Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:11 pm**

Pete wrote: Here's a moral principle: a person should have complete control over what happens to her own body, including her own fertility. And this is because a person owns herself. So forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.

Absolutely right.

Here's the obvious problem: the child also belongs to himself just as completely as the woman belongs to herself.

She shouldn't be forced to be a life support for another human; that other human shouldn't be murdered simply because his life temporarily inconveniences another.

Keep in mind: the child didn't lobby to take up residence in her womb; his bein' there is by way of her actions (and, yeah, rape negates her responsibility, but rape doesn't negate his ownness or that he in the womb through no fault of his own).

Square that circle.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:18 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:11 pm Pete wrote: Here's a moral principle: a person should have complete control over what happens to her own body, including her own fertility.

Indeed. And she does. She does not have to have sexual relations with any man she does not wish to.

But once she has done so, she has freely made her own decision to create a human being. The question of her own body-control has been settled. She's made a personal decision with consequences; and she now cannot complain legitimately that her freedom has not been respected just because she has created those consequences.

Murdering her child will not "square that circle," just as you say. She has been free, she has chosen, and she has been irresponsible. Compounding that failure to exercise responsibility with murder is hardly an improvement on the situation.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:19 pm**

There are no moral facts

Yeah, there is...

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:24 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:18 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:11 pm Pete wrote: Here's a moral principle: a person should have complete control over what happens to her own body, including her own fertility.
Indeed. And she does. She does not have to have sexual relations with any man she does not wish to.

Yes, true.

I'm wonderin', though, how the moral non- and anti-realists get the square block to fit into the round hole, after the fact.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:40 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:18 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:11 pm Pete wrote: Here's a moral principle: a person should have complete control over what happens to her own body, including her own fertility.
Indeed. And she does. She does not have to have sexual relations with any man she does not wish to.

But once she has done so, she has freely made her own decision to create a human being. The question of her own body-control has been settled. She's made a personal decision with consequences; and she now cannot complain legitimately that her freedom has not been respected just because she has created those consequences.

Murdering her child will not "square that circle," just as you say. She has been free, she has chosen, and she has been irresponsible. Compounding that failure to exercise responsibility with murder is hardly an improvement on the situation.

Assumptions and spin to justify your moral opinion.

IC thinks abortion is morally wrong, because a zygote, embryo or foetus is a human being, and killing a human being is morally wrong.

PH thinks abortion is not morally wrong, because a person should have complete control over her own body, including her fertility - so that forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.

There's no fact of the matter - nothing in reality that can settle the matter.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:44 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:18 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:11 pm Pete wrote: Here's a moral principle: a person should have complete control over what happens to her own body, including her own fertility.
Indeed. And she does. She does not have to have sexual relations with any man she does not wish to.
Yes, true.

I'm wonderin', though, how the moral non- and anti-realists get the square block to fit into the round hole, after the fact.

Right, and fair enough.

I also note the high-pitched tone of Peter's statement: not just "control" but "complete" control. Not just over "fertility," but also "what happens to her own body" in total. And "should." When it comes to moralizing on the permissive side of this equation, Peter's all in.

But he also says morality can never be taken to be "objective" or "universal." So there's no "should" in it; he can't be saying that all we people OWE it to women to allow this "complete control." He can only be saying something like, "Some women want that," or "Peter wants some women to have it" -- which turns out to be an implication so trivial he will not be able to stand it.

The truth is that he clearly WANTS us to think this is a universal, objective moral imperative. But he also wants to say there are no universal, objective moral imperatives.

Now, there's a circle that can never be squared.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:52 pm**

PH thinks abortion is not morally wrong, because a person should have complete control over her own body, including her fertility - so that forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.

So: what she carries is not a person, yeah?

What constitutes a person?

What makes you a person?

Why isn't 12 week old Felix a person?

...and...

Why should a person should have complete control over her own body?

As a moral realist, I can say why I think this is true.

How does the moral non-realist justify such a declaration?

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:04 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:44 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:18 pm

Indeed. And she does. She does not have to have sexual relations with any man she does not wish to.
Yes, true.

I'm wonderin', though, how the moral non- and anti-realists get the square block to fit into the round hole, after the fact.
Right, and fair enough.

I also note the high-pitched tone of Peter's statement: not just "control" but "complete" control. Not just over "fertility," but also "what happens to her own body" in total. And "should." When it comes to moralizing on the permissive side of this equation, Peter's all in.

But he also says morality can never be taken to be "objective" or "universal." So there's no "should" in it; he can't be saying that all we people OWE it to women to allow this "complete control." He can only be saying something like, "Some women want that," or "Peter wants some women to have it" -- which turns out to be an implication so trivial he will not be able to stand it.

The truth is that he clearly WANTS us to think this is a universal, objective moral imperative. But he also wants to say there are no universal, objective moral imperatives.

Now, there's a circle that can never be squared.

More spin. We make moral judgements - hold to moral principles - universally, because it would be morally inconsistent not to. But moral principles aren't facts, so yoking universality and objectivity in this context is fallacious.

And there's no such thing as an objective imperative - no such thing as an imperative fact. You're high-pitching yourself into grammatical solecism. And high-pitching? Abortion is murder? If it's legal, it's not murder, by definition.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:18 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:04 pm We make moral judgements - hold to moral principles - universally, because it would be morally inconsistent not to.

That's not obvious.

One would think it would be more "morally consistent" to "call a spade a spade," to to speak. If moral judgments are not "universal," then we surely morally ought not to be asserting them as if they were.

And you continue,

But moral principles aren't facts,...

So how is it that you consider asserting them as if they were "morally consistent"?

After all, you treat a woman's alleged "right" to murder as many of her children as often as she likes as absolute, universal, and as if it were essentially some kind of fact we all ought to be recognizing. How does that work?

Then you get yourself into really deep water:

If it's legal, it's not murder, by definition.

Ah. So killing Jews in Germany was "moral"? It was certainly "legal." So was gassing the handicapped. Or killing "kulaks" in Russia. Or beating your wife, or forcibly "marrying" children in Saudi or Afghanistan. Or revenge rape in Pakistan. Or chattel slavery in the pre-war American South.

So long as there's a "law" it's "moral"?

Good luck making that argument.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:09 pm**

Different states will have different laws so there will be inconsistency
But if something is legal in one state at one time that only applies there and then
For there cannot be false equivalence between different states or different times

As far as abortion is concerned there is no universal so its messy :

Some women are pro abortion and would have one if required
Some women are anti abortion but would have one if required
Some women are anti abortion but would never have one

One cannot therefore legislate for morality because morality is very subjective
Free will means there cannot be absolute consensus on moral issues like abortion

Pro abortionists are absolutely convinced their view is the default position
Anti abortionists are absolutely convinced their view is the default position

But there is no rigorous methodology like the scientific method to determine which position is actually the default one

I have no opinion on abortion as it is too complex an issue to be treated as binary - either black or white - its more infinite shades of grey
Human beings are imperfect so any morality must reflect that else everyone falls below impossible standards that are simply unattainable

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:11 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:30 amCan a fact not be objectively true ? No because every one is objectively true based on all relevant evidence at the time

That's my point. According to the relevant evidence of the time, the geocentric model of the universe was, by your definition, a fact. So too the luminiferous aether, static universe, creationism - all sorts of things which are no longer favoured. As I said, it's your choice to call those things that are currently believed facts.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:30 amCan a fact be incapable of demonstration ? No because being able to demonstrate it is what ultimately makes a fact true

I would argue that demonstration shows that a theory is a good one, not that it is necessarily true.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:45 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:18 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:04 pm We make moral judgements - hold to moral principles - universally, because it would be morally inconsistent not to.
That's not obvious.

One would think it would be more "morally consistent" to "call a spade a spade," to to speak. If moral judgments are not "universal," then we surely morally ought not to be asserting them as if they were.

And you continue,

But moral principles aren't facts,...

So how is it that you consider asserting them as if they were "morally consistent"?

How many times? Pay attention. The word universally in this context means 'everywhere and for all time'. So if we think slavery is morally wrong, we think it was and will be morally wrong everywhere - and it would be inconsistent to think otherwise. And none of this has anything to do with fact or objectivity. That's just your (I think wilful) misunderstanding.

After all, you treat a woman's alleged "right" to murder as many of her children as often as she likes as absolute, universal, and as if it were essentially some kind of fact we all ought to be recognizing. How does that work?

More spin and misrepresentation. I think a person should have complete control over what happens to her body, including her fertiity. So I think this should have been and should always be the case everywhere. But this is a moral principle I hold to - not some kind of fact. Stop fucking about with what I'm saying to twist it with your projections.

Then you get yourself into really deep water:

If it's legal, it's not murder, by definition.
Ah. So killing Jews in Germany was "moral"? It was certainly "legal." So was gassing the handicapped. Or killing "kulaks" in Russia. Or beating your wife, or forcibly "marrying" children in Saudi or Afghanistan. Or revenge rape in Pakistan. Or chattel slavery in the pre-war American South.

So long as there's a "law" it's "moral"? Good luck making that argument.

You are a mendacious fuckwit. Read the words: if it's legal, it's not murder. There's no mention of morality there. Your lying claim is that abortion is murder. But murder is unlawful killing. So if abortion is not unlawful, then it's not murder, by definition.

The morality of killing people, legally or illegally, is a separate matter. Anyone who murdered (unlawfully killed) Hitler would have been morally justified in doing so, in my opinion.

A legal system may or may not be based on moral principles of which we approve. Legality and moral rightness and wrongness are separate issues. Your calling abortion 'murder' deliberately and misleadingly conflates them.

I'm not interested in fucking around again with such a devious, deceitful troll. It's a FWOT.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:07 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:45 pm The word universally in this context means 'everywhere and for all time'. So if we think slavery is morally wrong, we think it was and will be morally wrong everywhere - and it would be inconsistent to think otherwise.

"Then your use of "universally" and "inconsistent" both mean the same thing -- "everywhere and for all time." In other words, it's merely circular and redundant.

You clearly can't mean "rational consistency," because asserting any value as "right for others" is inherently inconsistent with the idea that morality is subjective only...and that means you can't campaign for somebody else's (women's) alleged right to kill their children, or against those who oppose the institution of such an alleged "right." In fact, you can offer no opinion about it to anyone else at all, in all rational consistency.

I think a person should have complete control over what happens to her body, including her fertiity.

Yes, you think that.

But why are others obligated to think what you think? After all, you then insist,

So I think this should have been and should always be the case everywhere.

And others think it should not. They are also consistent in that.

What's your point? You can't win that one.

Read the words: if it's legal, it's not murder. There's no mention of morality there.

Then, again, you're only speaking definitionally and trivially. You are saying, "Legal killing is defined by law as not murder." You're not saying "Legal killing is actually not murder."

The morality of killing people, legally or illegally, is a separate matter.

Apparently not. Apparently, it's no "matter" at all. You've already said there's no super-legal standard for judging such things. What's legal is legal, you're saying. So then, how can you say there is even a way to talk about "the morality" of whether one kills "legally or illegally"?

To what "higher court" are you appealing, when you judge a legal system as having gotten a legality right or wrong?

A legal system may or may not be based on moral principles of which we approve.

Who is "we"? Surely not the whole human race: they disagree on all kinds of things and do so in reaction to very different legal systems. You're not under Sharia, are you?

On the abortion matter, for example, you and I are on opposite sides. "We" don't agree on that. So who is this "we" who must "approve" in order to confirm the rightness of the legal system?

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:14 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:11 pm Pete wrote: Here's a moral principle: a person should have complete control over what happens to her own body, including her own fertility. And this is because a person owns herself. So forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.

Absolutely right.

Here's the obvious problem: the child also belongs to himself just as completely as the woman belongs to herself.

She shouldn't be forced to be a life support for another human; that other human shouldn't be murdered simply because his life temporarily inconveniences another.

Keep in mind: the child didn't lobby to take up residence in her womb; his bein' there is by way of her actions (and, yeah, rape negates her responsibility, but rape doesn't negate his ownness or that he in the womb through no fault of his own).

Square that circle.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:15 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:52 pm PH thinks abortion is not morally wrong, because a person should have complete control over her own body, including her fertility - so that forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.

So: what she carries is not a person, yeah?

What constitutes a person?

What makes you a person?

Why isn't 12 week old Felix a person?

...and...

Why should a person should have complete control over her own body?

As a moral realist, I can say why I think this is true.

How does the moral non-realist justify such a declaration?

Philosophy Now Forum

Is morality objective or subjective?

for anyone

Re: for anyone

Re: Pete

Re: for anyone

Re: for anyone

Re: for anyone

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Re: for anyone

Re: for anyone

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Re: More pointless jibber-jabber...

Re: for anyone

Re: for anyone

Re: for anyone

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?