10k Philosophy challenge

[Immanuel Can]

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.

"Proper" should probably include "coherent," don't you think? And to say that moral is a matter of mere human law means no human laws can ever legitimately be questioned. That's a lot to swallow...too much, I think.

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.

Then you're saying that "murder" is merely a human convention. I don't think it is. I think it's a divine interdiction. So we'll just have to disagree about where the buck stops there.

I'm not saying that makes any difference to the moral status of the act.

??? How can that be? If social "law" and "moral" mean the same, it's utterly impossible for the moral status of any act to be other than what a particular society says it is.

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.

Why? Why should they? If it's such a morally unproblematic thing, just a matter of a woman's "choice" about "her own body," then why is she feeling bad about it? And why are you morally troubled by it? Why isn't it a very, very easy decision?

Because we all know it's wrong, that's why.

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.

I don't believe they have NO conscience about it. I believe they do, but they choose to react differently to it. And I don't believe that their rightness or wrongness depends on their willingness to confess what they know.

And you can see this from the fact that people -- even outright narcissists and psychopaths -- tend to conceal or deny the things they do. They know what they're doing is wrong; they just want to do it anyway.

As far as I'm aware, NHS abortions are carried out on the same basis as all other NHS medical procedures.

That means they're being paid-for by your tax dollars. How much each procedure actually costs, and how much they get for each procedure would be an interesting statistic, if you know it. And I still think you should look into where the baby parts are going. I warrant you'll find that, just as in the US, there are millions or dollars/euros flowing around.

If you know of something scandalous occurring, and there is genuine evidence of it, then just say so.

Well, I know how it works in North America. In the US, for example, Planned Parenthood alone receives 592 million dollars a year. (Government Accountability Office statistic,
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106215) It's up to you to explain how the NHS does it without money.

[Fairy]

"Proper" should probably include "coherent," don't you think? And to say that moral is a matter of mere human law means no human laws can ever legitimately be questioned. That's a lot to swallow...too much, I think.

What if, and this is a big if. What if there is nothing higher than human law when it comes to morality.

Morality being just a man made concept nonetheless?

[Harbal]

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.

"Proper" should probably include "coherent,"

If everyone started using words to mean what they personally thought they should mean or what they would prefer them to mean, rather than what the dictionary says they mean, and what they are generally accepted to mean, sensible communication between human beings would become virtually impossible.

And to say that moral is a matter of mere human law means no human laws can ever legitimately be questioned. That's a lot to swallow...too much, I think.

Well I don't say that, so I can't answer for it.

Well it strikes me that if you have the permission of a legitimate authority, the act ceases to be murder.

Then you're saying that "murder" is merely a human convention. I don't think it is. I think it's a divine interdiction. So we'll just have to disagree about where the buck stops there.

I'm saying that murder is a legal category. I know I've said this before, but I am a human being living among other human beings, so I'm only interested in the human perspective.

??? How can that be? If social "law" and "moral" mean the same, it's utterly impossible for the moral status of any act to be other than what a particular society says it is.

Social law and "moral" do not mean the same; I never said that. Perhaps I should have worded my reply: "I'm not saying that makes any difference to the moral status as far as I am concerned". Morality is a matter of opinion, although there does -broadly- tend to be a consensus on most moral issues among the people in any given culture, or society.

Why? Why should they? If it's such a morally unproblematic thing, just a matter of a woman's "choice" about "her own body," then why is she feeling bad about it? And why are you morally troubled by it? Why isn't it a very, very easy decision?

Because we all know it's wrong, that's why.

I never said abortion wasn't morally problematic, although it obviously isn't for some people. I don't find it particularly problematic, but I can understand why some people do. The point is, denying the right to abortion is more morally problematic.

Well, I know how it works in North America. In the US, for example, Planned Parenthood alone receives 592 million dollars a year. (Government Accountability Office statistic,
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106215) It's up to you to explain how the NHS does it without money.

I have no reason to think that the NHS treats abortion any differently to any other medical procedure, and it isn't up to me to explain anything. Again, if you know of something that the NHS is doing that they shouldn't be doing, just say what it is.

[Immanuel Can]

"Proper" should probably include "coherent," don't you think? And to say that moral is a matter of mere human law means no human laws can ever legitimately be questioned. That's a lot to swallow...too much, I think.

What if, and this is a big if. What if there is nothing higher than human law when it comes to morality.

Morality being just a man made concept nonetheless?

Then, as Nietzsche pointed out, morality is just a construct invented by those who want to have power. There's nothing more behind it. So a smart person will ignore morality completely...at least in regards to himself. He may use the language or appearance of morality to position himself better relative to the fools in his society who actually believe in it, but he'll know better. He'll be "beyond good and evil," as Nietzsche put it.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

"Proper" should probably include "coherent,"

If everyone started using words to mean what they personally thought they should mean or what they would prefer them to mean, rather than what the dictionary says they mean, and what they are generally accepted to mean, sensible communication between human beings would become virtually impossible.

Good thing nobody's doing that. But it's far from the case that a definition cannot be questioned or challenged, too...especially when it overlooks something important. And people do that all the time...and nobody dies of it.

And to say that moral is a matter of mere human law means no human laws can ever legitimately be questioned. That's a lot to swallow...too much, I think.

Well I don't say that, so I can't answer for it.

You don't say it, but you make it inescapable. That only means you haven't thought through the implications of what you are saying. But if law = morality, then there are no immoral laws, and never can be.

Well it strikes me that if you have the permission of a legitimate authority, the act ceases to be murder.

Then you're saying that "murder" is merely a human convention. I don't think it is. I think it's a divine interdiction. So we'll just have to disagree about where the buck stops there.

I'm saying that murder is a legal category.

You're saying it's ONLY a legal category. I'm saying it's a legal category AND that is reflective of the Decalogue, and of the objective fact of the wrongness of murder, which is a product of transcendent, not human authority.

??? How can that be? If social "law" and "moral" mean the same, it's utterly impossible for the moral status of any act to be other than what a particular society says it is.

Morality is a matter of opinion,

That's even weaker than "social construction". You're not helping your case, you know.

Why? Why should they? If it's such a morally unproblematic thing, just a matter of a woman's "choice" about "her own body," then why is she feeling bad about it? And why are you morally troubled by it? Why isn't it a very, very easy decision?

Because we all know it's wrong, that's why.

I never said abortion wasn't morally problematic,

Okay, in what way is abortion "morally problematic," then?

...denying the right to abortion is more morally problematic.

There's no such right. It's not some product of "natural law." Nothing on earth or in the stars guarantees any such "right." And person who has behaved irresponsibly with her reproduction can't possibly believe that she deserves an unqualified license to remedy her own folly by adding murder to it. So that boat just won't float.

...it isn't up to me to explain anything.

Just your advocacy of murder. It's a little thing to you, maybe, but maybe you should make some account of why you do it.

[Dubious]

Then, as Nietzsche pointed out, morality is just a construct invented by those who want to have power. There's nothing more behind it. So a smart person will ignore morality completely...at least in regards to himself. He may use the language or appearance of morality to position himself better relative to the fools in his society who actually believe in it, but he'll know better. He'll be "beyond good and evil," as Nietzsche put it.

Nietzsche's attitude on morality is considerably more complex than your prejudiced over simplistic take on it...

It is important to recognize that Nietzsche did not reject all morality. In fact, due to his own original contributions to the study of morality and moral philosophy, it would be greatly misleading to say that Nietzsche hated morality or rejected it outright. For example, consider perspectivism. Perspectivism was Nietzsche’s own ethical outlook, which recognizes that different individuals or cultures may have different moral perspectives and that those perspectives can all be valid within that cultural context.

On this view, moral values are influenced by individual perspectives, historical contexts, and cultural backgrounds – not a rational appreciation of what is universally right and wrong. It is important to note that this does not reduce morality to mere subjectivity. This is just one way to acknowledge diversity in moral outlooks. Moreover, when Nietzsche criticized existing morality, he did not at the same time call for an end to all values.

Nietzsche criticized traditional moral values that he considered life-denying and limiting, but in doing so demanded a creative response. He called for a “revaluation of all values,”, thereby urging individuals to critically examine and question existing moral norms and to develop new, life-affirming ethical perspectives.

You are clearly not intelligent enough to read Nietzsche and overwhelmingly not honest enough but then most theists are liars...something which Nietzsche was very much aware of.

N.B. The underline is my own to emphasize the difference between perspectives on morality compared to what you endorse as absolute according to the bible being applicable to all without question.

[Harbal]

"Proper" should probably include "coherent,"

If everyone started using words to mean what they personally thought they should mean or what they would prefer them to mean, rather than what the dictionary says they mean, and what they are generally accepted to mean, sensible communication between human beings would become virtually impossible.

Good thing nobody's doing that.

You are doing it. You are applying the term, "murder", to something that does not qualify as murder.

Well I don't say that, so I can't answer for it.

You don't say it, but you make it inescapable. That only means you haven't thought through the implications of what you are saying. But if law = morality, then there are no immoral laws, and never can be.

A law is just a rule that some authority or other demands we have to obey; morality is concerned with how people behave towards each other, so you are right: law does not equal morality. Law and morality are different things.

I'm saying that murder is a legal category.

You're saying it's ONLY a legal category. I'm saying it's a legal category AND that is reflective of the Decalogue, and of the objective fact of the wrongness of murder, which is a product of transcendent, not human authority.

But that's just religion, and you know I'm not into religion. And if I give in to you, the next thing I know, I'll have Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and God knows who else knocking on my door, all demanding I follow their rules.

Morality is a matter of opinion,

That's even weaker than "social construction". You're not helping your case, you know.

I'm not trying to present a case, I am trying to describe what I think morality is, and how it works.

I never said abortion wasn't morally problematic,

Okay, in what way is abortion "morally problematic," then?

I don't really think it is morally problematic when conducted within the rules and conditions that have been set out for it. I can, however, see how it could be considered morally problematic by those who hold certain beliefs; like the belief that all human life is sacred, for example.

...denying the right to abortion is more morally problematic.

There's no such right. It's not some product of "natural law." Nothing on earth or in the stars guarantees any such "right."

I'm referring to a legal right. You have your divine rights, henry has his natural rights, but we only have legal rights in my world, I'm afraid.

And person who has behaved irresponsibly with her reproduction can't possibly believe that she deserves an unqualified license to remedy her own folly by adding murder to it. So that boat just won't float.

People sometimes find they are pregnant and don't want to have a child. If they hold no principles that prevent them from having an abortion, and the law allows it, they will probably have one. How many of those people don't believe they deserve to have one, I couldn't say.

...it isn't up to me to explain anything.

Just your advocacy of murder. It's a little thing to you, maybe, but maybe you should make some account of why you do it.

I am in favour of on demand abortion, as are the majority in many countries. I don't think I owe anybody an explanation.

[Age]

It might be baked into the human psyche

Yes, exactly. It's not in the fabric of Reality: it's in our fabric (and mine is a sturdy denim).

yours is the most hypocritical and contradictory one here.

[Daniel McKay]

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.

I don't think you're right in that. I think people have different perspectives on morality and I don't think that all of them come down to not abusing anything. Quite apart from anything else, that's not where my intuitions lie at all.

[Age]

What's the crucial difference between objectively measuring the quality of omelettes and objectively weighing freedoms (and moral realism in general)?

That would be why he mentioned the linguistic claims.

There's (arguably) a difference of type between the linguistic claims 'this omelette is bad' and 'stealing cars is bad'. In one case you intend it such that anyone who disagrees with you must be mistaken, that there really is something bad about stealing a car. In the other, somebody may just dislike fluffiness in their eggs and you likely don't intend to say that they are mistaken if that is their preference.

I think you may have missed the point. He's the one trying to find objective truths about how we should live our lives.

When, and if, you people ever come to an agreement on what 'objectivity' even is, and how to obtain actual 'objectivity', itself, then you people will finally move along here.

you people are, essentially, only disagreeing and bickering with each other her because you continue to fail to obtain actual clarification, and thus clarity, from and with each other.

See, when you express your views with words, which the definition of has not yet been clarified, then when you are disagreeing with each other, then just about all of the time, it will be found, is that 'the other' just has different definitions of the words being used from 'you', and which is why and where the actual disagreement lays.

So, if, and when, you delve 'down' into what is actually being meant, in what is actually being said and written, that is, within the definition of the words being used, then disagreement and bickering 'falls to the wayside', as some would say, and agreement, and thus harmony also, begins..

Because deep within all of you the actual Truth exits, waiting to be uncovered, and revealed.

I'm asking him why we should expect to find objective truths about weighing freedoms (and moral realism in general), but not expect to find objective truths about how to make omelettes (and why this isn't part of morality).

Because;

1.Why you could, and will, actually find 'objective truths' about 'weighing freedoms', when what that actually means and refers to, exactly, is presented, is because they exist. And, objective truths exist within every one, and are the exact same, although still unconsciously known to most of you people, in the days when this is being written.

2. you will not find 'objective truths' about how to make omelettes for the, obvious, fact that how one likes omelettes is different, and so the way to cook omelettes is also different.

3. In regards to 'morality' because what every one wants and has the desire of is the 'exact same thing', and how to arrive at that exact same thing/place is created, made, and/or 'cooked' in the exact same way.

4. How to make omelettes (cook) is not at all like nor about what one 'should' do (morality). This is why morality (what one 'should' do) is not about cooking (making omelettes).

5. Morality is what every one agrees upon and wants, and collectively needs. Whereas, omelettes are a Truly personal taste and thing. Omelettes are also only wanted , and not needed.

[Age]

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.

I agree with you about the unlikelihood of gods, but not about anything to do with morality being baked into the fabric of reality. It might be baked into the human psyche, but, in reality, I don't think morality extends beyond human sentiment.

I don't think it's baked into the human psyche at all. I think we have a kind of proto-morality as the result of our evolutionary history, but the way of getting beyond that is through reasoned analysis, rather than looking deep inside ourselves for answers.

But, if one does not go through, and get past, all of one's own distorted and irrationally thinking and believing, that is "one's" own 'self', or the 'hamun psyche, itself, in other words, then they will, literally, not be 'getting beyond' what is preventing and stopping 'reasoned analysis'.

See, one has to 'look' deep inside "their" 'self', to find out and understand why they had, still, not yet arrived at the Truly 'reasoned' conclusion. Or, in other words arrived at the actual, irrefutable, Truth of things.

So, looking deep within 'yourselves" is part of a Truly 'reasoned analysis'. And, both are actually needed to finding out the irrefutable Truth about 'morality', itself, and thus about finding out about what is actually needed to do what is actually Right, in Life.

[Immanuel Can]

It is important to recognize that Nietzsche did not reject all morality.

In fact, I'd agree with that. Nietzsche failed to be as thorough, consistent and hard-headed about morality as he intended to be. He fell short. For in reinstating a new kind of "morality" in the form of the ubermenschen, his "supermen," he ended up just advancing yet another metanarrative, yet another version of a kind of rough "morality," but this time completely arbitrarily. He made his own kind of bid for power-through-moralizing, a thing he'd already debunked himself.

Perspectivism was Nietzsche’s own ethical outlook,...

If that were true, Nietzsche would have been fine with people believing in any morality at all, including "Judeo-Christian" moralities, and even believing in God Himself. But clearly, none of that's true. Have you read him?

Moreover, when Nietzsche criticized existing morality, he did not at the same time call for an end to all values.

You're right: he arbitrarily tried to impose his own values, as if they were products of the one master-narrative that was, in distinction to all rival "perspectives," universal and true. Again, even Nietzsche couldn't manage to be a consistent Nietzschean: he sang one song, then the other.

Nietzsche criticized traditional moral values that he considered life-denying and limiting, but in doing so demanded a creative response. He called for a “revaluation of all values,”,

"Transvaluation of values." If you'd read Nietzsche, you'd have seen that phrase often, and wouldn't make that mistake. And by "life affirming" he only meant "the will to power." As he wrote,

"[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life."
(from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, s.259, Walter Kaufmann transl.)

We could multiply similar quotations: Nietzsche repeated this belief often. "Life affirming" means "exploiting" and "will to power." It means beating up your opposition and rising to the top yourself, not caring who says to you "Stop that!" or "Hey, that's wrong." It's nothing like what you call "Perspectivism." It has no place for rivals.

That's his new dogma, his new arbitrary "morality," imposed on everybody as if it were nothing but the blunt truth. And he was every bit as dogmatic about it as any imam or priest might be about his own view. So let's get past the nonsense about Nietzsche being some permissive, proto-liberal relativist of generous and open spirit. There just isn't anything in Nietzsche to warrant such a reading.

[Daniel McKay]

Age - I wouldn't say that self-reflection is never helpful to the project of engaging with reasoned analysis, and reasoned analysis does require a certain level of intellectual honesty with oneself, but I think you may be overstating its importance.

Also, there is a world of difference between looking at one's moral intuitions as a guide for moral truth and taking an honest look at yourself and asking yourself why you believe the things you believe and whether they are the result of bias or delusion. They almost could not be more different.

[Immanuel Can]

If everyone started using words to mean what they personally thought they should mean or what they would prefer them to mean, rather than what the dictionary says they mean, and what they are generally accepted to mean, sensible communication between human beings would become virtually impossible.

Good thing nobody's doing that.

You are doing it. You are applying the term, "murder", to something that does not qualify as murder.

God says it does. You say it doesn't. I say I'm with God on that.

Well I don't say that, so I can't answer for it.

You don't say it, but you make it inescapable. That only means you haven't thought through the implications of what you are saying. But if law = morality, then there are no immoral laws, and never can be.

A law is just a rule that some authority or other demands we have to obey; morality is concerned with how people behave towards each other, so you are right: law does not equal morality. Law and morality are different things.

Okay, let's chase that: what is "morality" that gives it power to pass judgment on "law"? For if we say that there can be any "immoral laws" in the history of the world, including such things as Sharia, or slave laws, or laws the keep despots in power, then "moral" must be transcendent relative to "law" -- it must be, in some way, bigger, better, more important, more decisive, more telling of something than "law" can be.

What is it, then, that "morality" is, that is above "law"?

I'm saying that murder is a legal category.

You're saying it's ONLY a legal category. I'm saying it's a legal category AND that is reflective of the Decalogue, and of the objective fact of the wrongness of murder, which is a product of transcendent, not human authority.

But that's just religion,..

So you say. God says it's universal truth, regardless of one's "religion."

I never said abortion wasn't morally problematic,

Okay, in what way is abortion "morally problematic," then?

I don't really think it is morally problematic when conducted within the rules and conditions that have been set out for it.

Now you're talking contradictions. Is it, or is it not "morally problematic"? Not "well some people think..." We all know people think all kinds of nonsense. IS it "morally problematic," or did you mean nothing when you said it was?

I can, however, see how it could be considered morally problematic by those who hold certain beliefs; like the belief that all human life is sacred, for example.

So you don't regard life as sacred? Okay. Do you even regard it as valuable?

People sometimes find they are pregnant...

"Oh, mysterious process! How did this happen? Suddenly, I am afflicted with baby, and know not how this miracle has been wrought upon me!"

In 99% of the cases, they did it. They chose it. Now they want to murder in order to get out of what they chose. And you want to make murder okay, just so they don't have to face what they chose?

Don't you expect people to take responsibility for their own choices?

[Harbal]

Good thing nobody's doing that.

You are doing it. You are applying the term, "murder", to something that does not qualify as murder.

God says it does. You say it doesn't. I say I'm with God on that.

If I ever find myself dwelling in the Kingdom of Heaven, which is highly unlikely if you are to be believed (although you usually aren't), I will abide by God's rules, but I am living on planet Earth right now, in the human world.

A law is just a rule that some authority or other demands we have to obey; morality is concerned with how people behave towards each other, so you are right: law does not equal morality. Law and morality are different things.

Okay, let's chase that: what is "morality" that gives it power to pass judgment on "law"?

In a democracy, the law tends to reflect the attitude of its members, and as public attitudes change over time, the law changes with them.

For if we say that there can be any "immoral laws" in the history of the world, including such things as Sharia, or slave laws, or laws the keep despots in power, then "moral" must be transcendent relative to "law" -- it must be, in some way, bigger, better, more important, more decisive, more telling of something than "law" can be.

What is it, then, that "morality" is, that is above "law"?

Ideally, ethics and morality should be in the foundations of law, which tend to be below, rather than above.

But that's just religion,..

So you say. God says it's universal truth, regardless of one's "religion."

But that's just religion.

I don't really think it is morally problematic when conducted within the rules and conditions that have been set out for it.

Now you're talking contradictions. Is it, or is it not "morally problematic"?

If abortion is performed within a certain time limit, I don't find it morally problematic, but there is a time limit beyond which I would find it problematic. I believe the cut off time in the UK is 24 weeks, and based on my rather scant biological knowledge, I would say it might be better to set that point a bit earlier.

I can, however, see how it could be considered morally problematic by those who hold certain beliefs; like the belief that all human life is sacred, for example.

So you don't regard life as sacred?

Define sacred, and I will answer the question according to your definition.

Do you even regard it as valuable?

Valuable in what way?

People sometimes find they are pregnant...

"Oh, mysterious process! How did this happen? Suddenly, I am afflicted with baby, and know not how this miracle has been wrought upon me!"

When people engage in sex without taking precautions against pregnancy, in due course some of them will find they are not pregnant, and some will find they are pregnant. If there is a third possibility, you will have to tell me what it is.

In 99% of the cases, they did it. They chose it. Now they want to murder in order to get out of what they chose.

I have no sympathy with those people. My concern is for those who ended up pregnant without intending to be pregnant. I assume carelessness is the main cause of that, or as some might put it, being human. I don't hold with murder, and there is no excuse for it when abortion is available.

Don't you expect people to take responsibility for their own choices?

If someone chooses to have an abortion, then yes, I would expect them to take responsibility for their choice.