Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-10-2013, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2013 07:29 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 06:40 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
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.
It is really hard to talk to you because you have so much preconception. It impedes your ability to listen and understand.

My wanting to protect myself from a violent attacker is not based on whether the attacker is acting morally or not. I am not making any moral judgement. And I am not acting under any moral obligation.

I am merely defending myself because I want to live.

If you think that a desire to live is a moral statement then so be it. This is your belief but it is not mine. If you claim that doing any action to benefit the self is "ethical egoist" then so be it, that is your belief, not mine. You even claim that acting self destructive is moral and can be labelled as "ethical egoist". In your belief system, everything must then be moral, thus it must be impossible to act immorally. e.g. if a person rapes someone then you would deem that moral because the person is acting in their self interest.
If you label everything as moral then really "moral" has no meaning. If everything is "right" then there is no distinction between right and wrong.

I find it extremely strange that you insist I believe in "right" and "wrong" when I keep telling you that I have no such belief. But there are all sorts of people in this world and at least one of them thinks he knows my thoughts and beliefs better than I know them.

I don't know how this derail gets us to the point where you think it is desired (and justified) to use violence on a pregnant woman when her actions (abortion) has no impact on you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 07:42 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 06:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
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.
This is just rubbish Chippy. Your definition of morality is not one that people use.
Morality is purley the distinction of "right" and "wrong"
Most people would not deem eating ice cream as being morally right or wrong.
Most people would not deem the desire to live as being morally right or wrong.

I was not using morals in any of my explainations (at what point did I say that anything was right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral?
You have only brought to my attention your poor listening skills and your all mighty ego which makes you think you know my thoughts and beliefs better than I do.
Anyway it is futile trying to talk to you because you have no interest in listening, all you want to do is preach. I will waste my time no further with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 08:00 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 07:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is really hard to talk to you because you have so much preconception. It impedes your ability to listen and understand.

No, you have either confusion or self-delusion. I am familiar with all of the major positions in moral philosophy and you are offering nothing new.

Quote:If you think that a desire to live is a moral statement then so be it. This is your belief but it is not mine. If you claim that doing any action to benefit the self is "ethical egoist" then so be it, that is your belief, not mine. You even claim that acting self destructive is moral and can be labelled as "ethical egoist".

Self-destruction is consistent with ethical egoism. If the ethical egoist has decided that it is in their best self-interest to commit suicide they are just furthering their own selfish interest (however they may specifically define it, e.g. avoidance of pain, existential boredom, to spite a spuse, whatever) by acting on that decision.

Quote:In your belief system, everything must then be moral, thus it must be impossible to act immorally. e.g. if a person rapes someone then you would deem that moral because the person is acting in their self interest.

There are a multitude of systems of ethics and an action that is morally right in one of them can be morally wrong in others. For example, telling a "white lie" is morally good under utilitarianism but morally bad under Kant's ethical system. Homosexuality is morally wrong under Judaic divine command morality but morally neutral ("amoral" to use that word for one properly) in Contractarian Ethics and morally good in virtue based ethics.

I personally don't subscribe to ethical egoism so I believe that rape is morally bad.

Quote:If you label everything as moral then really "moral" has no meaning. If everything is "right" then there is no distinction between right and wrong.

Nowhere did I suggest that "everything is "right"" nor that everything is "moral".

Quote:I find it extremely strange that you insist I believe in "right" and "wrong" when I keep telling you that I have no such belief. But there are all sorts of people in this world and at least one of them think he knows my thoughts and better than I know them.

You are confused or engaged in some sort of double-think in a vain attempt to shield your self-serving and slipshod moral formulations from criticism.

Quote:I don't know how this derail gets us to the point where you think it is desired (and justified) to use violence on a pregnant woman when her actions (abortion) has no impact on you.

Because the late-term foetus is a person and the state has a moral obligation to protect persons under its domain, even if they are feeble. If the gestation is not late-term then the mother can have an abortion and then have an abortion party and eat an abortion cake. It is entirely irrelevant if late-term abortion doesn't have an impact on me. I don't subscribe to ethical egoism so I don't define the morally good as merely that which is good for me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 08:08 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 08:00 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I personally don't subscribe to ethical egoism so I believe that rape is morally bad.
I don't subscribe to ethical egoism either so I don't believe that rape is either morally good nor morally bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 08:10 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 08:00 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:If you label everything as moral then really "moral" has no meaning. If everything is "right" then there is no distinction between right and wrong.

Nowhere did I suggest that "everything is "right"" nor that everything is "moral".
If you claim that everything in ethical egoism is morally good then this cannot be a moral position since morality is the distinction between good and bad, right and wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 08:19 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 08:00 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Because the late-term foetus is a person and the state has a moral obligation to protect persons under its domain, even if they are feeble.
You make such a claim as if it is more than merely your opinion. As if it is a universal truth.
I agree that a late-term foetus is person (this is just my opinion though)
I also think that from the moment of conception we have a person (again just my opinion)
I don't believe that the government has any moral obligation to protect persons.
There is nothing morally wrong with aborting a person, thus no-one is under any moral obligation to protect it. There is no moral justification to use violence against a pregnant woman.
You are just expressing your opinion and showing that you want to force your opinion onto all pregnant mothers regardless if they share in your own beliefs. you have no self interest here. Your own life is not at stake thus you are interferring in something that is none of your business.
If the police didn't exist, would you interfere on your own? Would you drag this woman kicking and screaming out of an abortion clinic? Would you hit and incapacitate her husband and the doctor and the nurses? Would you lock this woman in your basement and keep her there until her baby is born?
Would you put your life at risk to protect her unborn?
How important is it for you to interfere in her life?

If you were attacking my pregnant wife, I would do whatever it takes to stop you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 07:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is just rubbish Chippy. Your definition of morality is not one that people use.

I didn't offer you a single conception of morality.

Quote:Morality is purley the distinction of "right" and "wrong"

Yes and different systems of morality define right and wrong differently:

Divine Command Theory: right and wrong is whatever a deity defines them to be so in scripture
Bethamite Utilitarianism: right is that which maximises utility for the maximum number of people; wrong is its opposite
Kantian Ethics: right is that which conforms to the categorical imperative and wrong is that which violates it
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics: right is that which promotes human flourishing and is consistent with the telos of society and wrong is that which reduces flourishing and is against the telos of society
Contractarian Ethics: right is that which promotes social stability and predictability and wrong is its opposite
Randian Objectivism: right is that which is consistent with rational self-interest and wrong is its opposite
Ethical Egoism: right is that which is in ones own interest wrong is its opposite
etc. etc.

You are merely defining morally right and wrong in terms of ethical egoism.

Quote:Most people would not deem eating ice cream as being morally right or wrong.

So what? According to several consequentialist strands of ethical theory eating an ice cream--if it gives pleasure--is considered morally right. Most people believe in shit like grey aliens and "The Secret" what is the significance of mere popularity?

Quote:Most people would not deem the desire to live as being morally right or wrong.

Again, who gives two shits what most people think. Most people in the USA are theistic does that count as evidence for the existence of Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah?

Quote:I was not using morals in any of my explainations (at what point did I say that anything was right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral?

You were "using morals" in all of your posts.

Quote:You have only brought to my attention your poor listening skills and your all mighty ego which makes you think you know my thoughts and beliefs better than I do.

I know moral philosophy better than you do and that is sufficient.

Quote:Anyway it is futile trying to talk to you because you have no interest in listening, all you want to do is preach. I will waste my time no further with you.

Yes, you must resist the possibility of learning at all costs. Don't let your morass of self-serving thinking be touched by critical scrutiny.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 08:44 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 08:21 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:Morality is purley the distinction of "right" and "wrong"

Yes and different systems of morality define right and wrong differently:

Divine Command Theory: right and wrong is whatever a deity defines them to be so in scripture
Bethamite Utilitarianism: right is that which maximises utility for the maximum number of people; wrong is its opposite
Kantian Ethics: right is that which conforms to the categorical imperative and wrong is that which violates it
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics: right is that which promotes human flourishing and is consistent with the telos of society and wrong is that which reduces flourishing and is against the telos of society
Contractarian Ethics: right is that which promotes social stability and predictability and wrong is its opposite
Randian Objectivism: right is that which is consistent with rational self-interest and wrong is its opposite
Ethical Egoism: right is that which is in ones own interest wrong is its opposite
etc. etc.

You are merely defining morally right and wrong in terms of ethical egoism.
So it seems you think continually shifting the definition suits your purpose within a discussion.
If you use the word moral or the word right in a discussion with me, how am I supposed to know what definition you are using?

I disagree with the definition of right that you have posted with regards to Ethical Egoism. I don't deem it to be morally right to do what is in one's self interest and I don't deem it to be morally wrong to do what is the opposite. Thus I do not fall under this label.
BTW can you please provide a clear and specific example under the Ethical Egoism system of something that is morally wrong?
(15-10-2013 08:21 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:Most people would not deem eating ice cream as being morally right or wrong.

So what?
The point is that we are trying to communicate here. If you are using word definitions that most people don't use, then you need to provide a definition, otherwise we are going to be miscommunicating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 08:57 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 08:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So it seems you think continually shifting the definition suits your purpose within a discussion.

I'm not shifting the definition. I didin't invent those systems of ethics and morality, they all preceded me. The point is that your moral formulations are naive.

Quote:If you use the word moral or the word right in a discussion with me, how am I supposed to know what definition you are using?

By asking me. But in mose cases it doesn't matter.

Quote:I disagree with the definition of right that you have posted with regards to Ethical Egoism. I don't deem it to be morally right to do what is in one's self interest and I don't deem it to be morally wrong to do what is the opposite. Thus I do not fall under this label.

The behvioural descriptions and preferences which you have provided contradict this.

Quote:BTW can you please provide a clear and specific example under the Ethical Egoism system of something that is morally wrong?

Altruistic behaviour. Selfless behaviour.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 09:10 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 01:18 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  We should be saying, you made a mistake, you live with the consequences.

Except that the women who carry these babies to term also carry the majority of the responsibility for the care of the child. It's not like you can wipe your dick off and disappear from the kid's world if you so choose, or even claim that the kid isn't yours, if you're the one who has to carry the pregnancy to term. Or if you are religious at all (or if your family is) have that judgemental crap shoved down your throat for getting pregnant out of wedlock, or pressuring you to keep the baby (because someone wants to play "grandma" or "grandpa"), all in the name of "living with the consequences".

It's easy enough to say that there are plenty of people who want children that would be willing to adopt the child, but maybe yours will be one who is considered ineligible for adoption. That happens. Then who gets the responsibility of raising the kid? Your tax dollars??

What if you don't want that child to EVER have access to you when they turn 18 and legally have the right to hunt you down?

I used to be pro-life. For myself, I still would be, were it not for the fact that I'm now a sports model and not a minivan. Wink I can't pretend to know how an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy will impact another woman, so I can't just sit there and pontificate and tell her to "suck it up" or "accept the consequences" or "just carry it to term and give it up for adoption".

Who the hell am I (or are you) to determine what another person can handle, should handle or should do or not with their life??

I'm 'just' a nurse who's seen plenty of young women being pressured to keep their babies by boyfriends who just want to control them even more or by wannabe grandmas who think they'll do a better job with this kid than the one they screwed up already. Or the desperate young women who are trying to trap a boyfriend into staying with her when he clearly hasn't finished sowing his wild oats. Or the terrified 13-year-old who refuses to tell her mother who the father is, because he's probably the creepy 40-something stepfather that's skulking around outside the room to make sure she doesn't tell what he's been doing to her. Or the Muslim girl who gets sent away from her friends and family to bring the baby to term and give it to someone else, so her family's "honour" can remain intact.

Frankly, 'living with the consequences' is inherent in whatever choice a woman makes, whether it's to carry to term, raise the child herself or with a partner, put it up for adoption or have an abortion. It's up to HER which consequence she is willing to live with.

. . . all the gods were stories we told the children to make them behave. ~ Thoros of Myr (Game of Thrones, Episode 3:06)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: