Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2013, 08:40 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(14-10-2013 12:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I looked at this link, I am not an ethical egoist.
I disagree with the following
Quote:Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.
People can behave self destructively if they want. As long as it doesn't impact me, then it is not my business.
I don't believe in moral agents and I don't believe in moral obligations and I don't believe in morality. I am thus an amoralist.

Ethical egoism does not preclude self-destructive behaviour. A person's self-interest is whatever (s)he deems it to be.

You are advocating ethical egoism but only for yourself. What you are doing is commencing with a set of moral claims relating to your person, your property and the scope of the state's power. You are doing that. Read your own posts. You use moral language, you employ normative senses of ought and should. Then when you think you have secured your own solipsistic moral universe you proclaim that morality and ethics are just bullshit, that you are an "amoralist". Then when I present you with the coextensive rights that others would have in your moral universe as you have defined it you just repeat your mantra that you are an "amoralist".

The correct nomenclature is moral scepticism not "amoralism". You aren't a moral sceptic because you have moral claims and you employ moral langauge. You are appealing to ethical egoism for yourself and then drawing an imaginary border around yourself (and your property) and then claiming that beyond that border there is no such thing as morality and rights only opinions. That is self-contradictory.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(14-10-2013 08:40 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(14-10-2013 12:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I looked at this link, I am not an ethical egoist.
I disagree with the following
People can behave self destructively if they want. As long as it doesn't impact me, then it is not my business.
I don't believe in moral agents and I don't believe in moral obligations and I don't believe in morality. I am thus an amoralist.

Ethical egoism does not preclude self-destructive behaviour. A person's self-interest is whatever (s)he deems it to be.
Please explain how you are not conflating the idea morality with the idea of selfish survival inteterests?
(14-10-2013 08:40 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You are advocating ethical egoism but only for yourself.
Nope. I am advocating non belief in any morals what-so-ever. Nothing is every right, nothing is ever wrong.
This is amoralism.
(14-10-2013 08:40 PM)Chippy Wrote:  What you are doing is commencing with a set of moral claims relating to your person
Nope. Nothing relating to myself is ever right or wrong. It is not wrong for me to kill people nor is it wrong for people to kill me.
I want to survive however so naturally I want to prevent people from killing me. This is purely for selfish survival. This is not morality.
Morality is the distinction of right and wrong. I hold no such belief.
(14-10-2013 08:40 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Read your own posts. You use moral language, you employ normative senses of ought and should.
If I said what other people ought to do from a moral perspective then I was lazy with my use of language.
I know I said that government ought not make it illegal to perform abortion, this isn't a moral statement. It isn't right nor wrong for government to implement and enforce laws. However since I deem government to be my representative, I don't want government to impose their own moral beliefs on members of society. Because:
1 - I don't want to set a precedent that they can arbitrarily set laws and oppress, because I don't want to be oppressed myself.
2. - I don't want the oppressed people to start rioting as this makes society unsafe for me.
(14-10-2013 08:40 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Then when you think you have secured your own solipsistic moral universe you proclaim that morality and ethics are just bullshit, that you are an "amoralist". Then when I present you with the coextensive rights that others would have in your moral universe as you have defined it you just repeat your mantra that you are an "amoralist".
I have to repeat myself because you are struggling to understand. I can tell you are lacking the understanding because your posts betray your ignorance on this.
You are not an amoralist so I do deem it might be difficult for you to understand what it would be like to lack a moral belief.
(14-10-2013 08:40 PM)Chippy Wrote:  The correct nomenclature is moral scepticism not "amoralism". You aren't a moral sceptic because you have moral claims and you employ moral langauge.
I have no moral claims. I am not a moral skeptic, I am an amoralist because I lack a belief in morality.
Please don't misrepresent me, please don't insist on telling me what I am.
(14-10-2013 08:40 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You are appealing to ethical egoism for yourself and then drawing an imaginary border around yourself (and your property) and then claiming that beyond that border there is no such thing as morality and rights only opinions. That is self-contradictory.
It is only contradictory because you are insisting something that is not true. I am not appealing to ethical egoism. I have no moral beliefs.
My selfish desire to live does not qualify as morality. You cannot simply conflate the two ideas and insist I have morals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 02:21 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(14-10-2013 09:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Please explain how you are not conflating the idea morality with the idea of selfish survival inteterests?

Becuase the notion of survival is value laden as is the notion of selfishness.

Quote:Nope. I am advocating non belief in any morals what-so-ever. Nothing is every right, nothing is ever wrong.

Nothing is ever right and nothing is ever wrong if we bracket: "my survival is a right", "my death is wrong", "my property holdings are good", "the theft or vandalism of my property is wrong", "the breaking of a promise is wrong", "lying to me is wrong", "telling me the truth is wrong"....

Quote:This is amoralism.

It is confused hypocrisy.

Quote:Nope. Nothing relating to myself is ever right or wrong. It is not wrong for me to kill people nor is it wrong for people to kill me.

Then you have no reason to value your survival.

Quote:I want to survive however so naturally I want to prevent people from killing me.

You are expressing a valorisation of survival over death. Why?

Quote:This is purely for selfish survival.

Yes so you have valorised survival. You are implictly stating that killig you would be wrong. If you didn't believe that killing you would be wrong then you wouldn't ascribe value to your survival.

Quote:This is not morality.

Yes it is morality. You are presenting yourself as someone with moral interests merely by your valuation of life over death.

Quote:Morality is the distinction of right and wrong. I hold no such belief.

Yes you do.

Quote:If I said what other people ought to do from a moral perspective then I was lazy with my use of language.

No you were being honest and insightful with your language. To say that you are selfishly pursuing your own survival is to valorise survival; if your valorise something such as survival then you are implicitly making moral claims of others. If this were not the case then you would simply accept your circumstances without any resistance or protest. If someone wanted to kill you you would just respond "oh well" and let them kill you.

Quote:I know I said that government ought not make it illegal to perform abortion, this isn't a moral statement.

Yes it is, it can be nothing else.

Quote:It isn't right nor wrong for government to implement and enforce laws. However since I deem government to be my representative, I don't want government to impose their own moral beliefs on members of society. Because:
1 - I don't want to set a precedent that they can arbitrarily set laws and oppress, because I don't want to be oppressed myself.
2. - I don't want the oppressed people to start rioting as this makes society unsafe for me.

That is replete with moral values. I'll show you:

"...I deem government to be my representative"

You are distinguishing yourself as a person with moral interests that you have trusted to the government. Implicit in this is the idea that you value promise-keeping, covenants and contracts. You have valorised trust, responsible representation and your self-hood. You are implicitly stating that it would be morally bad if the government betrayed your interests and violated the moral interests you have entrusted them. There is no other way that can be made meaningful.

"I don't want government to impose their own moral beliefs on members of society"

Here you have valorised freedom from imposition and ceorcion. It is just another way of saying that "the government ought not to X".

"1 - I don't want to set a precedent that they can arbitrarily set laws and oppress, because I don't want to be oppressed myself.

This valorises personal freedom. You are saying that the government ought not to oppress you.

"2. - I don't want the oppressed people to start rioting as this makes society unsafe for me."

This valorises your physical person and its integrity and the physical integrity of your property. You are again distinguishing yourself as a person with moral interests that pertain to his physical person and private property. You are also implicitly appealing to the notion of private property which is itself laden with moral value.

Quote:I have to repeat myself because you are struggling to understand. I can tell you are lacking the understanding because your posts betray your ignorance on this.
You are not an amoralist so I do deem it might be difficult for you to understand what it would be like to lack a moral belief.

There is no such thing as "amoralism" as a philosophical doctrine except when it is sometimes incorrectly used as a synonym for moral nihilism and there is moral scpeticism. You are expressing neither. You are expressing ethical egoism.

Quote:I have no moral claims. I am not a moral skeptic, I am an amoralist because I lack a belief in morality.

You are overflowing with moral claims.

Quote:Please don't misrepresent me, please don't insist on telling me what I am.

You are a confused ethical egoist.

Quote:It is only contradictory because you are insisting something that is not true. I am not appealing to ethical egoism. I have no moral beliefs.

Yes you have plenty, see above. You have plenty of moral claims for yourself which you refuse to extend to others. Merely because you are self-seeking doesn't mean that you have no system of morality. You do have a system of morality--a self-contradictory and hypocritical system of morality--but a system of morality nontheless.

Quote:My selfish desire to live does not qualify as morality.

Yes it does despite your protestations to the contrary. A selfish desire to live can be comprehended only in moral terms. The selfish desire to live distinguishes you as a moral claimant.

Quote:You cannot simply conflate the two ideas and insist I have morals.

There aren't two ideas. You've described yourself as essentially someone with particular moral interests. If you lacked all moral interests you would not resist any attempt at coercion. If you are resisting coercion then you are implicitly making a moral claim for yourself that is consistent with some notion of moral value. If there are no moral values and you have no moral claims then you would not resist coercion. It is as simple as that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 02:21 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:Nope. Nothing relating to myself is ever right or wrong. It is not wrong for me to kill people nor is it wrong for people to kill me.

Then you have no reason to value your survival.
This is poor philosophy. I could liken it to me trying to tell a theist what a theist is, what a theist believes. It would be more enlightening for me to ask a theist what a theist is. To ask a theist what a theist believes, don't you think?

I can tell you are an intelligent person. So I'll give it one more go. I am sure you can come to understand my point of view. Once you understand my position then we can continue with my position on abortion, or even better maybe we can stop this seemingly never ending disagreement.

For the time being lets give up on trying to put labels on things. No more amoral or moral skepticism or ethical egoist.

I am a human. I have no belief in morality. Morality is the mere distinction that some things are right and some things are wrong and that people ought to do things that are right and ought not do things that are wrong. We are using the words "right" and "wrong" in a moral sense. This is not to be confused with the words "correct" and "incorrect" for example 1+1=2 is correct and 1+1=3 is incorrect but these math equations are neither "right" nor "wrong" in a moral sense.

If I pick blue as my favourite colour , more so than orange, this is not a moral choice, this is neutral. If I am hungry and I choose to eat something, this is not a moral choice. If I am running and choose to stop at the edge of a cliff rather than run over the edge and plummet to my death, this is not a moral choice.

If I want to live, this is a desire to survive rather than a desire to do the right thing.
If you attack me and I violently defend myself, I am supporting my own desire to live rather than trying to punish you for doing the wrong thing.

I do not have a belief in moral responsibility. I do not imagine that I am Super Stevil, the defender of the moral standard. It is not my job to seek out moral transgressors and to punish them. I do not imagine that I am god the definer of the moral standard. I do not imagine that I am specially privileged to be the only person in the universe that is privy to the definitive moral standard. I do not have an ego such that I assume my opinions equate to a moral standard that everyone else ought to live their lives by.
In fact I don't internally reason anything to be right or wrong, good or bad.

I don't go around murdering people. This is not because it is bad to murder people. I don't think murder is bad. The reasons why I don't murder people is for self preservation. If I am murdering someone then I am giving them a reason to use violence on myself. I am giving their friends and family and even society a reason to use violence on myself. Why would they use violence on me? Because they are punishing me for being bad? NO. They would use violence on me for self preservation. Because I am a threat to society and themselves. The vast majority of people see murder as a threat so mutually we form a society and create a rule that murder is not allowed and that murderers will get removed from society. This rule is not to support right and wrong but instead it is to support our desires for self preservation
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 12:34 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
And please stop confusing the term morality with value.
Morality is the distinction between right and wrong.
Value is the view that something is useful.

I value toilet paper. Does that make toilet paper morally right or morally wrong?
I value pain, does that make pain morally right?
I value oxygen, does that make oxygen morally right?
If I value sex and thus rape someone, does that make rape morally right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 05:28 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 12:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And please stop confusing the term morality with value.
Morality is the distinction between right and wrong.
Value is the view that something is useful.

I understand the distinction and you are clearly making moral claims and expressing moral values.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 06:15 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 05:28 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(15-10-2013 12:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And please stop confusing the term morality with value.
Morality is the distinction between right and wrong.
Value is the view that something is useful.

I understand the distinction and you are clearly making moral claims and expressing moral values.
No I am not making moral claims and I am not expressing moral values.

At what point am I stating that something is morally right or morally wrong?

I said that I want to live thus I value my own life. (If I want to eat an ice cream am I claiming that eating ice cream is morally right?)

I have also said that if someone tries to kill me, then I will defend myself because I want to live (if I stand in the shade to avoid my ice cream melting then am I making a statement that it is morally wrong for an ice cream to melt?). I have no interest in punishing them for doing something morally wrong, nor do I have any belief that they are doing anything morally wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 06:20 PM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2013 06:43 PM by Chippy.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 12:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is poor philosophy. I could liken it to me trying to tell a theist what a theist is, what a theist believes. It would be more enlightening for me to ask a theist what a theist is. To ask a theist what a theist believes, don't you think?

If someone calls himself a "communist" but implicit in his rantings is the notion that some of the means of production are to be held in private I am not going to defer to his confusion and revise my understanding of communism.

Quote:If I am running and choose to stop at the edge of a cliff rather than run over the edge and plummet to my death, this is not a moral choice.

That can be a moral choice. There is insufficient information to make a determination.

Quote:If I want to live, this is a desire to survive rather than a desire to do the right thing.
If you attack me and I violently defend myself, I am supporting my own desire to live rather than trying to punish you for doing the wrong thing.

You are violently resisting your death because you have decided that it is morally wrong for that person to kill you. If you believed otherwise then you would not resist your own death.

Quote:I do not have a belief in moral responsibility.

Yes you do. You implicitly claimed that the government to which you entrusted your life and property is morally responsible for what it has been entrusted to do. You also explicitly and then implicitly stated that the government ought not to coerce you. That is a moral/normative ought.

Quote:I do not imagine that I am Super Stevil, the defender of the moral standard. It is not my job to seek out moral transgressors and to punish them. I do not imagine that I am god the definer of the moral standard. I do not imagine that I am specially privileged to be the only person in the universe that is privy to the definitive moral standard. I do not have an ego such that I assume my opinions equate to a moral standard that everyone else ought to live their lives by.

None of that is a prerquisite to having a system of morality and ethics.

Quote:In fact I don't internally reason anything to be right or wrong, good or bad.

You do but you have managed to fool yourself that you don't. Prior to me bringing it to your attention your were leaking moral language all over your posts. You have since refrained from using moral language but you are still implicitly appealing to moral concepts.

Quote:I don't go around murdering people. This is not because it is bad to murder people. I don't think murder is bad. The reasons why I don't murder people is for self preservation. If I am murdering someone then I am giving them a reason to use violence on myself.

That is a (confused) system of morality. There are a formal of systems of morality that are based on rational self-interest, e.g. Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

You also seem to think that moral values are some mysterious transcendental objects. What does "morally good" mean in Benthamite utilitarianism? It means that which maximises the pleasure of the maximum number of people. Benthamite utilitarianism is considered to be a system of morality. What does "morally good" mean in Kantian ethics? It means that which is consistent with his categorical imperative.

There is nothing unqiue, original or special in what you are arguing.

Quote:I am giving their friends and family and even society a reason to use violence on myself. Why would they use violence on me? Because they are punishing me for being bad? NO. They would use violence on me for self preservation. Because I am a threat to society and themselves. The vast majority of people see murder as a threat so mutually we form a society and create a rule that murder is not allowed and that murderers will get removed from society. This rule is not to support right and wrong but instead it is to support our desires for self preservation

That contains a conception of morality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 06:40 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 06:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No I am not making moral claims and I am not expressing moral values.

Yes you are doing both. You are either very good at fooling yourself or have no education in ethics and moral philosophy.

Quote:At what point am I stating that something is morally right or morally wrong?

See my other post.

Quote:I said that I want to live thus I value my own life.

Yes and those two ideas are enmeshed in a web of moral conceptions.

Quote:(If I want to eat an ice cream am I claiming that eating ice cream is morally right?)

It is in some conceptions of moral value and normative ethical theory.

Quote:I have also said that if someone tries to kill me, then I will defend myself because I want to live

Yes and that is loaded with moral presuppositions.

Quote:(if I stand in the shade to avoid my ice cream melting then am I making a statement that it is morally wrong for an ice cream to melt?).

It is in some conceptions of moral value and normative ethical theory. Within a hedonic axiology and normative ethical theory it would be morally wrong to force you to stay in the sunlight and cause your ice-cream to melt if you have a subjective preference for solid ice-cream over melted ice-cream. If you are choosing to stand in the shade, then according to that same hedonic system of morality you would be said to be acting morally virtuously because you are promoting your own pleasure.

Quote:I have no interest in punishing them for doing something morally wrong, nor do I have any belief that they are doing anything morally wrong.

You wanting to punish someone for doing something morally wrong is irrelevant to whether they have actually done something morally wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Oops!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: