Alan, I am sure others will take the discussion forward on this one, but I have a suggestion : cool down, because you only seem to be tying yourself in knots.
Let me offer my personal value on this one : For myself, I 'd never, never condone chattel slavery. But, if I see others engaged in that practise, I wouldn't be as harsh and rigorously absolute. So too, with lying. On this one, I might even permit myself a lie or two if the occassion demands, in order to uphold my other higher - priority values. Along with the above, I would agree with you that ' truth ' and ' freedom ' and ' happiness ' and ' peace ' are values innate to me. I know too that, therefore, these values are also innate to all. But, if someone were to disagree, I 'd understand and agree with him. After all, it is he who must discover such innateness within himself, and know. Untill then, he would be true in his disagreement. On Jul 7, 7:17 am, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure, OM. But the key point - which Fran illustrates in that failure > to unequivocally condemn chattel slavery -- is if abortion is not > intrinsically immoral, nothing is. > > For a person who already believes nothing is intrinsically immoral, of > course believes abortion is not intrinsically immoral. And this has > consequences for reasoned debate, because here's another example of an > intrinsically immoral act: lying. > > Now if a person really disagrees, that renders communication > impossible, for a person who believed it, might well be lying in an > internet forum. So to deny that there are intrinsic evils makes > rational discourse impossible. But the purpose of minds eye forum is > reasoned discourse. So surely we all agree: lying is intrinsically > immoral. The person who says he thinks lying is sometimes justified > could be lying about that, so out of charity, should be ignored. > > But if If lying is one example of an intrinsically immoral act, > perhaps there are others. I put forth chattel slavery as one. For if > lying is always and everywhere wrong, how could what seems an even > greater greater evil of chattel slavery not be intrinsically evil? > And if chattel slavery which treats him as a property not person is > never justified, then how could deliberately taking the life of an > innocent person ever be justified? > > And this is the starter premise on the abortion question: it is always > and everywhere wrong, for anybody, to take the life of an innocent > person. OK so far? > > On Jul 4, 12:01 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
