10k Philosophy challenge

[Atla]

As to the second, I think I did answer that. In the case of morality, we have some reason to think it might exist objectively. In the case of some objective standard of omelettes, we don't.

You don't understand the epic inconsistency in your position. Never mind.

It isn't inconsistent to think that some things are objective and others are subjective.

That's not it. You already roughly know what morality will and won't be concerned with, before you set out to discover it.

[Daniel McKay]

Atla - I mean, that's true in the sense that there are some constraints on morality based on starting assumptions, such as it needing to be applicable to all persons. But that isn't inconsistent and I have been pretty clear about starting assumptions from the off.

[Harbal]

If your disagreement is just a matter of choice or convenience, nothing. But if it is, as you assert, a moral issue, then it shows that even you believe there is such a thing as an "immoral" law -- and then you can't any longer make the case that law makes morality.

I don't remember trying to make a case that "law makes morality". I don't even know what that means.

It was you who said that abortion is moral because it's legal. You said that makes it not murder. Well, if the legal is the same as moral, then everything done by the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists...all "moral," by your definition.

Legal abortion, as with any legal homicide, isn't murder, that's all I said. I don't say it changes the moral status of anything.

Compelling a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is morally worse than providing her with a legal abortion.

She's chosen to create a child. Do you think that giving her permission to murder her child will make her choice better?

Is it possible to be given permission to commit murder? But yes, I think the right to abortion is morally correct.

When have I ever said that people don't do things they consider immoral?

You haven't. And sure they do; in this case, they know full well it is. As do you.

I imagine there are many women who have an abortion without any moral qualms, and also many who do have them. Maybe some women believe in objective moral truth, but don't think abortion is objectively immoral, who knows?

Yes, sometimes some thinking is called for,

Sometimes? How are you going to know whether the feelings are justified, if you don't think?

People usually know when something offends their sense of morality without having to do much thinking about it. When I say abortion is morally acceptable, how much thinking do you have to do before you feel able to disagree with me.

Well there are private clinics, but abortions are generally carried out, free of charge, by the NHS.

Well, the NHS is paid for their services...probably out of your taxes, and I'll bet you find out they make a good margin on it. Also, find out what they do with the biological "waste" (i.e. the baby's body parts). I'll warrant you they sell them...and at a tidy profit.

I'm pretty confident that the NHS do not operate their abortion service as some kind of money making racket.

Now their hospital car parks, that's a very different matter.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't remember trying to make a case that "law makes morality". I don't even know what that means.

It was you who said that abortion is moral because it's legal. You said that makes it not murder. Well, if the legal is the same as moral, then everything done by the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists...all "moral," by your definition.

Legal abortion, as with any legal homicide, isn't murder, that's all I said.

And that sets the precedent. To believe that was true, you'd have also to believe that the immoral could be made instantly moral by mere human fiat...regardless of how evil it was.

Is it possible to be given permission to commit murder?

That is precisely my question to you.

I imagine there are many women who have an abortion without any moral qualms, and also many who do have them.

Imagining is irrelevant, of course. As are the presence of absence of somebody's "moral qualms." If I'm such a psychopathic narcissist that I totally lack moral qualms, that does not imply my behaviour becomes blameless. It just means I'm bereft of conscience.

Yes, sometimes some thinking is called for,

Sometimes? How are you going to know whether the feelings are justified, if you don't think?

People usually know when something offends their sense of morality without having to do much thinking about it.

"Their sense" is, again, not the trustworthy indicator of anything. There are people who are without conscience, those who have bad consciences, those who have hardened against conscience, and those whose consciences have been socialized into a toxic orientation, as well. That's what makes conscience such a faulty faculty: without the employment of second-thought and the discovery of reasons following a twinge of conscience, one can never know what it's signalling, if anything at all.

Well there are private clinics, but abortions are generally carried out, free of charge, by the NHS.

Well, the NHS is paid for their services...probably out of your taxes, and I'll bet you find out they make a good margin on it. Also, find out what they do with the biological "waste" (i.e. the baby's body parts). I'll warrant you they sell them...and at a tidy profit.

I'm pretty confident that the NHS do not operate their abortion service as some kind of money making racket.

And I'm certain you're wrong. Somebody's paying the bills, and I'll warrant they're making a lot of money in the exchange. That it's buried in your tax bill doesn't change that fact. And I'm still sure they're not throwing all the baby body-parts into a trash can. They'll be going somewhere, somewhere unannounced, you can be sure.

Now their hospital car parks, that's a very different matter.

Hospital car parks are of the Devil. On that, we agree.

[bahman]

Could you formalize your question in a few sentences?

I mean, no. That's why I wrote a whole thing, because the context is necessary to understand the question. But I can give you it in a nutshell.

How does FC resolve conflicts between different persons that involve violations of different kinds of freedom? For example, how do we determine how many persons' sight we should save over one person's life?

Hope that helps.

What is freedom consequentialism?

[Daniel McKay]

Freedom consequentialism is the normative theory I developed that I provided a primer on in the initial post. If you need access to that primer, let me know and I'm happy to send you a link or whatever.

[accelafine]

Could you formalize your question in a few sentences?

I mean, no. That's why I wrote a whole thing, because the context is necessary to understand the question. But I can give you it in a nutshell.

How does FC resolve conflicts between different persons that involve violations of different kinds of freedom? For example, how do we determine how many persons' sight we should save over one person's life?

Hope that helps.

What is freedom consequentialism?

It doesn't mean anything.

[Age]

Age - Hmm, definitions are tricky things, but I'll have a go. By "morality" here I mean the objective normative truths about the world. That is, the way we should live our lives.

To me, saying, 'the objective normative truths about the world' is;

1. Not really saying anything at all.

2. In no way means nor even relates to, 'the way we should live our lives'.

3. Is another great example of complicating and confusing what is Truly very simple.

[Daniel McKay]

Age - Hmm, definitions are tricky things, but I'll have a go. By "morality" here I mean the objective normative truths about the world. That is, the way we should live our lives.

To me, saying, 'the objective normative truths about the world' is;

1. Not really saying anything at all.

2. In no way means nor even relates to, 'the way we should live our lives'.

3. Is another great example of complicating and confusing what is Truly very simple.

1: I'm not sure which words you are struggling with.

2: Normative truths are those truths related to what we should do. Things we ought to do. Normativity can be thought of as "oughtiness". So I'm not really sure why you don't see how this relates to how we should live our lives.

3: I don't think I've said anything very complicated there at all. You asked me for a definition, and I attempted to provide one.

[Daniel McKay]

It doesn't mean anything.

I mean, I did provide a moderately sized document explaining what it is in the original post. I can provide a link to it if needed.

[Age]

By "morality" here I mean the objective normative truths about the world. That is, the way we should live our lives.

According to 'who'?

No one, he seems to think that there could be objective rules written into the fabric of the world telling us how to live.

And, there is.

Independent of human opinions and human empathy. But it's more like about freedom anyway. And this is apparently the best approach to morality.

Do you have a better approach on 'morality', or on 'how you human beings 'should' live your lives'?

If yes, then will you share with 'us' 'that approach'?

[Age]

Empathy is not needed for morality.

No, it's not. If I measure a wall, and find it's 10 by 7, it remains 10 by 7 no matter how I feel about its color or material or construction. Morality -- what's right or wrong -- is an objective measure applicable in the same way.

How are you defining the 'empathy' word here, exactly?

See, the example you provided here seems to be well off the mark.

I will also be asking "daniel mckay" how it is defining the 'empathy' word here, as well. For the same reason.

Also, there's not a good reason to believe in a god, God, or gods.

Well, I think there are evidences that can move a person from there's not a good reason to believe in a god to hmmm, mebbe there's sumthin' to this god business.

Okay. But, every time you inform those people that God is a 'person' also, and one who is male gendered and who created the whole Universe, Itself, then I think you will find that 'the something' to this 'God business' will be rejected, even further, or not accepted at all.

But feel free to keep on trying to persuade others in believing what you believe is true here "henry quirk'.

whether there was a god, God, or gods has no bearing at all on what morality is or what is moral

Can't agree with you, Dan. If morality is a measure, then there's a standard setter, one who determines what is measured and how. And it matters not at all if we're talkin' about an objective or subjective morality: either way, someone sets the measure. The question, in context, is: it is us or is Him?

Well the Fact that 'morality' is both 'objective' and 'subjective' is irrefutable. And, if one has a Truly objective viewpoint, a subjective viewpoint or has a point of view from the objective and subjective perspective of things all just depends on from which perspective one is looking and seeing from, exactly.

Which is either from your individual perspective and point of view, from a human being collective perspective and point of view, or from God's perspective, view point, and/or point of view, exactly.

[Age]

Henry - There is no standard setter to the truth of reality, whether descriptive or normative. What is simply is, and would be whether we knew about it or not. What is right (assuming that anything is at all) would be the same whether or not there were a god. Though, I will certainly agree that were there an omniscient being willing to share their insights on morality, then that might be helpful in finding out what is right (assuming we could trust the answers)

Atla - I'm afraid I think your objective best omelette doesn't exist. I think there is no objective and universal standard by which the quality of omelettes can be measured. Also, to make a further and distinct linguistic claim, I think what we are talking about when we discuss good omelettes is something subjective.

Harbal - I mean, I think the reasons why we don't think there is a reason to believe in any gods are pretty clear. Specifically, there's no evidence to suggest that any exist. As for why that has no bearing on morality, morality is more than rules made by the guy with the biggest stick. It, if it exists at all, is a necessary truth baked into the fabric of all possible reality. Gods don't make A equal to A, it simply is. And it is in all possible worlds, those with deities and those without, as is also the case for morality. But, if you prefer less reliance on necessity and more of an intuition pump, we could instead use the classic Euthyphro dilemma, which leads to either any god's arbitrariness or irrelevance in the matter of morality.

No apologies necessary for being a smart arse. It's a habit I engage in often too, though I am doing my best to refrain in this discussion as I am asking for help with a specific philosophical problem.

The answer you are looking for here is:

Do not abuse any thing.

Now, once you work out, or learn, and understand what the word 'abuse' means and refers to, exactly, then what will be discovered is how the answer here fits in perfectly with everyone's view and perspective of 'morality', itself.

[Harbal]

It was you who said that abortion is moral because it's legal. You said that makes it not murder. Well, if the legal is the same as moral, then everything done by the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists...all "moral," by your definition.

Legal abortion, as with any legal homicide, isn't murder, that's all I said.

And that sets the precedent. To believe that was true, you'd have also to believe that the immoral could be made instantly moral by mere human fiat...regardless of how evil it was.

It isn't a matter of what I do or do not believe; all I'm trying to do is use words according to their proper definitions.

Is it possible to be given permission to commit murder?

That is precisely my question to you.

Well it strikes me that if you have the permission of a legitimate authority, the act ceases to be murder. I'm not saying that makes any difference to the moral status of the act.

I imagine there are many women who have an abortion without any moral qualms, and also many who do have them.

Imagining is irrelevant, of course. As are the presence of absence of somebody's "moral qualms." If I'm such a psychopathic narcissist that I totally lack moral qualms, that does not imply my behaviour becomes blameless. It just means I'm bereft of conscience.

The point I was making was that people who have abortions often have conflicting feelings about it, and do not find it an easy decision to make. Others do it without a second thought. Circumstances and attitudes around abortion can vary widely.

People usually know when something offends their sense of morality without having to do much thinking about it.

"Their sense" is, again, not the trustworthy indicator of anything. There are people who are without conscience, those who have bad consciences, those who have hardened against conscience, and those whose consciences have been socialized into a toxic orientation, as well. That's what makes conscience such a faulty faculty: without the employment of second-thought and the discovery of reasons following a twinge of conscience, one can never know what it's signalling, if anything at all.

Well if they have no conscience, or have a "bad" conscience, they won't care much about morality in any event, so God's moral law isn't likely to mean much to them, either. People only tend to behave morally if they want to behave morally, regardless of the objective or subjective nature of the morality in question.

I'm pretty confident that the NHS do not operate their abortion service as some kind of money making racket.

And I'm certain you're wrong. Somebody's paying the bills, and I'll warrant they're making a lot of money in the exchange.

As far as I'm aware, NHS abortions are carried out on the same basis as all other NHS medical procedures. If you know of something scandalous occurring, and there is genuine evidence of it, then just say so. Otherwise, it must be assumed you are dishonestly trying to cause groundless suspicion.

And I'm still sure they're not throwing all the baby body-parts into a trash can. They'll be going somewhere, somewhere unannounced, you can be sure.

Personally, I don't see what it matters what happens to the baby body-parts, but again, it sounds like you are suggesting something sinister is occurring without having the slightest reason to think there is.

[Impenitent]

...I'm pretty confident that the NHS do not operate their abortion service as some kind of money making racket.

Now their hospital car parks, that's a very different matter.

wow... how many acres has the NHS set aside for people to visit hospital cars?

-Imp