DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:31 pm
Dachshund wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:06 pm
DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:40 pm
abortion isn't a moral struggle, its a legal/political/social struggle. and really, Kant is dead, who cares. he's not a justification for yea or nay on the subject.
the justification is whether or not it becomes law one way or the other via the agreed method of making or rescinding law.
(1): If you don't understand how abortion is a moral issue, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a philosophy forum. Best stick to something more commensurate with your IQ like Batman Comics or such like.
(2): Just because Kant is dead, it doesn't mean that his ethical theory is of no value in helping us think more rationally about human morality in 2019. (Quite the opposite, in fact). It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.
Regards
Dachshund
nope, the law is the set of morals agreed on, the struggle (in this case) is what that law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law. where have you been, listing to TV and religious rhetoric and believing what they tell you?
Dear DP,
I thought I would respond to your misunderstanding in a little more detail because the question of law in the abortion debate is important.
To begin with, there are two Natural Law theories and they are about two different things: (A) A Natural Law Theory of Morality (i.e; what's right and wrong), and (2) A Natural Law Theory of Positive Law (i.e; what's legal and illegal). For the sake of convenience and in order to prevent the possibility of any subsequent confusion, I am going to call (A) "NATURAL LAW" and (B) POSITIVE LAW in what follows.
POSITIVE LAW
Positive law is man-made law. These are laws that can be written down on paper. A legal positivists believes that legitimate law is NOTHING MORE than commands from a sovereign to the people who MUST obey him/her backed by credible threats and sanctions. The LEGITIMACY of the law is viewed as completely independent of its MORAL content and must always be obeyed . It draws its validity from the power of the sovereign who is the only ruler that subjects are in the habit of obeying. Take Germany, for example, after Hitler was elected Chancellor in 1933. After winning office, he very soon established himself as the all-powerful "Fuhrer" whose word was very literally law. Hitler issued a range of laws that discriminated against Jews living in Germany in the mid - 1930 and these laws were perfectly legitimate in Germany and they are an example of positive law(s) Hitler personally implemented many other harsh laws in Germany besides those that targeted Jewish members of the country.
The point I wish to make is that Positive law is, in essence, not concerned with MORALITY. In fact, there is a "Separation Thesis" that goes something like this...
"Having a LEGAL right to do X doesn't entail having a MORAL right to do it, and vice versa; having a LEGAL justification to do something doesn't entail having a MORAL justification to do it, and vice versa; having a LEGAL obligation to do something doesn't entail having a MORAL obligation to do something, and vice versa."
For example Tony Blair and George "Dubbya" Bush were very careful to make sure that the United Nations agreed they had the Legal right and Legal justification to launch an offensive military strike against Iraq (in what became known as the "Gulf War"), however, many American and British citizens believe that the "Gulf" was - for a number of reasons - immoral and ought never have taken place.
NATURAL LAW
OK, Natural Law is difficult to summarise in a post on a philosophy forum, but I'll give it my best shot.
(1) Even things that are not man-made, things in the natural world (like rose bushes, fish, beetles, etc) have purposes or functions, and what is "good" for ANY thing is the realisation of its purpose or function. It is good for a rose bush to be healthy and in glorious full bloom, it is good for a fish like a shark to be a efficient and formidable predator in the ocean.
(2) For us human beings, the good is the living of a FLOURISHING life. FLOURISHING consists in striving toward the (self)- fulfillment of our distinctive individual nature. It means vitally, defiantly and exuberantly "stretching out", despite the risks and limitations placed before one, to try and realise an ever higher standard/s of achievement. Flourishing is not a static or tensionless state, it is a continual, voluntary, striving and struggling towards those goals or ends that one personally finds are worthwhile, purposeful (and therefore meaningful/valuable). Flourishing demands a robust, and often steely, determination to overcome the limitations and impediment that separate one from the achievement of their goals or ends; and when those goals or ends are grasped there will automatically appear higher goals/ends in accordance with your particular purpose/s in life and typically a new set of limitations and impediments between you and these goal/s that are even more challenging than the previous set. To overcome them will demand a more fierce determination, a more strenuous and uncompromising struggle/striving, more concentrated effort and more personal courage and risk. The more one strives to overcome the limitations and frustrations that exist between oneself and progressively higher and more worthwhile goals, the more one flourishes/grows as a person, and the more meaningful (value-laden) and purposeful one's life becomes. Nietzsche called flourishing, "The Will to Power", and claimed it was that vital principle which grounded the affirmation of life.Unfortunately Nazi intellectuals twisted and perverted the meaning of the of Nietzsche's term "The Will to Power" by equating it with destructive militaristic force and violence, and this is still how most people interpret Nietzsche's "Will to Power", which is a shame because it means I can't really use the concept to help better explain myself in this post.
So, the MORAL good for human beings lies in the living of a flourishing life, or, to put it in Nietzsche's terms, in the "affirmation of life" through "The Will to Power." Flourishing consists in the fulfilling of our particular, distinctive nature, i.e; what we "by nature" do best. If we don't know exactly what the things are we do best, we can get some idea what they might be by taking note of those things for which we have a cleat talent and, say, those things that inspire us - those things/activities we find that we "lose ourselves" in, or that fill us with a wonderful joy, etc. Flourishing also involves the development of and exercise of our capacity for rationality, abstract knowledge, deliberative choice, imagination, friendship, social cooperation based on a sense of justice, etc. The moral virtues (courage, temperance, justice) are character traits that help fulfill our true nature. That is if you are an alcoholic or chronic heroin user or a carnal hedonist like a glutton or a person who is addicted to sex with prostitutes, you are not living a good life.
(3) * Natural law is a set of TRUTHS about MORALITY (what is right/good and wrong/bad) and JUSTICE; they are rules that we MUST follow in order to lead a good or flourishing life. These rules are ETERNAL and IMMUTABLE; they were determined and ordained by God. If you don't believe in the Biblical God, then substitute "a transcendent, supernatural almighty, omniscient, immanent, entity who created the universe from scratch, including the planet Earth and its human beings whom the entity happens to be personally interested in).
* We can know the principles of Natural Law by means of unaided human reason.
* The Natural Law theory of morality rejects ethical subjectivism and affirms ethical objectivism (i.e; some moral opinions are more valid, reasonable or likely to be true than other).
* Immoral acts violate Natural Law. Hence immoral behaviour is "unnatural" (in the sense of "contrary to our function" NOT "nowhere to be found in nature"), whereas virtuous behaviour is "natural". For example,lying is unnatural because the function of speech is to communicate to others what is in our minds. When we use words to mislead others, we are using them contrary to their proper function.
Finally, let sum up by looking at your recent argument, namely:
"...the law ( I presume you mean Positive/man-made Law) is the set of morals agreed up, the struggle (in this case; i.e; abortion law in the US) is what the law should be, or shouldn't be, in accordance to the agreed method of establishing law."
The first point is that you have claimed Positive law is based on purely on moral principles. That's often not the case. As I mentioned above LEGAL rights/justifications/obligations to X,Y and Z, DO NOT ENTAIL MORAL rights/justifications/obligations to X,Y and Z." Plenty of laws have been enacted in the past that where wholly immoral and unjust.
As to how Positive/man-made Law is established, valid laws are simply rules that come from certain people (human being) ( Sovereigns, Kings and Queens, Presidents, City Council Committees, etc). that the society enforces.
As to the struggle in the case we are discussing, in 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of "Roe vs Wade that abortion be made legal across the United States.
Abortion is the medical (generally surgical) destruction of a human foetus, it is legal to destroy a healthy foetus at any time between conception and generally speaking, the 23 or 24 week of pregnancy, after this the foetus is deemed to be viable, that is capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb, and therefore cannot be aborted The problem is that there is no precise time at which all foetuses can be deemed viable. This has, to cut a long story short, led to abortions being performed on foetuses considerably older than than 24 weeks.
The current abortion law in the US effectively deems a non-viable foetus a non - person, that is, nothing more than a lump of cells and tissue, like a cancerous growth or a fibroma or a polpy; just a clump of organic matter that is not a living human being. And this is the argument put forward by many Pro-Choice activists. Expert mainstream bioscientists, however, totally disagree. They argue that even from the earliest stages of pregnancy, the embryo can be -accordingly to strict scientific criteria - clearly classified as a LIVING HUMAN BEING and NOT some undifferentiated conglomeration of cells and tissue.
They way I see it "the struggle in this case" in this case is one between the Roe vs Wade Abortion ruling and the relevant principle of Natural Law. Remember, Natural Law can (1) be discerned by unaided human reason and (2) consists in the correct MORAL principles (3) affirms ethical objectivism. The relevant principle of moral law in this debate is the following:
"IT IS NEVER PERMISSIBLE TO KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING."
Modern science argues, as I say, that the embryos and foetuses carried by pregnant women are living human beings. The leaders of the Pro-Choice movement who disagree , are not expert scientists, rather, they are a motley crew of leftist political activists, many of whom are fanatical feminists. Given feminism is a failed movement, and this is because most leaders of the feminist movement were/are utter morons, I am inclined to trust the conclusion of the scientists, as opposed to the likes of Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin (!!
).
The last point is that the relevant Natural Law in this case: "IT IS NEVER PERMISSIBLE TO KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING" was not enacted by the Justices presiding in Roe vs Wade in 1973, it was determined and ordained by a much higher authority -
GOD
And guess what "DP"? I' can assure you that GOD TRUMPS "
Roe vs Wade" -
BIG TIME!
Regards
Dachshund
