Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Malti. So did God commit murder or not? There was no other cause of death of the fetus except some genetic condition.

Sorry...I redacted...see above.

Are you against IVF?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Are you against IVF?

I meant de facto genetics, the genetic condition of individuals, not genetic engineering as a field. You misread my meaning.

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Are you against IVF?

I meant de facto genetics, the genetic condition of individuals, not genetic engineering as a field. You misread my meaning.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:This a discussion for another thread.

Not really. You made it "front and centre." This is a moral issue, and you've been using a ton of moral language without justifying any of it.

And FYI, my morality is still subjective. You really need to understand that what you decide for yourself is subjective and what you let something or someone else decide for you is objective morality. Mine is all subjective.

No, I believe you -- I just can't see what justification you use to make moral judgments of others, if you're a pure subjectivist. I don't even mind you doing it, and don't feel offence. But I can't see any reason in it on your own terms.

If your subjectivism is true, then any moral condemnation you make of me amounts to no more than "I don't like X," with "X" being a property about which no one but you is subjectively required to be concerned.

That's a hard way to argue a moral issue. You've broken your own sword -- and you need it in order to mount the battle.

What are you talking about? You are the ones calling abortion murder and you are the ones who want to stop women from doing it. The moral condemnation is all your doing. I am simply pointing out to you that if you want to condemn a woman or doctor for abortion or call it murder, first condemn your God for every miscarriage due to genetic reasons by calling it murder. Otherwise, find something to do that does not interfere in other people's lives.

sthitapragya wrote:That's a hard way to argue a moral issue. You've broken your own sword -- and you need it in order to mount the battle.

What are you talking about? [/quote]
You don't see it, do you? We CANNOT BE WRONG. Why not? Because I say not? No, because you do!

According to you, there is nothing morally "wrong" that we can possibly be doing. You have nothing to say about it, if you stick to your subjectivism -- nothing more than "I don't like it, personally." That's subjectivism.

...find something to do that does not interfere in other people's lives.

Are you implying it would be "wrong" if I didn't?

You see? You can't even stick to subjectivism for one message...

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:That's a hard way to argue a moral issue. You've broken your own sword -- and you need it in order to mount the battle.

What are you talking about?

You don't see it, do you? We CANNOT BE WRONG. Why not? Because I say not? No, because you do!

According to you, there is nothing morally "wrong" that we can possibly be doing. You have nothing to say about it, if you stick to your subjectivism -- nothing more than "I don't like it, personally." That's subjectivism.

...find something to do that does not interfere in other people's lives.

Are you implying it would be "wrong" if I didn't?

You see? You can't even stick to subjectivism for one message...[/quote]
Are you against IVF?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:That's a hard way to argue a moral issue. You've broken your own sword -- and you need it in order to mount the battle.

What are you talking about?

You don't see it, do you? We CANNOT BE WRONG. Why not? Because I say not? No, because you do!

According to you, there is nothing morally "wrong" that we can possibly be doing. You have nothing to say about it, if you stick to your subjectivism -- nothing more than "I don't like it, personally." That's subjectivism.

...find something to do that does not interfere in other people's lives.

Are you implying it would be "wrong" if I didn't?

You see? You can't even stick to subjectivism for one message...[/quote]
I will repeat. You are the one calling abortion murder. I am simply pointing out to you that if it is murder, then your God commits murder every time a fetus dies due to genetic conditions. I am simply pointing out the inconsistency in your objective morality. If a doctor commits murder by killing a fetus, so does God by killing a fetus. You cannot say one is murder and the other is not.

sthitapragya wrote:I am simply pointing out the inconsistency in your objective morality.

Are you saying "inconsistency" is wrong?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:I am simply pointing out the inconsistency in your objective morality.

Are you saying "inconsistency" is wrong?

Are you against IVF?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Are you against IVF?

Sorry, Veg.

You took yourself out of this discussion the minute you refused to recognize anything as "murder." I can't possibly imagine anything less informative than discussing ethics with someone who thinks swearing and random abuse is a technique of philosophy, and who is so morally confused he can't even locate an action he would call "murder."

In fact, I can't imaging wanting to say anything to such a one but "Goodbye."

So goodbye.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:I am simply pointing out the inconsistency in your objective morality.

Are you saying "inconsistency" is wrong?

Where the he'll are you going with this? We are debating. You are showing inconsistencies in your arguments. I am pointing them out to you. Are you trying some kind of distraction technique? What is this?

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:I am simply pointing out the inconsistency in your objective morality.

Are you saying "inconsistency" is wrong?

Where the he'll are you going with this? We are debating. You are showing inconsistencies in your arguments. I am pointing them out to you. Are you trying some kind of distraction technique? What is this?

Are you against IVF?

sthitapragya wrote: Where the he'll are you going with this? We are debating. You are showing inconsistencies in your arguments. I am pointing them out to you. Are you trying some kind of distraction technique? What is this?

No. This is me proving to you that you can't live by subjectivism. You can profess it, of course; but nobody can follow it through (and here's your term) "consistently."

See, here you are again, full of ire...but why? In a subjectivist view, I haven't done anything wrong to you. Even if I confound, perplex and frustrate you, your subjectivism means that all you can say is "I don't happen to like that, personally." You can no longer argue any ethical issue at all, from that perspective.

C.S. Lewis said that a subjectivist or relativist is like a man who is sitting on a branch, and sawing it off between himself and the tree. If his subjectivism is true, then it's only subjectively true, which means only "true for him" and false for anyone else who does not share his subjective view. Thus he is cutting off his own ability to argue, and destroying his own case.

That's what you're doing. By declaring yourself a subjectivist, you've denied yourself any rational basis for telling anyone else what to believe or think. You've undermined your own ability to argue, right at the "tree." If you win your subjectivist point, you automatically lose your argument against anti-abortionists. It's that simple.

So which argument do you wish to win? You can't win both, because they're actually in contradiction of one another. If subjectivism is true, then anti-abortionism is just a subjective taste, not anything wrong. And making a law against abortion isn't wrong. Frustrating your conversational partners isn't wrong. And even eating your own children isn't wrong, provided you've got the taste for it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Where the he'll are you going with this? We are debating. You are showing inconsistencies in your arguments. I am pointing them out to you. Are you trying some kind of distraction technique? What is this?

No. This is me proving to you that you can't live by subjectivism. You can profess it, of course; but nobody can follow it through (and here's your term) "consistently."

See, here you are again, full of ire...but why? In a subjectivist view, I haven't done anything wrong to you. Even if I confound, perplex and frustrate you, your subjectivism means that all you can say is "I don't happen to like that, personally." You can no longer argue any ethical issue at all, from that perspective.

C.S. Lewis said that a subjectivist or relativist is like a man who is sitting on a branch, and sawing it off between himself and the tree. If his subjectivism is true, then it's only subjectively true, which means only "true for him" and false for anyone else who does not share his subjective view. Thus he is cutting off his own ability to argue, and destroying his own case.

That's what you're doing. By declaring yourself a subjectivist, you've denied yourself any rational basis for telling anyone else what to believe or think. You've undermined your own ability to argue, right at the "tree." If you win your subjectivist point, you automatically lose your argument against anti-abortionists. It's that simple.

So which argument do you wish to win? You can't win both, because they're actually in contradiction of one another. If subjectivism is true, then anti-abortionism is just a subjective taste, not anything wrong. And making a law against abortion isn't wrong. Frustrating your conversational partners isn't wrong. And even eating your own children isn't wrong, provided you've got the taste for it.

Are you against IVF?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Where the he'll are you going with this? We are debating. You are showing inconsistencies in your arguments. I am pointing them out to you. Are you trying some kind of distraction technique? What is this?

No. This is me proving to you that you can't live by subjectivism. You can profess it, of course; but nobody can follow it through (and here's your term) "consistently."

See, here you are again, full of ire...but why? In a subjectivist view, I haven't done anything wrong to you. Even if I confound, perplex and frustrate you, your subjectivism means that all you can say is "I don't happen to like that, personally." You can no longer argue any ethical issue at all, from that perspective.

C.S. Lewis said that a subjectivist or relativist is like a man who is sitting on a branch, and sawing it off between himself and the tree. If his subjectivism is true, then it's only subjectively true, which means only "true for him" and false for anyone else who does not share his subjective view. Thus he is cutting off his own ability to argue, and destroying his own case.

That's what you're doing. By declaring yourself a subjectivist, you've denied yourself any rational basis for telling anyone else what to believe or think. You've undermined your own ability to argue, right at the "tree." If you win your subjectivist point, you automatically lose your argument against anti-abortionists. It's that simple.

So which argument do you wish to win? You can't win both, because they're actually in contradiction of one another. If subjectivism is true, then anti-abortionism is just a subjective taste, not anything wrong. And making a law against abortion isn't wrong. Frustrating your conversational partners isn't wrong. And even eating your own children isn't wrong, provided you've got the taste for it.

I am confused because so far as I know, we are discussing abortions. My subjectivism has already been discussed by us in another thread and you seem to have completely ignored everything I said there. You know very well that you are completely misconstruing everything I said just to divert the conversation somewhere other than the issue at hand.

I realize that I have checkmated you with my argument that if doctors who abort fetuses commit murder, then so does god every time a fetus is miscarried due to genetic conditions and now you are trying some really weird tack here. I am disappointed. I thought you were a better man than this.