the nature of ethics/morals....

[Peter Kropotkin]

I've copied this from my ''WOKE and proud of it'' thread...

Read this following post in terms of ethics and morals,
not in terms of Abortion....what are the moral and ethical
basis for abortions...or banning abortions as the case maybe....

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:57 am

K: you are basing your idea of abortion, this ''wicked practice'' on religious grounds....

IC: Factual grounds. They're murdering. And we all know it.

PK...there are solid medical reasons for women to have abortions...

IC: Not in 99% of the cases. 99% are for convenience, and 1% for criminal or medical reasons. So if you will admit that 99% of abortions are murder, I'll talk with you about the 1%. But if you won't, then you are just trying to use the 1% to justify killing 99% of the babies.
''free choice'''
Those 99% have free choice not to have irresponsible sex. And they fail at the role of moral decision-maker, and then want to make it worse by murdering the child they've created.
...to be able to tell women what to do, the power to control lives...
Not at all. Just to remind them that they are murdering children, and to tell them not to do that. They control their own lives: their reproductive irresponsibility is the real problem: they're not doing the right thing with their freedom and choice.

PK: how do I know this? you haven't advocated for the end of the death penalty....

IC: We don't have any. So you know nothing at all.

But dead babies, we have in abundance. That much, you do know.

But what's your stake in this, Peter? You're not a woman, presumably: so by your own standards, why are you telling women to murder their babies? What kind of scam are you trying to run on them?

And what do you have to say about the millions of babies, mostly female, that have been aborted by government demand in China? When Marxists murder babies, is that suddenly virtuous?

K: so right off the bat, IC says that there is ''murdering''.... and we all know it.....
so, he refers to abortions as ''murdering'' and as we all know, murder is wrong...
but is murdering wrong? Legally, in the US we can ''murder'' for all kinds of
reasons and not be prosecuted...an example of this is ''self defense''....
or in the backward state of Florida... where they have the ''Stand your ground''
law.....which allows all kinds of acts of murder... legally.... or as a police officer
where apparently, I can murder people and have no consequences....
''In the line of duty'' or as self defense.... murder in cold blood and yet,
nothing in terms of being charged for anything.... or the soldier who
gets a medal and a parade for a large number of ''murdering'' others...

or to say this another way, there is no universal act of murder that will
be punished.... there can be and is a justification for any and all acts of
''murder''......

In the UK, there is no death penalty, and in the US, there is one....
there is no action in the UK, that will get one the death penalty...
and dozens of acts that will get one the death penalty in the US....
which leads us to note that even in IC own country, abortions are
not considered to be murder, a crime which has been committed....
there is no such thing in the UK, of Abortions being considered to
be murder, a crime...it is legal.....so, the question becomes,
it might be legal, but is it moral/ethical?

and that depends on the Ethical/moral standard being used......
now as the US and the UK, seem to have different laws in
terms of what is murder and what isn't, it would suggest
that what the UK considers to be moral, ethical is
different than what the US, considers to be moral, ethical?

and in look at history, one can see vastly different morals and
ethics being used and promoted by different cities, states, civilizations....
in other words, there is no universal ethics or morals that guide us
as human beings.... one in the UK or the US, MIGHT, MIGHT use the
bible as a means of establishing morals and ethics, but that depends
on how much one actually believes in the bible...

I am an atheist, one who does not believe in god.....
so, my morals/ethics are not based on any religious standard
such as the bible or the Koran or the Torah or in Hinduism or
Buddhism..... clearly IC does believe in such a thing as
a religious standard, the bible, if I am not mistaken.....
and so, given this, who is right in this debate between
the ethics of an atheist and a Christian? Who is more moral/ethical?
the Christian or the Atheist? I am 65.. and I have never been arrested....
for any reason... I got a ticket once in my twenties and once in my thirties...
the second was illegally crossing a line on the freeway.... big time stuff....
no ticket or arrest for a DUI or murder or theft or speeding....
and yet, I don't believe in a religious standard for morals and ethics.....
how is that possible that one who has no religious standards can still
be ethical, moral? it would suggest that we can have morals/ethics without
any type of religion or religious standards..... and I am not alone.....
millions of people worldwide also act ethical, moral without
any type of religious standards to follow....

IC believe that abortions are wrong because they violate some religious
standard.... but clearly, Abortions don't violate any type of legal standard
because it is legal in IC country....and the death penalty is forbidden in
his country.... but none of this leads us any closer to understanding
what moral and ethics really are..... and so, we go on.....


Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

let us explore further this idea of ethics/morals and somewhat,
religions.....

Let us get some bearing with the idea of slavery..... today, in the West,
slavery is considered to be morally, ethically wrong....but the question
becomes this... on what grounds is slavery considered to be morally,
ethically wrong? On religious grounds? Legal grounds? philosophical grounds?

Why is slavery considered to be morally, ethically wrong?

Today, Slavery is still practice in the Middle east and in part of Africa......
Why is that still tolerated if, if slavery is morally wrong? and we have,
as an ongoing concern, the practice of kidnapping women to make them
sex slaves..... is this ethical? Moral? and why or why not? what justification
do we use to condemn or practice this type of slavery?

Now, one might say, as IC might say, we, as Christians, condemn slavery
of all types.... based on the ideals of god and the bible......
and so far, so good...... but now we have a major problem.......
That America as a Christian country, and as conservatives have proclaimed,
a Christian country since the day of its founding, America is a Christian
country......ok, America is a Christian country and yet, for over 300 years,
slavery was legal in America... how do we reconcile the idea of America
of being a Christian country and yet, it practiced slavery for over 300 years?

the first slaves arrived in America in 1619 and slavery was abolished in
1863... being a Christian country clearly didn't end or even slowed down
slavery in America..... but today, today we consider slavery to be a
moral, ethical evil.... and we are still, at least according to conservatives
a Christian country..... so how come Christians considered slavery
acceptable for over 200 years, and today, does not?

In America anyway, part of the justification for slavery was that it
was in the bible.... god himself did nothing to end or stop slavery,
why should we? He allowed the Jews to be slaves in Egypt for over
400 years and then, one day, for no real apparent reason, decided it
was bad, for the Jews anyway, he kept slavery everywhere else...
suddenly the Jews were free.... so, based on this, why didn't
the South, the southern part of America, free the slaves?
they were forced into it by losing the Civil War, 1861-1865....

and today, many in the south still pine for the days of slavery....
but it is a moral/ethically wrong... and the south, is full of,
in fact, it is considered to be the most religious part of America.....
and they, some of them, still pine for the days of slavery.....
or haven't you heard of the KKK.....

America was a Christian country and yet, it practiced slavery for over
200 years..... clearly being Christian had no impact on the
ethical or moral understanding of slavery..... defenders of the faith,
of the Christian faith, defended and still defend Slavery.....

and yet today, we consider slavery to be a moral, ethical wrong.....

How do we solve this problem?

Kropotkin

[Age]

let us explore further this idea of ethics/morals and somewhat,
religions.....

Let us get some bearing with the idea of slavery..... today, in the West,
slavery is considered to be morally, ethically wrong....but the question
becomes this... on what grounds is slavery considered to be morally,
ethically wrong? On religious grounds? Legal grounds? philosophical grounds?

Why is slavery considered to be morally, ethically wrong?

Today, Slavery is still practice in the Middle east and in part of Africa......
Why is that still tolerated if, if slavery is morally wrong? and we have,
as an ongoing concern, the practice of kidnapping women to make them
sex slaves..... is this ethical? Moral? and why or why not? what justification
do we use to condemn or practice this type of slavery?

Now, one might say, as IC might say, we, as Christians, condemn slavery
of all types.... based on the ideals of god and the bible......
and so far, so good...... but now we have a major problem.......
That America as a Christian country, and as conservatives have proclaimed,
a Christian country since the day of its founding, America is a Christian
country......ok, America is a Christian country and yet, for over 300 years,
slavery was legal in America... how do we reconcile the idea of America
of being a Christian country and yet, it practiced slavery for over 300 years?

the first slaves arrived in America in 1619 and slavery was abolished in
1863... being a Christian country clearly didn't end or even slowed down
slavery in America..... but today, today we consider slavery to be a
moral, ethical evil.... and we are still, at least according to conservatives
a Christian country..... so how come Christians considered slavery
acceptable for over 300 years, and today, does not?

In America anyway, part of the justification for slavery was that it
was in the bible.... god himself did nothing to end or stop slavery,
why should we? He allowed the Jews to be slaves in Egypt for over
400 years and then, one day, for no real apparent reason, decided it
was bad, for the Jews anyway, he kept slavery everywhere else...
suddenly the Jews were free.... so, based on this, why didn't
the South, the southern part of America, free the slaves?
they were forced into it by losing the Civil War, 1861-1865....

and today, many in the south still pine for the days of slavery....
but it is a moral/ethically wrong... and the south, is full of,
in fact, it is considered to be the most religious part of America.....
and they, some of them, still pine for the days of slavery.....
or haven't you heard of the KKK.....

America was a Christian country and yet, it practiced slavery for over
300 years..... clearly being Christian had no impact on the
ethical or moral understanding of slavery..... defenders of the faith,
of the Christian faith, defended and still defend Slavery.....

and yet today, we consider slavery to be a moral, ethical wrong.....

How do we solve this problem?

Kropotkin

When you define 'the problem', specifically, then I will give you a, 'specific', solution.

[Peter Kropotkin]

today, as Christians and conservatives whine about, America
and Americans are far less religious then before, say
over the last 100 years... and yet, in being far less religious,
we can see the problem that despite being a Christian country,
that America and Americans couldn't see that slavery was
immoral, unethical.... even being a religious country,
America failed to see slavery as an evil, as we see it today.......

So, how do we, being far less religious, are able to see slavery
being the evil that America couldn't see for over 200 years?
It seems that being religious and a servant of god, doesn't allow
one to see evil, as evident by over 200 years of American history.....
How is this possible? How can a religious person, one who faithfully
prays everyday cannot see slavery for the evil it is.. where we the
not so religious, can see it?

My guess is that being religious and praying to god, isn't a path to seeing
what is wrong and evil in the world, as millions of the faithful failed
to see slavery as being the evil it is..... and we can call wrong and evil,
just more words for awareness of what is moral and ethical.....

there was no awareness of the moral or ethical failure of slavery in
America for over 200 years......despite being ''religious''.....

so, that would suggest the questions of being moral, ethical is divorced from
being religious....if the religious failed to see the unethical, immoral
practice of slavery for what it is.......what does that tell us?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Now one might say, the times are different, thus our
understanding of morals and ethics are different.....

but how does that explain the curious failure of the religious
to see/spot the ''evil'' of slavery? if times are different, as they are,
then the nature of ethics/morals are different..... because the religious
itself can't change, that is part of the selling point of religions....
what was, is and always will be..... but if in being religious one
cannot tell, or spot a clear evil like slavery, until much later.... what
has changed? the Religion hasn't changed, so the times have changed,
and we can now spot evil like slavery that our earlier ancestors couldn't....
our earlier, more religious ancestors....

clearly, being religious cannot bring about enough knowledge or
understanding about of the evil of slavery... until the times change.....

if being religious cannot allow us enough vision to enable us to know evil...
like slavery..... that is clearly an argument against religions if by being
religious, we cannot spot an evil like slavery until later.. much later,
after we are no longer religious later.....


Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

if being religious, makes one confused as to the nature of
the ethical, moral, as being unable to see how slavery
is/was unethical, immoral, then perhaps being religious has
another effect.....if they are unable to see evil as in slavery,
then perhaps being religious might make one see evil where there
isn't evil......that being religious blinds one to a reality that others
can see..... like the fact that slavery is evil and immoral......

but if being religious makes one see what isn't there, what exactly does
that mean? the Religious see god everywhere and the devil everywhere.....
take care that Satan doesn't trick you was a common theme for centuries
in Europe... seeing the devil everywhere........

but perhaps being religious also makes one see's things being evil
and immoral that are not, by themselves evil or immoral?...
perhaps like abortions..... abortions are themselves ''ad hoc''
of the moment... laws against abortions are also ''ad hoc'' of the moment...
and depending on the particular circumstances.....
as is abortions themselves being ''ad hoc''...
times when it makes sense to have a baby, and there are times in
a life where having a baby makes no sense... but laws against
abortions make no distinction between those times....
it assumes all abortions, all the time, are by themselves, immoral,
and unethical.....

but medically, sometimes abortions are needed to save a mothers life.....
and sometimes abortions are needed because the pregnant women is not
a woman at all, but a child, under 18, who has been raped or a victim
of incest....so, we force a child to carry another child to birth even
if, even if they were raped or a victim of incest? just as in the case
of being religious could see how an evil like slavery can be justified
legally, being religious can allow one to see evil and immorality when
none exists... the only solution to this problem of children being forced
to give birth to other children is abortions.... but being religious,
they cannot see another solution..... just as they couldn't see how
slavery was evil, immoral.....

what is ethical when slavery was accepted legally, morally and socially
for centuries and now is unacceptable legally, morally or socially?
Morals, ethics can change... despite being religious......

how do we solve the problem?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

I would suggest that being religious, as IC is, has blinded
him to the real/true nature of ethics, morality......
as morals and ethics isn't tied to religions, as the case
of America being a religious country and still slavery
was not only acceptable but was allowed to spread
shows us.....if the religious can accept slavery as a common
practice, then it means religions themselves are divorced from
ethical, moral concerns....

to properly engage in understanding of ethics, morals, we have
to remove religions because, as I have clearly shown,
being religious can blind one to what is truly ethical,
what is truly moral.....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, let us remove the religious from any understanding of
what is moral, what is ethical?

Let us try the legal.... that the vast concentrations camps
of the Holocaust, as was slavery, were legal..... if the Holocaust
and slavery were legal, then we cannot use the legal standard
to judge what is moral, what is ethical?

How can we use the legal standard of what is ethical, moral if both
slavery and the Holocaust were legal?

Next....

Kropotkin

[Age]

so, let us remove the religious from any understanding of
what is moral, what is ethical?

Let us try the legal.... that the vast concentrations camps
of the Holocaust, as was slavery, were legal..... if the Holocaust
and slavery were legal, then we cannot use the legal standard
to judge what is moral, what is ethical?

How can we use the legal standard of what is ethical, moral if both
slavery and the Holocaust were legal?

Next....

Kropotkin

Only the foolest of the foolish would consider or try to use the religion and/or the legal standard to work out what is actually ethical or moral in Life.

What is actually Right and Wrong, in Life, is very simple and easy to comprehend, understand, and know. That is; once one discovers, or learns, and understands the how-to of how to do it.

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, let us remove the religious from any understanding of
what is moral, what is ethical?

Let us try the legal.... that the vast concentrations camps
of the Holocaust, as was slavery, were legal..... if the Holocaust
and slavery were legal, then we cannot use the legal standard
to judge what is moral, what is ethical?

How can we use the legal standard of what is ethical, moral if both
slavery and the Holocaust were legal?

Next....

Kropotkin

Only the foolest of the foolish would consider or try to use the religion and/or the legal standard to work out what is actually ethical or moral in Life.

What is actually Right and Wrong, in Life, is very simple and easy to comprehend, understand, and know. That is; once one discovers, or learns, and understands the how-to of how to do it.

K: and wrong again..... it isn't ''easy nor is it easy to comprehend, or understand
or know''

Only a person ignorant of history, philosophy, law, or politics would say
something like that...and you are clearly ignorant....

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

K: so right off the bat, IC says that there is ''murdering''.... and we all know it.....

It is. And we all know it is.

What is the purpose of an "abortion"? Not to prevent "a cluster of cells," but to prevent a human being. We don't want a baby. We don't want her to have a face, a name, a place, any love, even a breath of our free oxygen...and above all, we want her not to be able to make us feel like we owe her anything. If she'd just stay a "cluster of cells," we'd be fine with her; we'd let her live. But she insists on having a future, on being a real person, to whom we have duties. We cannot allow her to impose on us, even though we enthusiastically created her. So we must murder her, before we feel too guilty about it. But make no mistake: it's the baby, the child, and the adult that we are trying to "prevent." It's not the "cluster of cells."

We try to hide what we are doing from ourselves, by denying her a name, a face, and any role at all in our community. But we know. It's why we're murdering her. We want to. And she has no power. So we're getting rid of her before she can make any claim on us.

but is murdering wrong?

Marxists clearly don't think so. It's one of the many ways they're badly wrong, and morally reprehensible.

...even in IC own country, abortions are not considered to be murder,

Only because we're so wicked. We allow many wicked things.

and that depends on the Ethical/moral standard being used......

No. Only on the truth.

I am an atheist, one who does not believe in god.....

Same thing. And also incapable of grounding any morality at all. They can arbitrarily impose something, by fiat, and enforce it with power: but they have no moral warrant to do so. All they have is the power.

And might does not make right.

[Age]

so, let us remove the religious from any understanding of
what is moral, what is ethical?

Let us try the legal.... that the vast concentrations camps
of the Holocaust, as was slavery, were legal..... if the Holocaust
and slavery were legal, then we cannot use the legal standard
to judge what is moral, what is ethical?

How can we use the legal standard of what is ethical, moral if both
slavery and the Holocaust were legal?

Next....

Kropotkin

Only the foolest of the foolish would consider or try to use the religion and/or the legal standard to work out what is actually ethical or moral in Life.

What is actually Right and Wrong, in Life, is very simple and easy to comprehend, understand, and know. That is; once one discovers, or learns, and understands the how-to of how to do it.

K: and wrong again..... it isn't ''easy nor is it easy to comprehend, or understand
or know''

Why do you envision that 'it' not easy, for you, but is extremely easy, and simple, to and for me?

Only a person ignorant of history, philosophy, law, or politics would say
something like that...and you are clearly ignorant....

Kropotkin

Or, just maybe I have already obtained the know-how and have become savvy to how to find and know the Truth here, have you considered this?

Or, is this just a complete and utter absolute impossibility, to you?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Age: Why do you envision that 'it' not easy, for you, but is extremely easy, and simple, to and for me?

Or, just maybe I have already obtained the know-how and have become savvy to how to find and know the Truth here, have you considered this?
Or, is this just a complete and utter absolute impossibility, to you?

K: you don't have the know how to outthink a paper bag....
you are easily the most limited thinker on this website...
and it is not even close..... go waste someone else time...

Kropotkin

[Veritas Aequitas]

K: you are basing your idea of abortion, this ''wicked practice'' on religious grounds....

IC: Factual grounds. They're murdering. And we all know it.

PK...there are solid medical reasons for women to have abortions...

Both K and IC do not understand what is Morality-proper, thus talking pass each other.

What is morality-proper is driven by an inherent moral function supported by its neural correlates as human-nature.
Why the majority do not understand the proper moral function is because, while the moral function exists physically it is not active within the majority of people, in contrast to say the sexual or hunger drives and system within its framework.

As with any system within a framework there are embedded markers and universal moral principles applicable to all humans -thus objective.

One of the universal moral principle is related to abortion.
The immorality of Abortion re killing of potential life as a moral principle must be universal.
Otherwise, if it is not universal then in theory that will enable the possibility of the extinction of the human species; this is due to ignorance and irrationality.
But humans evolved to date are rational beings, thus should recognize abortion is immoral on a universal basis.

The problem with morality within theism is while the moral principles are likely to be intuited, the problem is such moral principles are adopted as God's words which must be complied with or else one sinned and face the possibility of going to hell.
Within theism, god's word prevail over human rationality.
So abortion is immoral within theism.

Abortion within theism is actually not primarily a moral issue per se.
Rather, the issue is whether 'Is God Real?'
It is only when theists can prove God exists are real, that they can move on to insist upon whether there is real morality as commanded by their God.

With human nature, in the present circumstances of humanity, abortion is inevitable and at times necessary for various reasons [critical or non-critical].
Thus while no-abortion is a universal moral principle, it cannot be enforced on individuals BUT merely to act as a moral guide and standard for all of humanity.

As such, morality proper within a moral FSERC will establish the "no-abortion,-period!" principle as a universal moral maxim but it is only to be adopted as an ideal guide and standard.
In this case, while abortion is permitted, humanity must be mindful of and strive towards the impossible-ZERO-abortion-standard; in this case, humanity must prevent unnecessary abortions based on subjective views or accidents due to uncontrollable lusts.
Humanity must even strive to prevent medical-based abortion from arising at the root cause.
As such, abortion will only be carried out in very serious unavoidable circumstances.

So, the nature of ethics/morality in relation to abortion is;
1. Abortion is absolutely not permissible morally [only a guide]
2. Abortion is permitted if one wants it in practice.
3. Humanity must strive to achieve as near to Zero abortion as possible
4. Humanity to minimize abortion to only unavoidable cases.

Humanity to strive to wean off theism, thus allow the issue of abortion to flow naturally and progressively without coercions and threats.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Veritas Aequitas:

As with any system within a framework there are embedded markers and universal moral principles applicable to all humans -thus objective.

K: please tell me what ''universal moral principles are applicable to all humans''

Kropotkin