Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2013, 03:25 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-12-2013 12:00 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ...but most would argue that it is immoral for force (#3 and #5) a woman to have (or not have) an abortion.

Agree?
I don't know what most people would think.
From my own perspective I don't think in terms or right or wrong. I don't see the point. I don't agree with the concept of moral obligation, and I don't agree with the concept of forcing other people to behave morally.

To me the question is whether use of force is dangerous to me or to society (and hence me). With the real consequence of dangerous activities being that I personally am harmed or at risk.

I only support use of force when not using force is more dangerous (to me) than using force. I don't deem it dangerous (to me) to not use force on pregnant woman. I do however see dangers (to me) with using force on pregnant women.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 08:08 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-12-2013 12:48 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  The woman in the video was a poor debater in my opinion, perhaps the Chipster should have debated Matt and obliterated his arguments with awesomeness and flaire.

I agree that the woman was a poor debater but her position was difficult to defend. Her contention that personhood commences at conception does not appear to me defensible on secular-humanistic grounds. On the other hand Matt's contention that personhood is irrelevant and the biological dependence of the foetus on the mother renders it ipso facto without any interests or rights is just bizarre.

If the pregancy was due to rape, accident or it is found to be diseased or unwanted for some other reason it should be aborted as soon as possible, before it develops a (sufficiently) functioning nervous system. In that case I don't think there is any problem with abortion. But beyond some threshold the gestation can't be treated like a random (unwanted) event and the foetus as just so much foreign tissue. The nuerological maturation of the foetus as a consequence of a decision to delay the abortion to late-term introduce two new factors that were not present before: (i) a sentient foetus and (ii) a volitional act on the part of the mother. Biological dependency no more than social dependency doesn't somehow magically produce an unqualified right to terminate the life of the dependent. Beyond birth human offspring have a long dependency period and they continue to use the parent(s) material resources which are ultimately the product of the parent(s) body('s). Parents have the right to abnegate their parental responsibilities and hand over a child to the state but they don't have a right to kill that child. A neo-natal child continues to use its parent's bodies, either directly or indirectly. How does the relationship of dependence produce an unconditional right to kill the dependent at will?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
07-12-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-12-2013 10:57 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 09:55 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Um you forgot the part about "well-being" being a vague mental construct.

"Many readers might wonder how can we base our values on something as difficult to define as "well-being"? It seems to me, however, that the concept of well-being is like the concept of physical health: it resists precise definitiin, and yet it is indispensable.[18] In fact, the meanings of both terms seem likely to remain perpetually open to revision as we make progress in science. Today, a person can consider himself physically healthy if he is free of detectable disease, able to exercise, and destined to live into his eighties without suffering obvious decrepitude. But this standard masy change...Such a radical transformation of our view of human health would not suggest that current notions of health and sickness are arbitrary, merely subjective, or culturally constructed." (The Moral Landscape; p.12).

Well-being is essentially what the new field of positive psychology is concerned with understanding and defining. Historically this has been a neglected area of study so Harris' is justified in not being able to provide an exact specification of human well-being. It is sufficient for his argument that we are at this stage able to clearly identify human misery--and that we can do.


Thank you for illustrating just how vague his construct of "well-being" really is.

Quote:
Quote:Not particularly. He was dumb enough to allow himself to be rooked into "debating" Craig on a topic that assumed the existence of the gawd-character Craig was out to "prove".

You are a fucking idiot.

YOU are a fucking idiot.

Quote: So Harris is "dumb" because he debated someone he disagrees with?

And this ^^^ is WHY YOU are a fucking idiot. You seriously need to go to a remedial reading comprehension class, moron.



Quote:Really? Blah blah blah, strawman strawman strawman

[Image: straw_man.jpg]





It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-12-2013 12:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  From my perspective the fate of the unborn and the fate of the mother are not my concern, not my business. I am a third party to this and I have no vested interest to interfere.

And? That is the case with almost all of the activity of the criminal justice system in any country. I'm guessing that none of the murders that occurred in 2013 wherever you live were your "business". So what? What is the significance of your personal concern. Should those murders that occurred in 2013 not be investigated and prosecuted because they are not your "business"?

Quote:Nothing compels me to use physical force on this pregnant woman in order to prevent her having an abortion. Even if I did have some empathy for the plight of her unborn, I am not compelled to risk a violent conflict in terms of attempting to stop her.

And I'm guessing that nothing compels you to investigate the unsolved murders in your country. So what? What is the significance of your narror personal interests to the broader issue of governance?

Quote:The subjective bit is the acceptance of Harris' yardstick.

Yes and that is not fatal flaw as has already been explained.

Quote:I don't agree that suffering of others gives me the incentive to interfere.

I know and what is the significance of that?

Quote:I'd be willing to bet that if late term abortions were legal then most people would still walk peacefully past an abortion clinic. Most people would not physically attack a pregnant woman.

What is with your obsession with attacking pregnant women? Do you think that if a pregnant woman was shoplifting she would be allowed to continue? Pregnant women commit crimes and are apprehended by the police and prosecuted.[1] Also, if a woman aborted her late term foetus she would no longer be pregant so your fascination with "attacking" pregnant women is strange in this regard also.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 08:36 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-12-2013 08:27 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Thank you for illustrating just how vague his construct of "well-being" really is.

And? Health too is a vague idea, so what?

The idea of the strawman fallacy implicitly assumes there is some real argument that is being ignored. What then is your argument that I am ignoring? You've yet to post anything that even resembles an argument.

Quote:And this ^^^ is WHY YOU are a fucking idiot. You seriously need to go to a remedial reading comprehension class, moron.

You need an education.

Quote:Really? Blah blah blah, strawman strawman strawman

Post your argument, i.e. something with premises and a conclusion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chippy's post
07-12-2013, 09:25 PM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 09:51 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Objective Morality
(07-12-2013 08:36 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 08:27 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Thank you for illustrating just how vague his construct of "well-being" really is.

And? Health too is a vague idea, so what?

[Image: cropped-red-herring-banner3.jpg]

Irrelevant.

Quote:The idea of the strawman fallacy implicitly assumes there is some real argument that is being ignored.

Oh, look, the fucking moron DOES know what a strawman is. And yet this is the SECOND time it has tossed off a strawman.


Quote: What then is your argument that I am ignoring? You've yet to post anything that even resembles an argument.

OR an assertion. And you wouldn't know an argument if it fucked you up the ass. All your punk ass fucking knows is how to set up a strawman and rant at it.


Quote:
Quote:And this ^^^ is WHY YOU are a fucking idiot. You seriously need to go to a remedial reading comprehension class, moron.

You need an education.

You need a fucking brain.

[Image: strawman.jpg]
Quote:
Quote:Really? Blah blah blah, strawman strawman strawman

Post your argument, i.e. something with premises and a conclusion.

I already pointed out that Harris was dumb enough to allow himself to be rooked into "debating" Craig on a topic that assumed the existence of the gawd-character Craig was out to "prove", you dumb fuck. Specifically, the very TITLE of the debate was "Does good come from Gawd?" -- which assumes the existence of this "Gawd"-entity, and Harris also let Craig get away with refusing UP FRONT to show any evidence that such a thing existed AT ALL. That's dumber than dogshit. Like you.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 10:05 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-12-2013 09:25 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I already pointed out that Harris was dumb enough to allow himself to be rooked into "debating" Craig on a topic that assumed the existence of the gawd-character Craig was out to "prove", you dumb fuck.

That isn't an argument. It is an assertion and it is nonsensical. So your insight is that Christians believe in God and Harris' "dumb" act was to enter a debate not knowing that WLC being a Christian would believe in God?

Why didn't you send Harris an email to explain to him that Christians believe in God? You should share your knowledge.

Quote:Specifically, the very TITLE of the debate was "Does good come from Gawd?" -- which assumes the existence of this "Gawd"-entity, and Harris also let Craig get away with refusing UP FRONT to show any evidence that such a thing existed AT ALL. That's dumber than dogshit. Like you.

It is entirely irrelevant to whether a naturalistic system of morality is sound whether there is or isn't a God. It is logically possible that a God exists and that some naturalistic system of morality--as Harris is proposing--is valid. Harris can be entirely correct about morality and there may be a God--the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

Harris' position is not only philosophically sound it is also tactically sound. If Harris can demonstrate that a system of morality can be constructed independently of the existence of a God he would have removed a major apologetic argument.

But that matter aside where is your argument against Harris thesis? You are yet to present one. Where is your actual argument that I am ignoring in favour of a "staw-man"?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
07-12-2013, 10:19 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-12-2013 10:05 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 09:25 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I already pointed out that Harris was dumb enough to allow himself to be rooked into "debating" Craig on a topic that assumed the existence of the gawd-character Craig was out to "prove", you dumb fuck.

That isn't an argument. It is an assertion and it is nonsensical.

I didn't say that was an argument, asswipe. You see that I said "ASSERTION", moron? I was saying that the original comment was an assertion. And just because you are too fucking stupid to understand it doesn't make it "nonsensical". Gawd, but you are an idiot.



Quote: So your insight is that Christians believe in God and Harris' "dumb" act was to enter a debate not knowing that WLC being a Christian would believe in God?

Oh, look, the moron throws out another moronic strawman. No, dumbass.



Quote:Why didn't you send Harris an email to explain to him that Christians believe in God? You should share your knowledge.

Because that would be something YOU would do, along with a shitload of irrelevant invective that just makes you look like Rosanne Rosannadanna, only a lot more stupid.

Quote:
Quote:Specifically, the very TITLE of the debate was "Does good come from Gawd?" -- which assumes the existence of this "Gawd"-entity, and Harris also let Craig get away with refusing UP FRONT to show any evidence that such a thing existed AT ALL. That's dumber than dogshit. Like you.

It is entirely irrelevant blah blah blah....


You --Dumbass. Reading Comprehensiton Class. Now.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 10:21 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(06-12-2013 08:26 AM)DLJ Wrote:  [Image: h3A10BE15]

There is an "Ignore" button just for prissy bitches like you who can't handle adult language. Use it.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 10:34 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(07-12-2013 10:19 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I didn't say that was an argument, asswipe.

So where is your argument refuting Harris' thesis?

Quote:Oh, look, the moron throws out another moronic strawman. No, dumbass.

You are implicitly claiming that Harris was somehow not cognizant of the fact that WLC believes in God.

You are too thick to comprehend that:
--the issue of whether Harris' thesis is sound is unaffected by the (non-)existence of God; and
--that if Harris succeeds in demonstrating that a naturalistic morality is possible he will have succeeded in knocking out one of WLCs apologetic arguments; and
--in a debate you are supposed to defend a thesis as well as critique the antithesis.

But you would have done it differently because you are a philosophical genius that writes "gawd" and posts "funny" pictures.

What does an ignoramus like you do for a living?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: