> Let us take an even more extreme example; genocide.
Fran, I contend that your example does no more than illustrate that war is morally acceptable, not that genocide is. For better or worse, people have always distinguished between genocide and war. In your example, it is "war," and not genocide, so long as humanity is fighting against an organized polity which is making war against it (which, in your example, you explicitly acknowledge it is). Indeed, this is the very definition of war. When we think of genocide, we think of things that seem more evil - like killing an individual because of his race, not because he is a fighter in an organization which is making war against us. So, in your example, imagine that humanity is winning. Imagine that all but 200 of the carnivorous race are dead, and assume that these 200 no longer pose an existential threat to humanity. Would it be moral to kill them? No, because that would be genocide - it would be killing someone because of his race. But, in your example, it sounds like they'd still be dangerous. So what would humans do? Jail them, of course! Is this moral? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is we've always thought so. And regardless, imprisonment isn't genocide. Your example hasn't convinced me that genocide ever sounds morally alright. The example only suggests that absolute warfare becomes similar to genocide, in terms of effect (i.e., number of people of a particular race aimed to be killed as a percentage of that race). But genocide isn't really defined by its effects - it's defined by the intent. Some people will contend that Israel is perpetrating a genocide on the Palestinians, but most people do not. Because Israel is not acting purely out of racial hatred, and because there is a colorable argument to be made that Palestinian casualties are mere collateral damage (though there are those who would argue vociferously to the contrary), only a small minority of people (5%? 10%? Obviously I don't have the survey in front of me, but it's obviously not a majority) believe that Israel is literally perpetuating a genocide. I use the example solely to show that the general consensus of the meaning of the word genocide (and, clearly, genocide must be defined in terms of its meaning to most people, since it has no crystal-clear operational definition) depends on the intent behind the act, not the effect - and in your example, the intent makes clear that what is going on is war, not genocide. Anyway, as this thread was about abortion, I'll throw in my two cents. First, I would argue that whether abortion or slavery are moral or immoral are not particularly interesting questions. That depends on one's views about the nature of morality. I'm (often) an extreme relativist, for example, so I (often) don't think anything is absolutely moral or immoral. What I think is more interesting, is the question of whether abortion is the kind of thing that might be universally seen as obviously immoral two centuries hence, as slavery now is. The answer, I think, is yes, and that possibility is something that I think is not thought about often enough. Are abortions immoral? That depends on how much personhood we want to attribute to the fetus. But is it possible that in two centuries, *everyone* will feel that the fetus has a lot of personhood to it, and that abortion is murder? Yes, it is possible that everyone will feel that way; and shouldn't that give us some pause? Second - and this is a proposal from a law professor of mine - what of the argument (not moral, obviously, but legal) that banning abortion is unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment bar on involuntary servitude (i.e., forcing a woman to carry her baby to term). How's that for tying the abortion and slavery threats together... On Jul 4, 4:35 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...http://www.amazon.com/Shiva-Option-David-Weber/dp/074347144X/ref=pd_s... > > 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 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
