The question might be whether is is immoral to have children at all if the marriage is unstable and is bound to end badly. One doesn't know all the answers in advance so some decisions are a leap of faith.
On Jul 6, 11:54 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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...... > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
