Alan, perhaps to help fran, you could defend your point of view, apparently that abortion is an example of an intrinsically immoral act. I would be interested in learning what assumptions you start out from.
On Jul 4, 11:10 am, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for clarifying. I now understand that yours is not an argument > from premises to conclusions but an “ insight that moral decisions are > inevitably situational.”. This insight is by no means self-evident. > How would you demonstrate it to a skeptic such as myself? For if > abortion is not an example of an intrinsically immoral act, nothing > is. > > If you disagree, I am happy seek common ground, and substitute some > example that you and I might agree is an intrinsically immoral act. > How about chattel slavery? > > On Jul 4, 9:35 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Alan, even in your short post, you managed to misrepresent my train of > > thinking twice - and that immediately after quoting it! > > > Firstly, you ask why the dispute over abortion led me to "conclude" > > that moral decisions are situational. If you read the short sentence > > you quoted more carefully you will see that I actually said that "the > > abortion question > > underlines for me the insight that moral decisions are inevitably > > situational." This is a method of arguing which offers an example to > > illustrate a more general point, not a logical progression from a > > particular argument to a more general conclusion. > > > You repeat this in your final paragraph, but add a "therefore", also > > not present in the original text. > > > I went on to point out that I am well aware of the fact that my way of > > thinking is not congenial to those such as you (if my understanding of > > you as someone taking a basically scholastic-Thomistic position is > > correct) who argue from a natural law standpoint. My experience over a > > number of years in a traditional Thomistic intellectual environment is > > that Kant has always been seen as the most serious opponent. This is > > why Bernard Lonergan's version of transcendental Thomism has always > > been regarded with such suspicion by those who regard themselves as > > orthodox Thomists - too much Kantian influence (apart from the fact > > that Lonergan was a Jesuit and many Dominican scholastics see > > themselves as having a divine call to preserve the purity of thomistic > > thought; Jesuits and Dominicans never agree :-)). > > > "An intrinsically > > immoral act is one that is not situational, and can /never/ be > > justified. Procured abortion is offered as an instance." > > Could you elaborate on this assertion? Or, put more colloquially, "sez > > who?" > > > Francis > > > On 4 Jul., 17:55, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "In the area of thinking about morality, the abortion question > > > underlines for me the insight that moral decisions are inevitably > > > situational (which does not mean relativist)." > > > > I suppose we should start with term clarifications. An intrinsically > > > immoral act is one that is not situational, and can /never/ be > > > justified. Procured abortion is offered as an instance. > > > > Why would the dispute over abortion lead one to conclude "moral > > > decisions are situational"? I just don't follow this -- I tried to > > > reverse-engineer the reasoning. It seems to go like this. > > > > We disagree about X. > > > Therefore, X is situational. > > > > It just doesn't follow. From the /fact/ of disagreement, what > > > follows? If I am misstating your argument, please lay it out. What > > > leads one to conclude "therefore moral decisions are inevitably > > > situational". Inevitably situational? That sounds pretty absolute! > > > > On Jul 4, 7:55 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The abortion "hand grenade" has been fizzing around on the "What is > > > > Evil?" thread for a while now - I think Alan W. threw it in > > > > originally, so let's cordon it off in its own thread, shall we? At the > > > > same time, I'll try to put it into a wider context here, in the hope > > > > that it might even exemplarily give rise to a wider discussion. > > > > Reluctantly - because I am a man and I feel that we men should take a > > > > very subordinate role in this discussion, as we don't get pregnant > > > > and - literally - don't get left holding the baby. > > > > > In an ideal world, abortion would hardly be necessary. Young people > > > > would be universally and adequately educated in sexual issues before > > > > reaching puberty, reliable means of contraception would be universally > > > > easily available, sexual violence (i.e. rape) would be non-existent, > > > > young people reaching fertility would develop in an environment where > > > > they could discover, experiment with, learn to deal with, cherish and > > > > enjoy their sexuality in the knowledge of the possible consequences > > > > and take responsible reproductive decisions in this context. Children > > > > would be born into a society which really cherished them and provided > > > > for circumstances in which they could develop and thrive as human > > > > beings, and their mothers (and fathers) would receive all the support > > > > neccessary to provide a loving and secure environment for their > > > > children. > > > > > We do not live in such a world. Daily, thousands of women discover > > > > that they are pregnant, although they have not wished to be so and do > > > > not - for many different reasons - feel that they can take on the > > > > responsibility of caring for a child. Some carry through with the > > > > preganancy and do a magnificent job of rearing the unplanned child. > > > > Some carry through with the pregnancy and make a complete mess of > > > > rearing the child, damaging its life and their own enormously in the > > > > process. Some terminate the pregnancy. > > > > > This is never an easy decision and none of the women I know who have > > > > terminated pregnancies have taken it lightly. They all pay a high > > > > price for it, for a few, a price with which they have great problems > > > > dealing, even years later. The last things any woman faced with this > > > > fateful decision needs (whichever way the decision goes) are attitudes > > > > of condemnation, legal barriers, people who claim to know better > > > > taking over their lives, etc. And emotionally loaded slogans like > > > > "baby murder" are completely inappropriate - as are attacks on those > > > > who choose to aid them, should they decide to terminate the pregnancy. > > > > > Legally prohibiting abortion solves nothing. I can cite as a > > > > particularly apt example my own homeland, Ireland. Abortion is illegal > > > > in Ireland - the country is, in the view of those who support this > > > > position, "pro-life." All it means is that many women with sufficient > > > > social competence and financial means who have an unwanted pregnancy > > > > travel to the UK and obtain an abortion there (the estimates are > > > > thousands yearly). Those without these advantages - as a rule, the > > > > ones least equipped to provide an adequate environment for a new > > > > member of the human race - carry the pregnancy to term with the > > > > frequent result that conditions of social misery are continued for > > > > another generation. The holier-than-thou hypocrisy of this situation > > > > has always sickened me (even during the period when I was a member of > > > > a Catholic religious order in Ireland many years ago). > > > > > In the area of thinking about morality, the abortion question > > > > underlines for me the insight that moral decisions are inevitably > > > > situational (which does not mean relativist). Moral decisions are > > > > always made in a particular complex context, by individual people. The > > > > role of societies and laws in such situations is to help and support > > > > people to make responsible decisions. Commandments, fiats and > > > > anathemas don't help. The most we can ever perhaps hope to achieve are > > > > moral norms, i.e. guidelines which state that, in general, one > > > > direction of decision is usually morally preferable to another - > > > > without giving absolute guidance for any particular situation. > > > > > I realise that this position is not acceptable for those who purport > > > > to be able to derive particular moral absolutes from natural law - > > > > even more so for those who appeal to divine law. But I find attempts > > > > to follow this way to be extremely questionable and often unacceptably > > > > arrogant. It takes a hell of a lot of chutzpah to be so confident > > > > about the infallibility of every step of one's own process of > > > > reasoning, especially in such complex processes as the derivation of > > > > particular moral principles. But then, as I've stated here more than > > > > once, I find the Kantian approach to morality much more helpful. > > > > > Francis- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
