Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2016, 07:22 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 02:47 PM)mhausam Wrote:  If there is a law outlawing abortion, that law will be compatible with the assumption of the truth of the Catholic worldview, but it will not be compatible with the assumption of any worldview in which there is no basis to oppose abortion. Likewise, if the law allows abortion, whatever assumptions that law is based on are assumptions contrary to the assumptions of the Catholic worldview, because they lead to conclusions contrary to the conclusions a Catholic worldview would lead to. (To be more specific, in a Catholic worldview, the objective moral law of God opposes legalizing abortion, and so abortion should be illegal. If we legalize abortion, then, we can only be doing so on grounds contrary to the Catholic worldview--probably what I call "Agnostic" grounds, namely the assumption that the claims of the Catholic faith are not factual or are not known to be factual and so should not be treated as factual.)

False dichotomy.

The opposite of the Catholic stance on abortion would be one where abortion is required. The secular stance that the law adopts allows Catholics to live by their choice not to have an abortion, the Church of the Disemboweled Fetus to require it of their members and those of us who may or may not wish to have an abortion to do as we see fit. None is allowed to wield the law to coerce the others.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Paleophyte's post
10-10-2016, 09:02 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
"I think what's putting people off here is your false dichotomy between a "Catholic worldview" and a "non-Catholic worldview", as if those are basic categories."

I've not said and I'm not saying that Catholicism and Agnosticism are the only two worldviews. I'm just using Catholicism and abortion as specific examples. I could use others just as well, such as Islam and euthanasia, or any number of others.

"They could just be coincidentally in agreement by happenstance."

If it is evident that, for example, Catholicism implies that abortion should be illegal, then a law making abortion legal is incompatible with the Catholic worldview. It may be that this is based on a mistake (not knowing that Catholicism implies abortion should be illegal), or stupidity (assuming Catholicism but intentionally defying what is known to be right and prudent, according to God's moral law which defines such things in Catholicism), or it could be that this is based on assuming some other viewpoint besides Catholicism, one in which there is no good reason to make abortion illegal. In the case of the mistake, there is still a different viewpoint at the root of the difference--in this case a viewpoint in which Catholicism is true but does not mandate that abortion should be illegal, vs. a viewpoint in which Catholicism is true and does mandate that abortion should be illegal. In the case of stupidity, people are not usually intentionally stupid in such a way, so probably what would be behind that would be likewise a differing belief, a lack of belief that Catholicism is true or that Catholicism implies that abortion should be illegal, etc. Any way you slice it, a law legalizing abortion will be based on assumptions contradicting those involved in the Catholic worldview.

In the case of secular arguments for abortion being legal, the worldview behind them is pretty clearly what I would call Agnosticism--a position which treats the claims of the Catholic Church (and other "religious" worldviews) as lacking in objective verification and so treated as non-factual. If Catholicism is really true, and it really does teach that the objective moral law of God commands that abortion be legal, along with all that that implies in the Catholic worldview, then it is obvious that we should make abortion illegal. However, if the truth of Catholicism is something we should hold to be doubtful, unverified, then it would be foolish to base laws on its teachings unless the law can be supported in other secular ways as well--and this Agnostic approach is the approach the secular argument takes. Thus it is not neutral, for it assumes that the truth of Catholicism is doubtful and unverified and should be treated as such when the Catholic view is that it is verified and should be treated as such. (Note that I am not here trying to argue which of these views is correct, but only to point out that the secular, Agnostic view differs from the Catholic view and that that difference has an effect in what is advocated in civil law with regard to abortion, making whatever law we adopt non-neutral in this dispute.)

Regarding whether the Catholic worldview really opposes legalizing abortion, it doesn't really matter, since I'm just using that as an example. My basic point holds either way. However, I don't think there is really any doubt that the orthodox Catholic worldview opposes abortion and mandates that it should be illegal. See this article for some evidence and references - http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/mor...ing-aborti It is true that many Catholics hold views inconsistent with the official view of the Catholic Church, but that is another matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 09:40 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 09:51 PM by Chas.)
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 09:02 PM)mhausam Wrote:  "I think what's putting people off here is your false dichotomy between a "Catholic worldview" and a "non-Catholic worldview", as if those are basic categories."

I've not said and I'm not saying that Catholicism and Agnosticism are the only two worldviews. I'm just using Catholicism and abortion as specific examples. I could use others just as well, such as Islam and euthanasia, or any number of others.

"They could just be coincidentally in agreement by happenstance."

If it is evident that, for example, Catholicism implies that abortion should be illegal, then a law making abortion legal is incompatible with the Catholic worldview. It may be that this is based on a mistake (not knowing that Catholicism implies abortion should be illegal), or stupidity (assuming Catholicism but intentionally defying what is known to be right and prudent, according to God's moral law which defines such things in Catholicism), or it could be that this is based on assuming some other viewpoint besides Catholicism, one in which there is no good reason to make abortion illegal. In the case of the mistake, there is still a different viewpoint at the root of the difference--in this case a viewpoint in which Catholicism is true but does not mandate that abortion should be illegal, vs. a viewpoint in which Catholicism is true and does mandate that abortion should be illegal. In the case of stupidity, people are not usually intentionally stupid in such a way, so probably what would be behind that would be likewise a differing belief, a lack of belief that Catholicism is true or that Catholicism implies that abortion should be illegal, etc. Any way you slice it, a law legalizing abortion will be based on assumptions contradicting those involved in the Catholic worldview.

In the case of secular arguments for abortion being legal, the worldview behind them is pretty clearly what I would call Agnosticism--a position which treats the claims of the Catholic Church (and other "religious" worldviews) as lacking in objective verification and so treated as non-factual. If Catholicism is really true, and it really does teach that the objective moral law of God commands that abortion be legal, along with all that that implies in the Catholic worldview, then it is obvious that we should make abortion illegal. However, if the truth of Catholicism is something we should hold to be doubtful, unverified, then it would be foolish to base laws on its teachings unless the law can be supported in other secular ways as well--and this Agnostic approach is the approach the secular argument takes. Thus it is not neutral, for it assumes that the truth of Catholicism is doubtful and unverified and should be treated as such when the Catholic view is that it is verified and should be treated as such. (Note that I am not here trying to argue which of these views is correct, but only to point out that the secular, Agnostic view differs from the Catholic view and that that difference has an effect in what is advocated in civil law with regard to abortion, making whatever law we adopt non-neutral in this dispute.)

Regarding whether the Catholic worldview really opposes legalizing abortion, it doesn't really matter, since I'm just using that as an example. My basic point holds either way. However, I don't think there is really any doubt that the orthodox Catholic worldview opposes abortion and mandates that it should be illegal. See this article for some evidence and references - http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/mor...ing-aborti It is true that many Catholics hold views inconsistent with the official view of the Catholic Church, but that is another matter.

In Roe v Wade, the only Roman Catholic justice (Brennan) and 2 of the 3 Episcopalians (Marshall and Stewart) voted in the majority to affirm a woman's right to an abortion.

They understood the secular nature of the Constitution and the laws of the U.S.

Finding for Roe:
Burger Presbyterian
Powell Presbyterian
Blackmun Methodist
Brennan Roman Catholic
Douglas Presbyterian
Marshall Episcopalian
Stewart Episcopalian

Dissent:
White Episcopalian
Rehnquist Lutheran

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-10-2016, 09:51 PM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 09:02 PM)mhausam Wrote:  Thus it is not neutral, for it assumes that the truth of Catholicism is doubtful and unverified and should be treated as such...

This is not an assumption, it is a verifiable fact. We need only ask any other religion. They will tell us that they have The Truth and it is not your truth. Thus it is doubtful and unverified and should be treated as such. So should their "truth" and everybody else's.

This is what a neutral legal system is supposed to do. It allows you to observe your beliefs, them to observe theirs, and me to observe mine.

Your argument is entirely back to front. Neutrality of the legal system is necessary because it is the only way to coexist without somebody else' values being foisted upon you.

A secular legal system takes the stance that all beliefs that are not demonstrably harmful are permitted while none are given preference.

Secular individuals arrive at a similar stance, give or take, because we simply don't care about religion.

Shorn of the arbitrary rules of religion, both the state and the individual arrive at a secular position independantly.

Your argument has the whiney "Life isn't fair!" tone that we've come to expect from juveniles who really mean that "Life isn't giving me what I want!" and is the sort of loose thinking that has been used to support the legal imbecilities that are bathroom laws, praying the gay away and equal time for creationism.

If that's what you'd prefer then George Santayana will cheerfully introduce you to Oliver Cromwell, Tomas de Torquemada and King Henry VIII. If time travel isn't your style then he can cheerfully set you up with some very nice chaps in the Middle East who will instruct you in the proper direction to pray.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Paleophyte's post
10-10-2016, 11:11 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 11:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 09:02 PM)mhausam Wrote:  If it is evident that, for example, Catholicism implies that abortion should be illegal, then a law making abortion legal is incompatible with the Catholic worldview.

Nope. Fail again. Laws that PERMIT women to chose abortion are incompatible with nothing. Catholics do not have to have one. Having abortions are incompatible (sometimes) with some Catholic teaching on the matter, perhaps. The law permitting abortions forces no one to do anything. Catholics don't have to have abortions. The law is neutral, actually. Even HAVING an abortion is not necessarily contrary to Catholic morality. There are three requirements for mortal sin. A woman who honestly thinks it is the moral thing to end a pregnancy is not guilty of sin, according to Moral Theology, (which clearly you know nothing about). Apparently you never even read your Catechism.

Quote:Any way you slice it, a law legalizing abortion will be based on assumptions contradicting those involved in the Catholic worldview.

Complete bullshit. See above.

Quote:In the case of secular arguments for abortion being legal, the worldview behind them is pretty clearly what I would call Agnosticism--a position which treats the claims of the Catholic Church (and other "religious" worldviews) as lacking in objective verification and so treated as non-factual. If Catholicism is really true, and it really does teach that the objective moral law of God commands that abortion be legal, along with all that that implies in the Catholic worldview, then it is obvious that we should make abortion illegal.

Total 100 % crap. No one cares what you call it. There is no objective verification of the Catholic worldview. There is no objective moral law. Not all religions (even Christian religions), nor even all Catholics oppose or say abortion is immoral. You are simply ignorant and WRONG, both about your own tradition and others. Your assumptions are bullshit. Catholicism is not "true", and this is not a Catholic theocracy, (which apparently you think it is). Your "ifs" are mighty big "ifs", and you have no reason to assume anyone else shares your delusions. You also have IN NO WAY demonstrated or even BEGUN to support that anything about Catholicism is true. Thus your conclusion is complete bullshit, and you have not even begun to get from your assumptions to your conclusion. Don't they make you people take Logic ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-10-2016, 01:46 AM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
Papal rule assumes that Catholicism is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Sharia law assumes that Islam is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Mormon law assumes that Mormonism is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Dianetic rule assumes that Scientology is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Jewish law assumes that Judaism is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Vedic law assumes that Hinduism is correct and forces those values upon all others.

Secular law does not assume that any belief system is correct and all are allowed to practice their values so long as they are not demonstrably harmful.

I'll assume that you can see the difference and the advantages.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
11-10-2016, 02:01 AM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(11-10-2016 01:46 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Papal rule assumes that Catholicism is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Sharia law assumes that Islam is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Mormon law assumes that Mormonism is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Dianetic rule assumes that Scientology is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Jewish law assumes that Judaism is correct and forces those values upon all others.
Vedic law assumes that Hinduism is correct and forces those values upon all others.

Secular law does not assume that any belief system is correct and all are allowed to practice their values so long as they are not demonstrably harmful.

I'll assume that you can see the difference and the advantages.

"Secular law assumes that scienctific doctrine is correct and forces those values on others". Rolleyes I mean Lord forbid that people should have the right to choose their own course of action, even if they're not Catholic.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
11-10-2016, 04:52 AM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(08-10-2016 07:04 AM)ErinRH2342 Wrote:  I've been debating with my father about how a secular government should be run. He says there can be no such thing as "religious freedom", because of things like abortion. He, as a Catholic, believes that abortion is murder and should never be allowed under any circumstances. Therefore he believes that he has a moral duty to prevent them from happening, and a society that impedes his ability to do so is upholding a belief contrary to his worldview. A society always has to hold a set of values(whether they be religious or naturalistic). He's written a blog post on the subject that can be found here: http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com...ty-of.html
(Note: If any of you feel inclined to comment on that post, I would appreciate it if you neglected to mention that I sent you. I feel that information might somewhat upset the current household balance I've worked to maintain during my coming out period. Thanks!)

It's an interesting topic. My current answer to him would be that I see morality as personal and subjective, so all I can do is attempt to create a society that corresponds with that sense as it applies to my own life. Our sense of right and wrong grows and changes as humans, and that's reflected in society's choices.

Thoughts?

I do not agree with the morality of your father (I and my girlfriend one day decided to have an abortion if it necessary, in any case, right now, till we both are students). But I totally agree with your father on the issue of religious freedom. Morality has always been something need be forcibly given society by clever and strong people. And only due to this society developed.
Read Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents", read Kant's "To Perpetual Peace," read "Science of Logic" by Hegel. Recall Socrates, who took poison for the approval of his ideas about the state, recall burned Giordano Bruno. Freedom of religion, tolerance, acceptance of the other for what he is, all of this is nonsense for the weak people. Love Nietzsche and keep calmLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(10-10-2016 11:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The law permitting abortions forces no one to do anything.

This isn't quite true. The fetus has no choice in the matter -- it is forced to die whenever someone chooses to have an abortion (and inevitably, some will so choose). Catholics (and other pro-lifers) oppose abortion not because it offends their delicate sensibilities, but because they believe that a fetus is a human being with all the same rights as any other human being -- and everyone (not just Catholics) agrees that human beings have the basic right not to be deprived of their lives.

So whether or not the law permitting abortions forces anyone to do anything is entirely dependent on whether or not a fetus is a human being -- and Catholics believe that it is. So for them, your statement is a false statement. For a Catholic (at least one who follows the official teaching of the Catholic church), abortion = murder (and a particularly heinous type of murder, in that the victim is completely defenseless).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 08:02 AM
RE: Interesting argument on the impossibility of true neutrality
(11-10-2016 04:52 AM)Dalroen Wrote:  
(08-10-2016 07:04 AM)ErinRH2342 Wrote:  I've been debating with my father about how a secular government should be run. He says there can be no such thing as "religious freedom", because of things like abortion. He, as a Catholic, believes that abortion is murder and should never be allowed under any circumstances. Therefore he believes that he has a moral duty to prevent them from happening, and a society that impedes his ability to do so is upholding a belief contrary to his worldview. A society always has to hold a set of values(whether they be religious or naturalistic). He's written a blog post on the subject that can be found here: http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com...ty-of.html
(Note: If any of you feel inclined to comment on that post, I would appreciate it if you neglected to mention that I sent you. I feel that information might somewhat upset the current household balance I've worked to maintain during my coming out period. Thanks!)

It's an interesting topic. My current answer to him would be that I see morality as personal and subjective, so all I can do is attempt to create a society that corresponds with that sense as it applies to my own life. Our sense of right and wrong grows and changes as humans, and that's reflected in society's choices.

Thoughts?

I do not agree with the morality of your father (I and my girlfriend one day decided to have an abortion if it necessary, in any case, right now, till we both are students). But I totally agree with your father on the issue of religious freedom. Morality has always been something need be forcibly given society by clever and strong people. And only due to this society developed.
Read Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents", read Kant's "To Perpetual Peace," read "Science of Logic" by Hegel. Recall Socrates, who took poison for the approval of his ideas about the state, recall burned Giordano Bruno. Freedom of religion, tolerance, acceptance of the other for what he is, all of this is nonsense for the weak people. Love Nietzsche and keep calmLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

How about instead just read some Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology. Laws and customs promote SURVIVAL. All the rest is BS.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: