Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:50 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 5:43 pm ... zygote ...

I’ve simply supplied the abortionist's objective reasoning.
The abortionist's view.

K: and yet you got it wrong...

W: To the abortionist, a zygote carries the same significance as a bug’s life.

K: and how is it different? You also failed to answer many of my questions...

W: You seem to urgently require justification for that view.
I suspect that anyone who does require justification for that equation of zygote = bug, really knows the significance of a zygote, knows that it is much more significant than even a pregnant bug, and so is urgently rationalizing away that knowing. The urgency is caused by "desperate" circumstances, and because zygotes do what they gotta do, which is act as a ticking bomb in the plot-line of life.

K: NO, I am pointing out how flawed your reasoning actually is...
if life is so precious, then why not spend as much time as you do on
abortion, with the ''death penalty?''

If the death penalty fits into your agenda, then you are pretending to be
pro-life...

Kropotkin

OK, let us try this..

two things.. first, would you go back into time and induce an abortion in
Hitler's mom, thus saving upward of a 100 million lives. Second, if someone yet to be
born, existing as a fetus today, but in our lifetime were to cause a war,
a war that would make WW2 look like a picnic, with a billion dead,
instead of the 100 million dead of WW2, would you induce an abortion to save a billion
lives?
Just exactly how strong is your pro-life belief? Is saving the life of one, worth the death of
a billion?

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 9:25 pmfirst, would you go back into time and induce an abortion in Hitler's mom, thus saving upward of a 100 million lives.

Nope. I'd shadow the lil bastard as he grew up and intervene in his life periodically. With a little luck I could redirect him to do sumthin' entirely different with his life. And, if that didn't work, I could end him just as he starts his shitstorm, when he is becomin' a legit threat.

Second, if someone yet to be born, existing as a fetus today, but in our lifetime were to cause a war, a war that would make WW2 look like a picnic, with a billion dead, instead of the 100 million dead of WW2, would you induce an abortion to save a billion lives?

See above.

Just exactly how strong is your pro-life belief? Is saving the life of one, worth the death of
a billion?

You read my answer: you tell me.



-----

how do we survive our soul crushing world?

Objectively, the world is not soul-crushing. Hard, yes, soul-crushin', no.

"And, if that didn't work, I could end him just as he starts his shitstorm"

You are an inglorious bastard, Henry, and it's an honor to have your acquaintance.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 8:07 pm K: NO, I am pointing out how flawed your reasoning actually is...
if life is so precious, then why not spend as much time as you do on
abortion, with the ''death penalty?''

If the death penalty fits into your agenda, then you are pretending to be
pro-life...

Kropotkin

Listen carefully this time.
Life is the measure of all things.

Life is the measure of the significance of the death penalty.
Life is the measure of the significance of abortion.
Life is precious.

This does not imply that life should be preserved at all costs.*
Savvy?

Now, what is the societal justification for the death penalty?
Punishment.

What is the societal justification for abortion?
You know.

The societal justification is that a zygote is as significant as a bug's life.
I'm here to tell you, that with life as the measure, it is not.
A human life is far more significant than a bug's life.
Any fool can see that.

* Pete, what is it that humans try to preserve at all costs? Hint: it isn't life, as all the suicides prove.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:21 am Nope. I'd shadow the lil bastard as he grew up and intervene in his life periodically. With a little luck I could redirect him to do sumthin' entirely different with his life. And, if that didn't work, I could end him just as he starts his shitstorm, when he is becomin' a legit threat.

You don't mean, gasps, that you could exert some control over him and reduce the options, at the very least, his free will might lead him to? And would total free will mean that little Adolf is no more likely than anyone else to become a mass murderer? Anyone at any time could choose to become one, given that background and situation do not cause next behaviors?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 7:40 amYou don't mean, gasps, that you could exert some control over him and reduce the options, at the very least, his free will might lead him to?

I could try, yeah (though, I think I'd be expandin' or shiftin' his options rather than reducin' 'em). And mebbe control isn't the right word. And he was a free will, he didn't have free will.

And would total free will mean that little Adolf is no more likely than anyone else to become a mass murderer?

If the lil bastard were a free will, then -- yeah -- he chooses. He's responsible for himself (just like each and every dumbfuck who followed his orders is responsible for his choices). If he were broken or a meat machine then, no, he's not responsible (he's still a threat, though, like a rabid dog roamin' the streets).

And that raises this question: is/was Adolph a mass murderer?

Anyone at any time could choose to become one, given that background and situation do not cause next behaviors?

I think so. Leavin' aside broken folks, no matter how kind or harsh the influences were (and background & situation are influences) anyone can choose to attempt any damn thing, noble or depraved. Wrong, Henry! I'd never kill, or orchestrate the killing of, millions, for any reason! No, you probably wouldn't: you choose not to. Beyond you choosin' not to (for a variety of reasons), there's nuthin' stoppin' you (aside from you) from makin' the attempt. You're not hardwired, you're not a meat machine.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:16 pm I could try, yeah (though, I think I'd be expandin' or shiftin' his options rather than reducin' 'em). And mebbe control isn't the right word. And he was a free will, he didn't have free will.

OK, giving him more options,so perhaps he'd choose a better one. So, our range of options may be smaller or broader than other people's.

If the lil bastard were a free will, then -- yeah -- he chooses. He's responsible for himself (just like each and every dumbfuck who followed his orders is responsible for his choices). If he were broken or a meat machine then, no, he's not responsible (he's still a threat, though, like a rabid dog roamin' the streets).

And that raises this question: is/was Adolph a mass murderer?

Well, I think so. But more importantly perhaps. I think would have been fine with it. His military choices led to his downfall. But even if, somehow outside his awareness, others made all the decisions about the concentration camps and other mass killing methods (which seems unlikely given his desires for control, paranoia and power), I am pretty sure he would have been pleasantly surprised. That's gut reaction, not a case.

Anyone at any time could choose to become one, given that background and situation do not cause next behaviors?

I think so. Leavin' aside broken folks, no matter how kind or harsh the influences were (and background & situation are influences) anyone can choose to attempt any damn thing, noble or depraved.

Which would mean, more or less, we are all the same. All utterly free essences not affected by what went before. The I that chooses is like every other eye. It does not have tendencies, temperment and isn't affected by confusions, misunderstandings or models of reality. Because if so, then the choice is affected by what went before. So, we are sort of ciphers.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:32 pmOK, giving him more options,so perhaps he'd choose a better one. So, our range of options may be smaller or broader than other people's.

I think the number of options are fairly large for everyone. We de-liberate ourselves out of a fair number of 'em (or let someone else do it for us). Hard to quantify those options though.

Well, I think so. But more importantly perhaps. I think would have been fine with it. His military choices led to his downfall. But even if, somehow outside his awareness, others made all the decisions about the concentration camps and other mass killing methods (which seems unlikely given his desires for control, paranoia and power), I am pretty sure he would have been pleasantly surprised. That's gut reaction, not a case.

I wonder as to his true moral responsibility.

Anyone at any time could choose to become one, given that background and situation do not cause next behaviors?

Which would mean, more or less, we are all the same.

In that we're all free wills, yeah.

All utterly free essences not affected by what went before.

Well, we're not determined by yesterday, but we are influenced.

The I that chooses is like every other eye. [It does not have tendencies, temperment and isn't affected by confusions, misunderstandings or models of reality.

No, I am not you. My choices, good & bad, informed & ignorant, I make for reasons particular to me. Bein' free wills doesn't make us unlimited beings. We're free but finite, free but not perfect. We're subject to influence. We have proclivities and preferences. We're persons, marbled by experiences. We can defer to appetite and impulse.

Being a moral creature is a hard road.

Who on Earth said we survive (our soul crushing world)?

"how do we survive our soul crushing world?"

We don't.

Then according to some, we go to hell if we didn't follow Christ.

henry quirk: "being a moral creature is a hard road."

K: and therein lies the problem...

How do we know we are actually being "moral creatures?"
What standard/standards or formula are we using to decide that we are being moral?

"I am being moral because I am following this standard"

but if you have a different standard, and I am not following it, am I still being moral?

who is being moral and how do we know?

Kropotkin

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:44 pm "how do we survive our soul crushing world?"

We don't.

Then according to some, we go to hell if we didn't follow Christ.

That's the cherry on top, oui mon ami?

I'll let you in on a secret - hell's amazing!

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:44 pm "how do we survive our soul crushing world?"

We don't.

Then according to some, we go to hell if we didn't follow Christ.

That's the cherry on top, oui mon ami?

I'll let you in on a little secret - hell's amazing!

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 8:31 pm henry quirk: "being a moral creature is a hard road."

K: and therein lies the problem...

How do we know we are actually being "moral creatures?"
What standard/standards or formula are we using to decide that we are being moral?

"I am being moral because I am following this standard"

but if you have a different standard, and I am not following it, am I still being moral?

who is being moral and how do we know?

Kropotkin

Well,how do you know the Republicans are wrong?

And if you are about to tell us why you THINK they are wrong, or don't like their policies, or why you think they are coming from fear or other psychologizing, you haven't understood your own question.

IOW, yes I asked you a specfic question, in this case about the Republicans. I asked that because you present yourself as sure they are morally worse. So, to inform us how you KNOW is not going to be to simply rewrite your thoughts and guesses about them, but to tell us how you KNOW they are immoral compared to Democrats, rather than they simply have other values.