Frantherman,remember nobody argues abortion is moral because murder is moral. They argue it is moral because it is /not/ murder. Same for capital punishment -- nobody argues capital punishment is moral because murder is moral; they argue it is moral because it is /not/ murder. Clearly the first step in reasoned debate is to come to terms: what is murder? That itself illustrates these moral disagreements really do take place against a background of universal agreement. The dispute is over application of a general precept (don't murder; don't steal; don't lie, and so forth) to particular cases (is abortion murder? capital punishment?) . Were it not the case, there could be no /debate/ about the morality of this or that act.
On Jul 1, 9:19 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 Jul., 17:28, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > So this debate takes place against a> universal background of agreement: > don't murder. > > Ah but, Alan, "murder" itself is a complex term which needs to be > defined. And not all definitions are the same. Even if we take a > fairly, old, generally accepted legal definition - "when a person, of > sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable > creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice > aforethought, either express or implied." (Blackstone, Commentary on > the Laws of England [1765-69]) - questions arise. Particularly with > regard to the qualification "unlawfully". What if the law is unjust, > allowing for all sorts of legal killing, what we might term "judicial > murder"? Whatever one's view of abortion may be, for example, the fact > that it is legally allowed in a society automatically means, according > to Blackstone's definition, that it cannot be defined as murder. > > Let us take the example of the position taken by many in the USA who > campaign against abortion, on the grounds that it is murder, while at > the same time condoning capital punishment. Both are legally > permissible. So in this case, in order to define murder, one must move > beyond legal definitions. But here it becomes difficult. Can one say > that all killing is wrong? Or does one define a particular subset of > killing? If not the legal ones, than what criterea does one use? > > I realise that your scholastically grounded position defines moral > precepts on the basis of derivation from general principles. But there > are many of us who do not share your philosphical position. (Apart > from the question as to the stage at which a fertilised embryo can be > considered to be a human being - and no, I don't want to discuss that > here at the moment ... Chris would just accuse me of throwing hand- > grenades!) > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
