Abortion to me? Well I don't like it personaly, and we have of course had it out here before so I'll not rehash everything, I will just say that my reasons are a little less reasonable and more emotional, but shit that's fine I feel the same emotional content wherever bigotry is concerend and I'm quite happy with my stance on both issues.
On 7 July, 06:24, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
