OM, in writing "murder is a term reserved for things that are against the law. abortion is legal' and your distinction between 'murder' and 'killing' you are illustrating the central point: all moral disagreement takes place against a background of universal agreement. For you are not arguing abortion is moral because murder is moral; you are arguing it is moral because it is /not/ murder.
On Jul 1, 12:22 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “1. background of agreement. Is it murder? Nobody argues abortion is > moral because cold-blooded killing is moral. They argue it is moral > because it is /not/ murder. So this debate takes place against a > universal background of agreement: don't murder.” – AW > > First, in the USA, induced abortions are not murder, they may well be > killing. Murder is a term reserved for things that are against the > law. Abortion is legal. > Secondly, I am among those who, today at least, find abortion to be > killing and I still wish it to be legal. So, in a sense, as apparently > contradictory as this may seem, it is a moral argument for killing. I > won’t bother you with the details and/or justifications though. > > “2, the fact we are debating. If it were really a matter of taste, > like dress or food, there would be no debate. The very fact that we / > debate/ is what indicates it is a matter of truth, not taste. > Consider, for example, disagreements in math or science.” – AW > > Here it is only in a sense a matter of taste. The ‘taste’ in this case > is where one places their attention. Antiabortionists place their > attention on the fetus. Abortionists place it on the mother. Yes, both > may look at the other focus some, but in the end, their view, a clear > case of taste/opinion, is founded upon where they focus. This does > happen in science too and I’ve posted numerous examples. > > On Jul 1, 8:28 am, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well let's take your example: abortion. Now this is something that is > > intrinsically evil. You will disagree, naturally. Step back and note > > two things. > > > 1. background of agreement. Is it murder? Nobody argues abortion is > > moral because cold-blooded killing is moral. They argue it is moral > > because it is /not/ murder. So this debate takes place against a > > universal background of agreement: don't murder. > > > 2, the fact we are debating. If it were really a matter of taste, like > > dress or food, there would be no debate. The very fact that we / > > debate/ is what indicates it is a matter of truth, not taste. > > Consider, for example, disagreements in math or science. > > > Two math guys vigorously disagree over, say, the twin prime > > conjecture. Does one math whiz say to the other "well, Jones, since > > we still disagree after decades of this, so I guess it is a matter of > > opinion. Let's just agree to disagree". They might well "agree to > > disagree" for a time to let it rest. But it would be temporary, and if > > they just accepted it as the way things are, we would think they had > > abandoned their discipline. We expect them to get back to their job. > > Same for moral debates of good and evil. > > > On Jun 29, 1:42 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Good point Alan, > > > > Yet such an objective known should surely leave evidance that we can > > > all agree on? > > > > Somehow though I feel if we take one single act and debate upon it's > > > objective evilness we'll qucikly come up to the barriers. > > > > On 28 June, 00:33, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Lee, I'd point out that the very fact people disagree is what > > > > indicates the question is objective, not subjective. About matters of > > > > taste we don't dispute. About matters of truth we should dispute. If > > > > you say X is not evil and somebody else says X is evil, I'd say one is > > > > mistaken. What would make no sense is to say "we disagree about the > > > > matter of X; therefore, X is subjective". > > > > > On Jun 25, 1:22 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hey Alan, > > > > > > I can see by this that what ought not to be is highly subjective. > > > > > Abortion, stem cell research are just two cases where differance of > > > > > opinion do occour. So If I say neither of these are evil and somebody > > > > > disagress with me, then what is the truth of the matter? > > > > > > On 25 June, 06:42, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Evil is what ought not be. > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 1:51 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > A simple question, or is it?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
