Except the slave trade is still operating though it is condemned.
On Jul 6, 7:56 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fran, the example offered is chattel slavery. Now if chattel slavery
> is intrinsically immoral, and if Paul of Tarsus endorsed it, he is
> mistaken. If the whole ancient world until the 19th century accepted
> it, they are wrong. If everybody today is wildly enthusiastic about
> it, they are dead wrong. I am surprised you don't agree.
>
> On Jul 4, 1:35 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't think we will find the sort of common ground you're looking
> > for, Alan. You want agreement on intrinsically immoral acts, I do not
> > accept this category of thinking. It is not acts that are immoral,
> > rather those that carry them out. And this implies that we must always
> > look at the actors and the specific situation.
>
> > Slavery was accepted throughout most societies throughout recorded
> > history up to the 19th. Century C.E. as part of the natural order.
> > Paul of Tarsus sent the runaway slave Onesimus, who had become a
> > Christian, back to his master, Philemon, with an accompanying letter.
>
> > Let us take an even more extreme example; genocide. We would agree
> > that, generally, genocide is morally reprehensible. I would go so far
> > as to claim that in the sense which I outlined in my initial post it
> > falls under a moral norm which condemns it. But is genocide an
> > intrinsically immoral act, in every circumstance?
>
> > Join me, if you will, on a small journey into science fiction.
> > Somewhere out there in our galaxy, there exists a carnivorous,
> > intelligent race, which has a drastically simple law-of-the-jungle
> > view of life; eat or be eaten. They have developed an advanced
> > technology which allows them to travel between the stars and an
> > extremely powerful and sophisticated military capacity. Their reaction
> > on encountering other intelligent races is to wage devasting war on
> > them, reducing the survivors of the races defeated to cattle-slaves,
> > kept living and bred solely for the purpose of nutrition. They react
> > to contacts from other races - including attempts to communicate - in
> > only one way; sudden, complete, aggressive warfare. One day, they
> > encounter humanity, which at that stage has itself become an
> > interstellar polity. The first, disastrous contacts lead to the
> > conquest/destruction of a number of human-settled panets. Billions die
> > (millions of these through being eaten).
>
> > Having geared up for war, humanity is faced with a simple, horrifying
> > choice - fighting these aliens to complete destruction/genocide, or
> > being completely destroyed itself, thus leaving these monsters free to
> > continue to destroy intelligent beings throughout the galaxy. Under
> > such circumstances, the concept of genocide as an intrinsically evil
> > act becomes deeply questionable.
>
> > The idea isn't from me, but from the authors David Weber and Steve
> > White in the two sf novels, "In Death Ground", and "The Shiva
> > Option".http://www.amazon.com/Death-Ground-David-Weber/dp/0671877798/ref=sr_1......
>
> > The title of the second volume describes the terrible moral question
> > which humanity and its allies have to face.
>
> > Francis
>
> > On 4 Jul., 20:10, 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
