Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:56 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:54 pmyour usage of 'natural' and 'unnatural' is nothing to do with nature and all to do with your bias.

Heh. Hogwash. I'll let you take either side of any of those questions, without any bias at all. Call whichever side you want "natural." Just show me how "nature" tells us anything about them.

Just one. Go ahead.

Nature tells us nothing. Nature is what exists and the connections between this and that which exists. Nature is what is neither supernatural or empty.

To examine the problem of elective abortion we need to consider the rights of the pregnant woman and the foetus. This issue is salient now largely because the individual in the US and modern Europe has sufficient status(for historical reasons) to be accorded quite a few more rights than they have had at other places and other times.

Human rights problems are peculiar to humans because humans are largely products of their cultures. In this regard humans are unlike other animals whose cultures are not passed down the generations to anything like the extent of human cultures, including preliterate cultures. That humans are defined by their cultures is natural i.e. it's a fact of nature. It is also a fact of nature that some humans seek out wisdom in their moral decisions from ancient texts. These ancient texts are also natural, i.e. entities of nature, and tell about man's beliefs at a special time and a special place.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:19 pm Nature tells us nothing.

That being so, there is nothing for "rational men," as you call them, to "read," so as to instruct us how do that which is "natural." You've just defeated your own proposal of how ethics should work, then.

To examine the problem of elective abortion we need to consider the rights of the pregnant woman and the foetus.

Back this up.

What gives you a rational reason to claim that either HAS "rights"? You have already said you cannot "read" them out of "nature," or deduce them by some sort of reasoning. So how do you know either has any claim here?

Human rights problems are peculiar to humans because humans are largely products of their cultures.

Then they're not durable. "Rights" of that sort can be taken away at the whim of the culture.

So I've still got no ethical framework from you. It seems you're now sliding over to advocating some kind of Cultural Determinism, wherein women who are revenge raped in Pakistan, homosexuals who are thrown off roofs in the Palestinian territories, or babies who are murdered after birth in "one-child" countries would have no justifiable claim, and could not be claimed by others, that they are even being mistreated.

Can you live with that?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:19 pm ... humans because humans are largely products of their cultures.

What are the cultures the products of?

That view is totally backward. Cultures do not do anything. Culture's are the product of human choices. Human beings determine what cultures are. You have it the wrong-way-to, or less politely, ass-backwards.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:59 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:19 pm ... humans because humans are largely products of their cultures.

What are the cultures the products of?

Well, exactly. If ethics is going to have any reality at all, it's at the individual level.

The "culture" ain't listening.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:37 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:19 pm Nature tells us nothing.

That being so, there is nothing for "rational men," as you call them, to "read," so as to instruct us how do that which is "natural." You've just defeated your own proposal of how ethics should work, then.

To examine the problem of elective abortion we need to consider the rights of the pregnant woman and the foetus.

Back this up.

What gives you a rational reason to claim that either HAS "rights"? You have already said you cannot "read" them out of "nature," or deduce them by some sort of reasoning. So how do you know either has any claim here?

Human rights problems are peculiar to humans because humans are largely products of their cultures.

Then they're not durable. "Rights" of that sort can be taken away at the whim of the culture.

So I've still got no ethical framework from you. It seems you're now sliding over to advocating some kind of Cultural Determinism, wherein women who are revenge raped in Pakistan, homosexuals who are thrown off roofs in the Palestinian territories, or babies who are murdered after birth in "one-child" countries would have no justifiable claim, and could not be claimed by others, that they are even being mistreated.

Can you live with that?

Nature. We can and do try to find out about nature.

Rights. There are no 'natural' rights. Rights are conferred on individuals by other individuals and by society. Rights can be taken away at a whim of despots or a court of law.. I am keen to protect human rights and extend them to oppressed people of all nationalities, race, age, and sex.

I condemn atrocities because I want to stop suffering and cruelty. According to the morality of my own culture these atrocities are immoral. My own culture of belief includes nationals from Pakistan and Palestine who share my abhorrence of these atrocities.

I can examine my own culture without bias and have done so sometimes at the instigation of somebody else.

I have ethical principles which I can justify.

Elective abortion is a very difficult decision for all concerned and I believe it is decided on a case by case basis. The foetus has rights but those are less than the rights of viable individuals.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:59 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:19 pm ... humans because humans are largely products of their cultures.

What are the cultures the products of?

That view is totally backward. Cultures do not do anything. Culture's are the product of human choices. Human beings determine what cultures are. You have it the wrong-way-to, or less politely, ass-backwards.

Henry, the influence of a culture of belief on an individual, and the influence of an individual on a culture of belief, vary case by case. Some individuals revolutionise a culture, and other individuals are helpless to make any impression on commonly held beliefs.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:11 pm Nature. We can and do try to find out about nature.

We find out all kinds of things from nature, of course.

But nothing about ethics. So your comment is just off topic.

Rights. There are no 'natural' rights. Rights are conferred on individuals by other individuals and by society. Rights can be taken away at a whim of despots or a court of law.. I am keen to protect human rights and extend them to oppressed people of all nationalities, race, age, and sex.

If there are no natural rights, then you have no basis to condemn revenge rape in Pakistan, or killing female babies in China, or executions of homosexuals in the Palestinian territories. Because their "culture" says it's okay.

So how do you justify interfering in their "culture"? Thus, you now have to be in favour of these things, since it is you who insists that "culture" is the only basis of rights.

I condemn atrocities because I want to stop suffering and cruelty.

Too bad you have no rational basis for doing so, since rights are just "culture."

According to the morality of my own culture these atrocities are immoral. My own culture of belief includes nationals from Pakistan and Palestine who share my abhorrence of these atrocities.

Ah, so now you want to use YOUR culture to judge what the majority in THEIR culture wants to do, and side with the minority who objects. That means you have to have a meta-standard, one that makes YOUR culture good, and Sharia or Communist cultures bad. So what's that larger standard that tells you you're right and they're wrong?

I have ethical principles which I can justify.

So far, you've given no justification for them.

The foetus has rights but those are less than the rights of viable individuals.

...according to just some people in your own culture, but not according to others. Some, like abortionists, say the foetus has no rights at all, but can be torn apart and flushed down a sink for convenience, the way 99% of abortions actually happen. Others say you're killing a living human being, with rights at least as great, and perhaps exceeding the mothers, as she has choices, and thus is not so utterly vulnerable as her poor child is, who has none at all.

See? There's both sides of that argument.

So now you need a way of showing that one side is right, and the other is wrong...what is that standard?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:59 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:19 pm ... humans because humans are largely products of their cultures.

What are the cultures the products of?

That view is totally backward. Cultures do not do anything. Culture's are the product of human choices. Human beings determine what cultures are. You have it the wrong-way-to, or less politely, ass-backwards.

You really struggle with abstract reasoning, don't you?

Cultures are the product of human choices. Note "choices" is plural - the choices of many humans.
You are a product of culture. You are the product of other humans' choices.

Q.E.D You speak English. You didn't choose it - other people chose it for you. You value individualism - you didn't choose that. Your culture chose it for you. You were born where you were born and you studied where you studied - you didn't choose that. Your culture chose it for you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:25 pm Too bad you have no rational basis for doing so, since rights are just "culture"

Do you also believe that 3.25 × 10^25 drops of water are not necessary for an ocean?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:25 pm Too bad you have no rational basis for doing so, since rights are just "culture"

Do you also believe that...

Not my beliefs. Belindas.

Don't you track anything? Is automatic gainsaying the only thing you can imagine to do?

However, I suppose we must all work within our cognitive limitations...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:20 pm I have been arguing that God is the prototype, so to speak, the paragon, the "first in the parade" of things we can rightly, objectively identify as "good."

That's Platonism. Apparently you object to it. But you don't. But you do.

You don't even know what you believe....

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:40 pm Not my beliefs. Belindas.

Don't you track anything? Is automatic gainsaying the only thing you can imagine to do?

However, I suppose we must all work within our cognitive limitations...

The word "just" is not Belinda's word. It's the word you added to trivialise and dismiss her position.

Like this.

It's "just" 3.25 × 10^25 drops of water.
It's just an ocean.

We both know you are a slimy [unt, I am just pointing it out

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:20 pm I have been arguing that God is the prototype, so to speak, the paragon, the "first in the parade" of things we can rightly, objectively identify as "good."

That's Platonism.

Nope. In Platonism, values are said to exist in a realm of ideal forms. Nobody said that. Neither Pete nor I thinks that's true.

Try to keep up.