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, 09:41 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 08:57 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(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.
Yes you are continually shifting the definition. I can see in your posts that you use the words right and moral without qualifying in what context you are talking about. Under which moral framework you are refering to.
These definitions are fine (although they are merely made up imaginary). There is no objective definition of right or wrong. However they can only apply to a person if that person deems to which context they are using the word.
You deem that I use the word in the contect of Ethical Egoism. But it seems you are missing the fact that I am not calling anything right or wrong.
Because I am not calling anything wrong you are misconstruing my position to deem everything to be morally right. Which is not my position. With me, nothing is morally right. I do not consider self serving actions to be morally right. I consider all actions to be morally neutral because I consider morality to be an imaginary nonsensical concept.
(15-10-2013 08:57 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
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.
It does matter because how can I work out what the hell it is you are saying if you keep switching between a multitude of definitions. Are you saying that something violates your god's law, or something violates Kants principles, or violates your self interests?
What does it mean when you say that it is immoral to abort a late term pregnancy?
Would you really be motivated to put your own life on the line in order to stop someone violating Kant's principles? Or your god's law? Are you either Kant's police or God's police?
How much do you get paid for defending their moral laws? What is in it for you?

(15-10-2013 08:57 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
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.
Assert what you like. But it shows you have little interest in comprehension. I have no moral principles, nothing is morally right and nothing is morally wrong. I won't fret if I do something that is against my self interest. Protecting myself from danger is not a moral action, it is one of survival. If you conflate the idea of survival with that of morality then that is your perogotive. But you cannot inisist that I am to agree with your very loose definition of "right". I don't deem it to be right for me to live and wrong for someone to kill me.
(15-10-2013 08:57 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
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.
The problem here is that if a person behaves altruisticly they they have done exactly as they wanted to do. How is this any different to self destructive behaviour?
If a person throws themself in front of a car in order to save a small child's life, I would deem that as self destructive behaviour which is something that you previously told me is moral in the Ethical Egoism system. So it seems to me you are contradicting yourself here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 09:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The problem here is that if a person behaves altruisticly they they have done exactly as they wanted to do.

Not necessarily. They may have had a lapse in judgement and acted in a way that didn't make their own self-interest of primary concern. Perhaps they were nagged into it by their spouse. Perhaps they felt guilty after watching some soppy movie and then didn't make an accurate self-interested calculation, etc. etc.

Quote:How is this any different to self destructive behaviour?

Really? Self-destructive behaviour can be altruistic but not all self-destructive behaviour is altruistic and not all altruistic behaviour is self-destructive. If the ethical egoist has cirrhosis of the liver and chooses to continue consuming large amounts of alcohol, that is self-destructuve but it is not altruistic. If he gives a street person some money, that is altruistic but it is not self-destructive, it may be a lapse of good judegement with a consequent small loss of property but it is not unsalvageably destructive of his person or property.

Quote:If a person throws themself in front of a car in order to save a small child's life, I would deem that as self destructive behaviour which is something that you previously told me is moral in the Ethical Egoism system. So it seems to me you are contradicting yourself here.

I didn't say that all self-destructive acts are morally good for the ethical egoist. I said self-destruction is consistent with ethical egoism. If the ethical egoist has determined that self-destruction is in their interest then it is morally good.

If the ethical egoist wants to die and does so by throwing himself in front of a car and this selfish act happens to also save a child then it is irrelevant coincidence. The act was morally good not because it saved the child but because it ended the life of the ethical egoist. If the ethical egoists throws himself in front of the car to save the child then his actions are morally wrong because he has acted altruistically. According to ethical egoism he (morally) shouldn't have sacrificed his interests for those of the child.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 11:18 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 09:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes you are continually shifting the definition. I can see in your posts that you use the words right and moral without qualifying in what context you are talking about. Under which moral framework you are refering to.

It is irrelevant to the discussion that's why I don't repeatedly mention it.

Quote:These definitions are fine (although they are merely made up imaginary). There is no objective definition of right or wrong.

Then so too is your formulation of the "good society". You too then are also merely making stuff up. If it is all just made up stuff then why should we privilege your made up stuff over others' made up stuff?

Whether there is an objective definition of right and wrong is a matter of debate you can't just assert that it so.

Quote:However they can only apply to a person if that person deems to which context they are using the word.

No, it ultimately depends on which ethical theory is correct. I'm not saying that I know with certainty which ethical theory is correct but I am fairly confident that ethical egoism, ethical nihilism and moral scepticism are fundamentally flawed.

Quote:You deem that I use the word in the contect of Ethical Egoism. But it seems you are missing the fact that I am not calling anything right or wrong.
Because I am not calling anything wrong you are misconstruing my position to deem everything to be morally right. Which is not my position. With me, nothing is morally right. I do not consider self serving actions to be morally right. I consider all actions to be morally neutral because I consider morality to be an imaginary nonsensical concept.

Then you must relinquish all moral interests and moral claims. But you aren't doing so, instead you are making a series of moral stipulations about your person, your wife and your property and then just asserting that they aren't moral assertions and claims. You are trying to get a free lunch. The idea that morality is an imaginary and nonsensical concept is termed moral antirealism or moral scepticism. If you are genuinely a moral antirealist or moral sceptic then you can't crap on about your property, your life, your freedom, blah, blah, blah because you are contradicting yourself.

Quote:What does it mean when you say that it is immoral to abort a late term pregnancy?

Are you asking a specific question of me or are you being rhetorical? I can't tell.

Quote:What is in it for you?

That question makes sense only from some egoistic 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, 11:37 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 10:32 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(15-10-2013 09:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The problem here is that if a person behaves altruisticly they they have done exactly as they wanted to do.

Not necessarily. They may have had a lapse in judgement and acted in a way that didn't make their own self-interest of primary concern. Perhaps they were nagged into it by their spouse. Perhaps they felt guilty after watching some soppy movie and then didn't make an accurate self-interested calculation, etc. etc.
Your definition is still very weak.
A person that does something to stop the nagging has done something that is in their self interest.
Anyway, I don't feel guilty if I do something that is not in my self interest. Maybe that is because I don't subscribe to ethical egoistism?
"Oh no, I let meself down!"
I don't have any moral beliefs, I just don't know how to get that through to you. You keep believing what you want, rather than listening to me. I am an expert when it comes to myself and my own beliefs. I don't have any beliefs in right or wrong.
(15-10-2013 10:32 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:How is this any different to self destructive behaviour?

Really? Self-destructive behaviour can be altruistic but not all self-destructive behaviour is altruistic and not all altruistic behaviour is self-destructive. If the ethical egoist has cirrhosis of the liver and chooses to continue consuming large amounts of alcohol, that is self-destructuve but it is not altruistic. If he gives a street person some money, that is altruistic but it is not self-destructive, it may be a lapse of good judegement with a consequent small loss of property but it is not unsalvageably destructive of his person or property.
I'm not sure what your point is.
All I can say, is that if I do something that benefits someone else and not me then I don't feel guilty about it. I don't feel as if I have done the wrong thing, thus I am not an ethical egoist.
(15-10-2013 10:32 PM)Chippy Wrote:  [quote]
If a person throws themself in front of a car in order to save a small child's life, I would deem that as self destructive behaviour which is something that you previously told me is moral in the Ethical Egoism system. So it seems to me you are contradicting yourself here.

I didn't say that all self-destructive acts are morally good for the ethical egoist. I said self-destruction is consistent with ethical egoism. If the ethical egoist has determined that self-destruction is in their interest then it is morally good.
(15-10-2013 10:32 PM)Chippy Wrote:  According to ethical egoism he (morally) shouldn't have sacrificed his interests for those of the child.
Again, proof that I am not ethical egoist. I don't think that it is right and I don't think that it is wrong to sacrifice one's self for someone else. I have no moral opinion on it because I have no moral beliefs
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Oh, I've changed my opinion back to pro-choice by the way.
Some of you made valid points and argued well. Most of you were pretty shit though.

Carry on.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 10:42 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(16-10-2013 10:36 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Oh, I've changed my opinion back to pro-choice by the way.
Some of you made valid points and argued well. Most of you were pretty shit though.

Carry on.

Finally you make the post. I've been waiting for it. Troublemaker you are! Tongue

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(16-10-2013 10:36 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Oh, I've changed my opinion back to pro-choice by the way.
Some of you made valid points and argued well. Most of you were pretty shit though.

Carry on.
LOL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(15-10-2013 11:18 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No, it ultimately depends on which ethical theory is correct. I'm not saying that I know with certainty which ethical theory is correct but I am fairly confident that ethical egoism, ethical nihilism and moral scepticism are fundamentally flawed.
I'm fairly confident that you don't understand ethical egoism, ethical nihilism and moral scepticism, that you have constructed strawman understandings of these positions.

How have you come to learn what they are?
Did you read them from a book? Did you learn them from a teacher? Did you try to work it out for yourself?
If you learnt from a teacher or book, I have to ask, was the teacher or the authour a ethical egoist, ethical nihilist and moral sceptic?

I don't think anyone would give themself the label and definition that you have of these.

Personally I think if you are interested in learning about those position then you would be best to find people whom uses those labels and talk to them with a sense of inquiry. Find out what their beliefs and lack of beliefs are. Find out how they justify their own actions, the actions of others and their desire for laws governing the society they live within. Find out what values they have (despite their lack of moral belief). But you really do need to keep your ego in check, forget what you think you know and listen. If you keep trying to tell people what they think, what they believe then you will never learn a thing. A wise person is a student, always learning, always discovering. An idiot is a teacher, never learning, never discovering.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 11:42 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(16-10-2013 11:27 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-10-2013 11:18 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No, it ultimately depends on which ethical theory is correct. I'm not saying that I know with certainty which ethical theory is correct but I am fairly confident that ethical egoism, ethical nihilism and moral scepticism are fundamentally flawed.
I'm fairly confident that you don't understand ethical egoism, ethical nihilism and moral scepticism, that you have constructed strawman understandings of these positions.

How have you come to learn what they are?
Did you read them from a book? Did you learn them from a teacher? Did you try to work it out for yourself?
If you learnt from a teacher or book, I have to ask, was the teacher or the authour a ethical egoist, ethical nihilist and moral sceptic?

I don't think anyone would give themself the label and definition that you have of these.

Personally I think if you are interested in learning about those position then you would be best to find people whom uses those labels and talk to them with a sense of inquiry. Find out what their beliefs and lack of beliefs are. Find out how they justify their own actions, the actions of others and their desire for laws governing the society they live within. Find out what values they have (despite their lack of moral belief). But you really do need to keep your ego in check, forget what you think you know and listen. If you keep trying to tell people what they think, what they believe then you will never learn a thing. A wise person is a student, always learning, always discovering. An idiot is a teacher, never learning, never discovering.

You really should start your own thread on this. People come to this one to talk about abortion and leave, and people who want to talk about ethics don't know to look here.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(16-10-2013 11:42 AM)Dom Wrote:  You really should start your own thread on this. People come to this one to talk about abortion and leave, and people who want to talk about ethics don't know to look here.
I agree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: