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

[Univalence]

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.

Interfering my life is using force to hurt or harm my person, my property, or those that matter to me.

There it is
I am an individualist BUT... Now the goal post shifting and the re-definition of "individualism" begins!

So you would interfere in another person's life if they harm those that matter to you.
But you wouldn't interfere in another person's life if they harm those that don't matter to you.

You are a meddler up to the point when another human matters to you. Thereafter you are an individual. Where is that cut-off point?

Your immediate family? Your neighbours? Your community? Your city? Your countrymen? Your fellow humans?

There's a word for that in English. Tribalism

I included a small number of examples of those things that the self-righteous meddlers use as excuses to meddle in others lives. Those members of one's own family that matter to one may be defended, because the one doing the harm has already interfered in their life.

But every human on the planet thinks that way. And every person matters to some other person. So every person is a self-righteous meddler?

So I guess, if those humans were to form institutions to look after their own, collective, interests. I imagine they might want to make murder illegal? I imagine they would grant authority to an institution to meddle in the lives of anybody who tries to murder another human? Or do you think that's about power/money?

Nobody is a statistic and no statistic pertains to any individual.

I am sorry to break it to you, but circa 1300 those 70 (in 100000) that were murdered every year. They weren't "nobody". They were individuals. Just like you.

Circa 2019 that 1 ( in 100000 ) that still gets murdered every year. That's not a "nobody". That's an individual. Just like you.

We could reduce the murder rate down to 1 in 100000000. And that 1, would still be an individual. Just like you.

No law protects me, nor should it. It is my responsibility to protect myself.

Non-sequitur. That it is your responsibility to protect yourself is not in question. I carry a gun 24/7. I encourage everybody to take responsibility for their (individual) safety.

But the argument I am making is that societies have become 70x safer in 700 years with respect to murder. Do you think that is a coincidence? Wouldn't you say that your risk of murder in 2019 is 70x lower than your risk of death circa 1300?

And there is no argument you could ever present to convince me that a society with a murder rate of 70 in 100000 is better than a society with murder rate of 1 in 100000. That's my dogma: objective morality.

[Peter Holmes]

You wrote: "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?"

You're right.

But, as I say, in the context of the thread: '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.'

If I understand, this is your argument: there are no moral facts - only opinions - but it would better for us to act as though there are moral facts. But which moral facts, and who decides?

You still have to show how 'a fetus is a person' entails 'abortion is wrong'. Why doesn't 'a woman is a person' entail 'abortion is morally justifiable'?

[Univalence]

... who decides?

That's the fundamental problem.

Who decided that the sky is blue?
Who decided what a 'wave' is?
Who decided what 'frequency' is?
Who decided what 'atom' is?
Who decided what words mean?

What kind of entities have the ability to make such decisions?

You aren't going to like the answer, but Nietzsche answered it anyway. This is why humans invent authorities.

Even Science has one

[Univalence]

And, of course, how could anything be "wrong" either -- even in some personal, instrumental or social sense? For the indifferent universe doesn't owe us anything personally, does not care about collectives, and does not have any opinion about whether or not our projects "work".

Isn't that the very purpose of creating knowledge? To ensure that our projects don't fail (e.g work).

So Egoism, Social Constructionism and Pragmatism would fail too.

It's working so far. And it's yielding positive results.

As designed/created. By man, not by God.

You could even interpret the David vs Goliath as a story of success for the little guy.

Mankind vs Universe.

And the project we call 'science' (e.g acquiring knowledge) could be seen as ark-building.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

"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?"

It has often happened in the past that dictators or a powerful coterie has thought their moral opinions are facts, and they have imposed those moral opinions on others. Democracy and free media are our only guards against loss of freedom.

Involuntary euthanasia is right can be falsified by reference to human rights as codified by The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It can also be falsified by reference to national laws against murder .

[-1-]

Henry Quirk wrote:

"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?"

It has often happened in the past that dictators or a powerful coterie has thought their moral opinions are facts, and they have imposed those moral opinions on others. Democracy and free media are our only guards against loss of freedom.

Involuntary euthanasia is right can be falsified by reference to human rights as codified by The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It can also be falsified by reference to national laws against murder .

Belinda, you seriously think that the Human Rights Code of whatever declaration can't be falsified? Its falsification goes on daily in torture chambers, in closed and boarded-up abortion clinics, in church vestibules involving one priest and several altar boys, in police stations, etc. etc.

So what is the end result of an objective moral reality when the falsifier of its end result's falsifier gets falsified?

[Univalence]

Belinda, you seriously think that the Human Rights Code of whatever declaration can't be falsified? Its falsification goes on daily in torture chambers, in closed and boarded-up abortion clinics, in church vestibules involving one priest and several altar boys, in police stations, etc. etc.

So what is the end result of an objective moral reality when the falsifier of its end result gets falsified?

Such cynicism. Such absolutist way of thinking. Equivalent to plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Impervious to evidence. Things are least shit in 2019 than they have ever been in human history!

https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights

[Belinda]

Belinda, you seriously think that the Human Rights Code of whatever declaration can't be falsified? Its falsification goes on daily in torture chambers, in closed and boarded-up abortion clinics, in church vestibules involving one priest and several altar boys, in police stations, etc. etc.

It's true that there are a few societies that are defined by what the generality of societies call criminal activity. So far, despite criminality and immorality, most of us here think that the activities you name are immoral and not true to justice. Let's use our anger to defeat torture !

https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/

[-1-]

Belinda, you seriously think that the Human Rights Code of whatever declaration can't be falsified? Its falsification goes on daily in torture chambers, in closed and boarded-up abortion clinics, in church vestibules involving one priest and several altar boys, in police stations, etc. etc.

It's true that there are a few societies that are defined by what the generality of societies call criminal activity. So far, despite criminality and immorality, most of us here think that the activities you name are immoral and not true to justice. Let's use our anger to defeat torture !

https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/

Sorry... my understanding was we were on a philosophy forum... I'll just go look for a political activist forum to tell them my theory on ethics, which tries to show that ethics is a superstructure built on borrowed biological feedback mechanisms and is completely programmable, i.e. there is no such thing as universal or objective ethics.

Sorry for the intrusion here.

[Univalence]

Beware the idiot-philosopher!

Doesn't know what the 'philosophical' entails. Claims to be on a philosophy forum.

Sorry... my understanding was we were on a philosophy forum...

I also don't know what philosophical entails.

Wants objective ethics. Argues against objectivity.

I'll just go look for a political activist forum to tell them my theory on ethics, which tries to show that ethics is a superstructure built on borrowed biological feedback mechanisms and is completely programmable, i.e. there is no such thing as universal or objective ethics.

If evidentiary weight, testability and falsifiability is not a sufficient criterion for "objectivity" then nothing is.

That's exactly how it is. Nothing is objective knowledge that humans possess. All human knowledge is opinion.

I can teach anybody how to get what they want out of life. The problem is that I can't find anybody who can tell me what they want. --Mark Twain

[RCSaunders]

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that laws have any other purpose than to accrue power and wealth to those who make them and use them to control others.

Well, if you can't be convinced otherwise - then why engage you further? You admit to your dogma...

Odd what you call dogma. That's what the wife who was caught in bed with another man argued. "You're going to believe your dogma based on evidence over the arguments of your loving wife?"

Call it dogma if you like, but history and all evidence are what my beliefs are based on.

[RCSaunders]

So you would interfere in another person's life if they harm those that matter to you.
But you wouldn't interfere in another person's life if they harm those that don't matter to you.

Of course, just like you. There are people being harmed all over the world, in this country, in your state, probably even in your city that you will not act to prevent.

The difference between a meddler and someone defending himself and his own, is that a meddler initiates the threat or use of coercion. The individualist only uses defensive force when all other means of protecting what is his own from others has failed. The meddler interferes in others lives when others are no threat to the meddler. The individualist only interferes with the meddler's interference.

So I guess, if those humans were to form institutions to look after their own, collective, interests. I imagine they might want to make murder illegal? I imagine they would grant authority to an institution to meddle in the lives of anybody who tries to murder another human? Or do you think that's about power/money?

Yes, I think it is about power and money. I think there have been idealists who have believed in such ideology (America's founders, for e.g.) but mostly such rhetoric is used only to convince the gullible to surrender their own power of choice to the politically elite.

Nobody is a statistic and no statistic pertains to any individual.

Circa 2019 that 1 ( in 100000 ) that still gets murdered every year. That's not a "nobody". That's an individual. Just like you.

Exactly, and what is wrong with using statistics to attempt to describe any individual case. If I'm murdered, the murder rate for me is 100%, even if the statistical murder rate is .oo1%. If I'm not murdered, the murder rate for me is 0%, even if the statistical murder rate is 10%. Attempting to describe the nature of any society statistically is a collective or tribal view which no individualist can accept. Every individual's welfare is determined by his own situation--he is not richer or healthier if his neighbors are rich and healthy if he is homeless and dying of cancer, and he is not poorer or less healthy if his neighbors are all poor and sickly.

[henry quirk]

You wrote: Beware the idiot-philosopher!

You got that right.

I wish I had your capacity for debate (for debate's sake) but I don't.

I've had my fill of lunacy here (and elsewhere) so I leave the good fight to you and Mannie (you two don't see eye to eye but, here, in this forum, in this thread, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' holds true).

[Belinda]

Belinda, you seriously think that the Human Rights Code of whatever declaration can't be falsified? Its falsification goes on daily in torture chambers, in closed and boarded-up abortion clinics, in church vestibules involving one priest and several altar boys, in police stations, etc. etc.

It's true that there are a few societies that are defined by what the generality of societies call criminal activity. So far, despite criminality and immorality, most of us here think that the activities you name are immoral and not true to justice. Let's use our anger to defeat torture !

https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/

Sorry... my understanding was we were on a philosophy forum... I'll just go look for a political activist forum to tell them my theory on ethics, which tries to show that ethics is a superstructure built on borrowed biological feedback mechanisms and is completely programmable, i.e. there is no such thing as universal or objective ethics.

Sorry for the intrusion here.

Philosophy signifies nothing unless it leads to action.

Which biological feedback mechanism is the basis for that ethical principle ?

[Univalence]

Of course, just like you. There are people being harmed all over the world, in this country, in your state, probably even in your city that you will not act to prevent.

And you based this opinion on what evidence?

The difference between a meddler and someone defending himself and his own, is that a meddler initiates the threat or use of coercion.

And? You are initiating the use of coercion. You've plugged the contingency in your argument by limiting your meddling to your in-group.
It's exactly the same thing I am doing. It's just that my in-group is bigger than yours. I am a humanist.

The meddler interferes in others lives when others are no threat to the meddler.

Which is exactly what you are doing when you defend 'your own'.

You've just chosen to care selectively.

The individualist only interferes with the meddler's interference.

That's called obstruction of justice. If you interfere with my meddling while I am trying to stop John from murdering Jane, I am just going to assume you are John's accomplice and treat you accordingly.

Yes, I think it is about power and money. I think there have been idealists who have believed in such ideology (America's founders, for e.g.) but mostly such rhetoric is used only to convince the gullible to surrender their own power of choice to the politically elite.

I mean, it's a tad un-nuanced but OK. I guess I can't judge you. I used to think I am a libertarian too.

Then I realised that I am standing on the shoulders of giants.
So it's really difficult to keep pretending that I got to where I am without any help.

Exactly, and what is wrong with using statistics to attempt to describe any individual case. If I'm murdered, the murder rate for me is 100%, even if the statistical murder rate is .oo1%. If I'm not murdered, the murder rate for me is 0%, even if the statistical murder rate is 10%. Attempting to describe the nature of any society statistically is a collective or tribal view which no individualist can accept. Every individual's welfare is determined by his own situation--he is not richer or healthier if his neighbors are rich and healthy if he is homeless and dying of cancer, and he is not poorer or less healthy if his neighbors are all poor and sickly.

This is a really strange hypothetical you are using to make your case. You have assumed a view-point which is a posteriori your own hypothetical death. You are arguing from the grave so I am not sure I can't take you seriously.

In the universe I live in all decisions/choices are made a priori and with incomplete information. All choices are gambles. Which is why Shannon's information theory/Satistical mechanics/Probability theory matters.

Given the choice: do you prefer living in society where the murder rate is 70/100000, or a society where the murder rate is 1/100000?

Since you've already made it clear that "there is no such thing as induction" then I sure expect you to tell me that the two choices are equivalent to an individualist.

But seriously, there is such a thing as induction. Your brain is really good at it. You call it the "what if" game, but statisticians/scientists/physicists/engineers etc. call it Monte Carlo method