically-challenged as Peter?

[Univalence]

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

The purpose of laws is not to be perfectly enforced. Neither you nor I want that. Because we both know we've broken laws - intentionally or unintentionally.

But on the other hand - a society without laws is a society that's ruled by the strong, the young and the many at the expense of the weak. And neither you nor I want that either.

It's one of those "damned if you do - damned if you don't" scenarios which require a little more nuanced answer than universals.
Perhaps your desire for consistency (your Aristotelian religion) is leading you to the conclusions you have reached?

We are well aware that human rights are self-contradictory, but the solution is not to throw away human rights.
The solution is to throw away non-contradiction. Quite literally: fuck logic - it doesn't work.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

I think this misses the whole point. Let me use your example.

A society believes that involuntary euthanasia of 60-year-olds is morally right and practices it. Does that mean involuntary euthanasia is indeed morally right? And is that a factual question with a factual answer?

To me, the obvious answer is no, involuntary euthanasia is morally wrong, and the fact that anyone or everyone may think it's right makes no difference. And that's my moral opinion, which I can and do hold regardless of their opinion, precisely because this is not a factual matter.

The problem with believing there are moral facts, independent of opinion, is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove them wrong - that their moral assertions are false. For example, if the claim 'involuntary euthanasia is right' is factual, how could it be falsified?

The belief that there are moral facts - that morality is objective (what you call a 'function of reality') - is morally catastrophic. For example, if we think moral claims are factual, how could we falsify the claims 'homosexuality is wrong' or 'infant genital mutilation is right'?

This is all nonsense, and it's the consequence of deluding ourselves (as we're only too prone to do) that morality is objective.

[surreptitious57]

morality exists then it is objective - because I subscribe to monism

The existence of morality is a fact but morality itself is subjective

[Univalence]

The existence of morality is a fact but morality itself is subjective

The moment you draw the subjective/objective distinction - you are arguing for dualism.

If morality is in my head. And the contents of my head are empirical facts then morality is objective. Morality is an actual object. Arrangement of neurons.

Because that's what objective means. Empirical, testable and falsifiable.

[Immanuel Can]

A society believes that involuntary euthanasia of 60-year-olds is morally right and practices it. Does that mean involuntary euthanasia is indeed morally right?

Logically, it would have to, if morality is subjective. The society has approved it.

To me, the obvious answer is no, involuntary euthanasia is morally wrong, and the fact that anyone or everyone may think it's right makes no difference.

Well, honestly, we really have to say that's not obvious, even if it turns out to be true. The more obvious thing is that you'd accept it, because it's backed by more power.

And that's my moral opinion, which I can and do hold regardless of their opinion,

Oh, I see...you're an Individualist Subjectivist, not a Social subjectivist. Am I right? (I'm asking, not jumping to that conclusion.)

So you would say that you suppose you retain the "right" (though your view implies you really can't have such a thing, objectively, I would suggest) to criticize your society. But if that's the case, from whence comes this right? As Nietzsche said, the only thing behind morality is power, and you have less power than your society does. So killing the 60-year-olds is "right" since more power and subjective consensus backs doing it than your own opinion can muster against it.

The problem with believing there are moral facts, independent of opinion, is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove them wrong - that their moral assertions are false.

This is true, and would be a necessary concern, IF not objective basis for morality exists. Then a "moral opinion" is just that...a mere opinion.

But if your assumption is not objectively true, and morality is actually grounded in the objective standard of the character of God, then a "moral opinion" is only good if it is more proximate to that ideal than the contrary opinion is. Opinions, then, could be better or worse...especially moral opinions...and could be judged objectively.

For example, if the claim 'involuntary euthanasia is right' is factual, how could it be falsified?

It would be falsified because God objectively both gives and assesses the value of a human life. The people pre-emptively taking such a life would be guilty of usurping the function and authority of God (or, as we say, "playing God"), and thus would be morally reprehensible...whether it was their opinion that they were or not.
In other words, in form it would be stated as a fact, but in value it would be objectively morally wrong. The fact is that it would be evil.

The belief that there are moral facts - that morality is objective (what you call a 'function of reality') - is morally catastrophic. For example, if we think moral claims are factual, how could we falsify the claims 'homosexuality is wrong' or 'infant genital mutilation is right'?

Same way, exactly.

On the contrary, the claim "morality is subjective" is unbearably problematic. It means that any such "morality" is backed only by power, as Nietzsche said, not by any force of being right, or by any ultimate Authority.

And logically, it crumbles under the famous Henry Quirk "Sez you" every time.

[Univalence]

A society believes that involuntary euthanasia of 60-year-olds is morally right and practices it. Does that mean involuntary euthanasia is indeed morally right? And is that a factual question with a factual answer?

To me, the obvious answer is no, involuntary euthanasia is morally wrong, and the fact that anyone or everyone may think it's right makes no difference.

Which is PRECISELY why there are no societies which practice the euthanasia of 60 year olds! Because it's not just you who believes this - it's most humans who believe this.

Now (and this is the important part). You keep framing moral dilemmas as dichotomies - they are not. They are trichotomies.
The morally agnostic position is indifference. I don't care if murder is right or wrong. I don't care if 60 year olds are euthanised. I don't care if the Earth is round or oblate. Whatever happens - happens.

But you aren't agnostic. You believe murder and euthanising 60 year olds is wrong.

So tell me: Which argument swayed you from moral agnosticism to moral subjectivism?

[Peter Holmes]

I want to re-state the moral argument against moral objectivism.

The problem with believing there are moral facts (independent of opinion) is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove that they're wrong, by falsifying their moral assertions.

If a moral claim is factual, it must be falsifiable. But how could claims such as 'capital punishment is morally right' and 'homosexuality is morally wrong' be falsified?

If any moral objectivist here can show how to falsify a moral claim, please do so, enlighten us all, and end this debate.

But if moral claims are unfalsifiable, then they can't be factual, there are no moral facts, and morality isn't objective.

[Univalence]

The problem with believing there are moral facts (independent of opinion) is that anyone can think their moral opinions are facts, and nobody can prove that they're wrong, by falsifying their moral assertions.

But that's not a problem with objectivity? That's a problem with humans. You can't prove to a Flat-Earther that the Earth is round.

If any moral objectivist here can show how to falsify a moral claim, please do so, enlighten us all, and end this debate.

Easy. Show me a society (e.g country) in which murder is encouraged in law. Show me a society (e.g country) whose goal is to maximize, not minimize murder.

One will suffice.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The only 'immorality' here is the one where posturing misogynistic religioturd males think they have a right to control women's reproduction.
Reigiosity is anti-philosophy anyway. Religioturds are incapable of using logic and reason and as such should be barred from ever rearing their ugly heads in any environment that requires rational thinking and basic decency.

[Immanuel Can]

If any moral objectivist here can show how to falsify a moral claim, please do so, enlighten us all, and end this debate.

It was in my last message.

[Peter Holmes]

If any moral objectivist here can show how to falsify a moral claim, please do so, enlighten us all, and end this debate.

It was in my last message.

Sorry, I missed it. Was it that a moral assertion can be falsified by showing that, if a god thinks it's false, then it's false?

[Univalence]

On the contrary, the claim "morality is subjective" is unbearably problematic. It means that any such "morality" is backed only by power, as Nietzsche said, not by any force of being right, or by any ultimate Authority.

What's the difference? A theistic morality is also backed "only by power". The Ultimate power and Authority. God.

And we should have a serious problem on our hands if God is a capricious, racist, misogynist, murderous dick (as most Gods are).

We can overthrow tyrannical men from power.
We can't overthrow tyrannical Gods from power.