Philosophy Now Forum

You forgot to add "eternal values" to infanticide as in Infanticide and Eternal Values. It seems to be your favorite phrase lately. If it's chicken soup being discussed, I'm certain you'd find something of eternal value there as well! The chickens sacrificed for our benefit would certainly hope so.

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:28 am You forgot to add "eternal values" to infanticide as in Infanticide and Eternal Values. It seems to be your favorite phrase lately. If it's chicken soup being discussed, I'm certain you'd find something of eternal value there as well! The chickens sacrificed for our benefit would certainly hope so.

OK so I'll put you down as a supporter of infanticide when the baby is unwanted. Just throw it in the garbage. Fair enough.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:45 am http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/que ... -1.3826648

A newborn boy was found dead in a garbage can in a Queens playground Saturday.

A woman passing by who smelled a foul odor found the baby’s corpse in a trash can on a basketball court in Dutch Kills Playground near 36th Ave. and Crescent St. in Astoria about 10:45 a.m., cops said.

The boy’s umbilical cord was still attached, police sources said.

What's the problem? We know it was just a worthless organism. Why worry how this baby died? Admit that it was meaningless and get on with the more important issues of your daily life. Blame Trump if you must but concern for the death of a worthless organism is foolish for educated and sophisticated people.

You must be delighted. At least the baby wasn't aborted early on. Far better that it suffered--we all know how beJebus KKKrist loves the suffering of little children.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:01 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:28 am You forgot to add "eternal values" to infanticide as in Infanticide and Eternal Values. It seems to be your favorite phrase lately. If it's chicken soup being discussed, I'm certain you'd find something of eternal value there as well! The chickens sacrificed for our benefit would certainly hope so.

OK so I'll put you down as a supporter of infanticide when the baby is unwanted. Just throw it in the garbage. Fair enough.

Yeah! I'm always on the prowl seeing if there's anything I can do to decrease the population! On the other hand, I'll try to save any rooster who attempts to cross the highway without an escort!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:50 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:45 am http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/que ... -1.3826648

A newborn boy was found dead in a garbage can in a Queens playground Saturday.

A woman passing by who smelled a foul odor found the baby’s corpse in a trash can on a basketball court in Dutch Kills Playground near 36th Ave. and Crescent St. in Astoria about 10:45 a.m., cops said.

The boy’s umbilical cord was still attached, police sources said.

What's the problem? We know it was just a worthless organism. Why worry how this baby died? Admit that it was meaningless and get on with the more important issues of your daily life. Blame Trump if you must but concern for the death of a worthless organism is foolish for educated and sophisticated people.

You must be delighted. At least the baby wasn't aborted early on. Far better that it suffered--we all know how beJebus KKKrist loves the suffering of little children.

Another vote of support for infanticide since it is really the same as abortion and it is Jesus' fault anyhow

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:38 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:01 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:28 am You forgot to add "eternal values" to infanticide as in Infanticide and Eternal Values. It seems to be your favorite phrase lately. If it's chicken soup being discussed, I'm certain you'd find something of eternal value there as well! The chickens sacrificed for our benefit would certainly hope so.

OK so I'll put you down as a supporter of infanticide when the baby is unwanted. Just throw it in the garbage. Fair enough.

Yeah! I'm always on the prowl seeing if there's anything I can do to decrease the population! On the other hand, I'll try to save any rooster who attempts to cross the highway without an escort!

But roosters are valuable for society. They inspire chickens to lay the eggs we eat. They are worthy of life. Newborn babies are nothing but a societal burden so if the mothers don't want them, just throw them into the garbage. Simple and logical.

I'm not sure why any theist ever claims that morality is based on a God, since Plato proved thousands of years ago that a God cannot serve as the basis for morality. At least not in any sense that would make morality objective.

I also don't understand why theists assume that atheists all believe that morality is subjective. Sam Harris believes in an objective morality, while David Silverman believes in a subjective morality. The thing is to the extent an atheist believes morality is subjective, because no God exists, then they are committing the same error that Plato exposed. Since God can never be a source of objective morality, there is no rational reason to conclude that if a God does not exist, then all morality is subjective.

As far as the issue of infanticide is concerned, our closest relatives commit infanticide. In fact, although not our closest relatives, the Great Apes are going extinct partly because they routinely commit infanticide. Nature certainly does not rule out infanticide occurring.

Whether infanticide is ever justified will depend on the context in which it takes place. If a new-born would endanger other children, because food was scarce, and the new-born also had a birth defect, then one can see that under those circumstances infanticide may be the morally correct decision. However, in the modern western world, we have so many resources available to us that infanticide is universally condemned, as I think it should be, as an atheist.

Science Fan

I'm not sure why any theist ever claims that morality is based on a God, since Plato proved thousands of years ago that a God cannot serve as the basis for morality. At least not in any sense that would make morality objective.

I also don't understand why theists assume that atheists all believe that morality is subjective. Sam Harris believes in an objective morality, while David Silverman believes in a subjective morality. The thing is to the extent an atheist believes morality is subjective, because no God exists, then they are committing the same error that Plato exposed. Since God can never be a source of objective morality, there is no rational reason to conclude that if a God does not exist, then all morality is subjective.

Do you agree that the hierarchy of forms for Plato initiates with the Good?

Plato believed that the Forms were interrelated, and arranged in a hierarchy. The highest Form is the Form of the Good, which is the ultimate principle.

If you do it means eternal values are a product of the Good interpreted in many ways including a personal God. Eternal values becomes objective morality for Man and devolves into subjective morality for Man living in Plato’s cave.

Whether infanticide is ever justified will depend on the context in which it takes place. If a new-born would endanger other children,

Would you say that convenience justifies infanticide? If a woman already having four kids gives birth and decides after a week that it is too much trouble, is she justified in dumping it?

Nick: I think even Plato later on rejected the forms. No, I don't believe in any such nonsense as forms.

Nick_A wrote:... Consequently we either create our own subjective values or allow the state to enforce its subjective values by law.

Er!? The state is enforcing our subjective values or at least it is if you live in a democracy.

From this perspective is there any reason to be against infanticide? If there is no objective value, there can be no objective difference in value of a late term fetus and a week old baby. They are both equally dependent creatures with no objective right to life. So if the mother doesn’t want it, why shouldn’t she kill it? She has created her own reality which states that this week old creature has no objective worth. Is she wrong? How can she be if respect for life as an eternal value is just imagination?

Because the baby is now an independent being.

What do you mean by 'late term foetus', that is, how late are you talking about?

Should subjective societal laws be changed to allow a woman to kill her one week old baby since it lacks objective eternal value and is now just an inconvenience? If not, why not?

Because it is now an independent citizen of the state and as such has rights as a citizen.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:05 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:38 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:01 am

OK so I'll put you down as a supporter of infanticide when the baby is unwanted. Just throw it in the garbage. Fair enough.

Yeah! I'm always on the prowl seeing if there's anything I can do to decrease the population! On the other hand, I'll try to save any rooster who attempts to cross the highway without an escort!

But roosters are valuable for society. They inspire chickens to lay the eggs we eat. They are worthy of life. Newborn babies are nothing but a societal burden so if the mothers don't want them, just throw them into the garbage. Simple and logical.

...like the rest of your eternal values!

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:39 pm

Nick_A wrote:... Consequently we either create our own subjective values or allow the state to enforce its subjective values by law.

Er!? The state is enforcing our subjective values or at least it is if you live in a democracy.

From this perspective is there any reason to be against infanticide? If there is no objective value, there can be no objective difference in value of a late term fetus and a week old baby. They are both equally dependent creatures with no objective right to life. So if the mother doesn’t want it, why shouldn’t she kill it? She has created her own reality which states that this week old creature has no objective worth. Is she wrong? How can she be if respect for life as an eternal value is just imagination?

Because the baby is now an independent being.

What do you mean by 'late term foetus', that is, how late are you talking about?

Should subjective societal laws be changed to allow a woman to kill her one week old baby since it lacks objective eternal value and is now just an inconvenience? If not, why not?

Because it is now an independent citizen of the state and as such has rights as a citizen.

A week old baby is not an independent being. If you mean that a baby should not be killed once it becomes an independent being, that is another question. A week old baby is completely dependent on others to survive. So if it is unwanted why shouldn't it be killed as an inconvenience? If there are no eternal values we are governed by subjective values and if the week old baby lacks subjective value, why not dump it?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:37 pm Nick: I think even Plato later on rejected the forms. No, I don't believe in any such nonsense as forms.

Do you also deny Plato's distinction between knowledge and opinion and objective justice being an attribute of soul knowledge? You must if you deny Plato's Good as the source of eternal truths that devolve into subjective interpretations.

I say "screw the embryos". As for zygotes? Fuck 'em. They are microbes. Some malformed little fishy thing in the first trimester is not yet a human - it is a simple animal that may grow to be human.

Meanwhile those fundies weeping crocodile tears over "babies" are always the type who happily over-consume animals that FAR more sentient than their post-sperm bits of protoplasm. This false sense of divinity regarding humans and complete disregard for animal sentience is the main cause of our current environmental problems, leading to both overpopulation and wasteful and foolish destruction of other species and critical and pivotal aspects of ecosystems.

Once a foetus can feel recognisably human pain, then abortions become unethical. Before that time - better to save everyone much misery and pain with an abortion.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:26 am I say "screw the embryos". As for zygotes? Fuck 'em. They are microbes. Some malformed little fishy thing in the first trimester is not yet a human - it is a simple animal that may grow to be human.

Meanwhile those fundies weeping crocodile tears over "babies" are always the type who happily over-consume animals that FAR more sentient than their post-sperm bits of protoplasm. This false sense of divinity regarding humans and complete disregard for animal sentience is the main cause of our current environmental problems, leading to both overpopulation and wasteful and foolish destruction of other species and critical and pivotal aspects of ecosystems.

Once a foetus can feel recognisably human pain, then abortions become unethical. Before that time - better to save everyone much misery and pain with an abortion.

What is this quality which a human being has that a hated human embryo unworthy of life lacks?