That abortion is morally acceptable.

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by MegadethFan, Feb 17, 2012.

  1. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Wrong. Personal values are subjective because they are personal - morality is not. If you think morality is regulated and "made correct" by majority opinion, then I'm wandering why you aren't siding with the now pro-abortion majority that exists in the US? Also, by this logic, this would render slavery morally acceptable when it was popular. This mentality is both illogical and dangerously irrational.
    As for my position, the reason why the capacity to have an interest in one's life acquires value is because we logically extend our self interests such that we recognize the equal value an objective and independent observer would give to beings with the same interests and goals. So in the case of life, lets consider two combination. First we have three people. Now according to your theory of morality and "consensus" one of those people could be killed for absolutely no reason simply because the other two deem it morally permissible via majority consensus. If we apply the universalization of interests I just described above, each of the three, being moral agents, would recognize each of their interests in being alive. Logically, there is no reason anyone of them should weight their desire to be alive any higher than the other two. The result is that each equally weights their desires to live in making moral decisions. Now lets consider another situation, a pregnant woman. Here we have two beings, a fetus and a woman. So, again, we should consider their interests and desires equally. Since the mother has an interest and the fetus doesnt, logically then, only her interest need be considered.

    So basically, you think, I cant rob another guy unless a third party says its ok. Which also means, I can rape a child as long as a majority of close people approve. Your moral philosophy is appalling.

    So what? Society might think the reverse - that suicide is fine. Then where does that leave your theory? Sorry mate you have no philosophy here except might equals right, where might is majority consensus. Also, by your own logic here, abortion is fine where the majority approve, which they current do in the form of the law.

    You have not show this, rather instead you have said, in an entirely contradictory manner, that since nothing is moral the only moral thing is the majority opinion of others.

    I'll agree with you there, but the thing that stops you is the fact it is the woman's body and her autonomous being. We have agreed that the majority of interests are subjective where they cannot be universalized. The result is that you have no avenue to say that the interests of some outweigh others, because they dont. Thus the autonomy of interests must be respected for the fact we wish to secure the most effect means of securing and providing the space to pursue personal interests. The subjective interests of others have no authority to trump her subjective interests for the very reason they are relative to the individual.

    Correct, because it is her body. If it were a test tube baby made by "society" then it would be up to society, but it isnt. And the only right to the father has is if he made some contract with the mother that gives him such a right.

    Total totalitarianism. She has COMPLETE ability and COMPLETE qualification to determine what is in her best interest if she is mentally sound. The only avenue of changing her mind you have is in discussing her decision with her or offering information. The only thing society can and need do is ensure she has an informed decision.

    I have already addressed this. Also, given the first two are a rarity (in developed societies) and the latter is entirely fine because that maybe the interest she favors, this is not a counterargument to abortion let alone what I have said.

    I agree, but in saying this and in you yourself making the points above, where a woman is of sound mind, and society gives her minimal information when seeking such a procedure, she has complete power over her body and its contents.
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly before the rest of this discussion can take place we need to rigorously define the term morality.

    If morality is subjective it exists solely within the human thought process. If it is subjective, it makes sense to continue this discussion based on our current opinion of moral action.

    If morality is objective it must exist outside the human thought process in some way. In other words, there must be some process that defines morality prior to human interpretation. If it is objective, we only need to consult the objective source of morality. Where is the objective source that defines slavery as bad even when it was popular? Did the people at this time not have access to the objective source? Did they not accept the objective source? What caused them to be immoral?

    I don't believe that morality is subjective. But that belief is grounded is the acceptance that I am limited and as such I can't define what is moral and what isn't moral. I can try to interpret or judge appropriate morality, but since I am human, my judgments are subject to my limitations. I can only define my opinion of morality, and opinion is certainly subjective. Only something without limitation could define a morality that is limitless or objective. While I accept that there is a limitless source that can and does define morality, I am frustrated by an inability to directly and objectively access that source. I am forced, then, to attempt to follow the best course, knowing that at some point my actions must be compared to that direct source in some way.

    So what is the source of your objective morality?

    We could look to evolution to try and decipher morality, but species employ so many different and conflicting survival strategies that it's unclear how a certain moral code could be applied to all. Lions eat their rival's young for an opportunity to mate with their females. Coo Coo birds kill the young of other species and replace them with their own. Some species are monogamous, some are polygamists, some only meet to mate, some remain together for life, and some are asexual and don't mate at all. If there's an objective moral standard there to be found, I'm sure I can't find it. Even the very premise of evolution suggests that the standard is that there's no standard. It suggests that success is achieved by randomly testing many different choices, and the only bad choices are the ones that lead to the failure to proliferate the genome. If we are too look at this objectively, abortion can be immoral for that reason alone.
     
  3. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Let me expand on that description. If morality is objective, as I describe, it is expressed as a set of codes in the human mind, however it is an expression objective truth based on external reality. The truth relevant to this debate is that morally which is deducible in the universalization of interests I described earlier. Objectivity, that is, truth, is external to individuals. If morality is truth, then it too must be externally based and thus objective. Consequently, in thinking externally, we can make the realization that one person's interests do not outweigh the same interests of another simply because they are their own. Moral action, then, is that which arises from this basic external observation.

    Again you are contradicting yourself and rendering your opinion invalid if you hold this to be true. If morality is entirely bound by our subjective perception and thought, then there is no point debating it as a set of truthful, externally identifiable facts.

    See above, and my previous post.

    Not at all. We simply universalize our own interests. We would also consider the other interests of animals, in for example, avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure, as well as in being alive, having a future, making some social interactions etc etc.

    You can quite easily - see above. Animals may not be able to reason, as we can, but that doesnt mean efforts to create a set of morally positive conditions is impossible.

    Well no, since in the space of evolution, the death of young has been quite common. Infanticide has been commonplace in human society since its first historical recording. According to the idea of evolution, abortion is entirely feasible. But evolution is not a source of moral action. The only effect of evolution is to show the implications of moral action and the requirements of moral agents will change and alter over time - this will not change moral principles as I described above, however.
     
  4. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No she doesn't.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder

    Why is this different? Please reference the objective source of your response.
     
  5. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes, she does. If you have a disease or disorder, this changes the story.

    It isnt. It is clearly a disorder, thus changing the power of the woman over her body. If it cannot be remedied, then medical resources maybe opened to here, but for those who have medical conditions impairing the mental faculties such that they can be treated, they should be treated so that the individual can best determine their actual interests.

    I need no reference for simple logic.
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This statement can be clearly refuted with your own example of slavery. If an objective morality is expressed as a set of codes in the human mind, it must be expressed in all human minds. If one human disagrees with another human's set of codes your statement is proven false.

    And yet you claim totalitarian authority of the mother over decisions made in behalf of the fetus. This creates an over riding interest (which you said didn't exist) which outweighs the interests of the father, of a neighbor, or of society in general...

    This statement is non falsifiable. Any woman seeking an amputation for reasons outside a regulated set are classified with a disorder and refused the procedure. This is not autonomous control of one's own body and its contents, its regulated control.
     
  7. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not at all. Mathematics is expressed in the human mind - that doesnt mean all humans must know mathematics for it to be a correct observation of external forces and facts.

    Not at all. I have no idea how you reached the conclusion unless you didnt read my entire comment. Humans have different conceptualizations of morality - like mathematics in some instances - but only a handful are valid.

    Correct.

    Once again, there is no overriding interest and no such interest is created. The mother's preference is the only one we need consider because it is her body.

    I dont care what current regulations are I'm giving you the ethical regulations.
     
  8. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If morality is subjective than rape for some is ok. Child pornography….bestiality, murder, stealing all ok.…..etc. Without morality, without a sense of what is right and wrong…anything goes….and I mean anything. And today tolerance is the big word….and if you are not tolerant of others behaviors…then your called names. Here on this board…if you oppose gay marriage…you are attacked with a vengeance…your a bigot. The ones screaming the loudest are the least tolerant.
     
  9. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If:

    1 Morality exists as a code in the human mind is true
    and
    2. No human's interests outweigh the same interests of another is true

    Then it cannot be true that:

    1. One human's conceptualization of morality outweighs the conceptualization of morality of another.

    If this is the case, your expression of "true" morality is irrelevant, as you have no authority to which you can appeal to to verify your conceptualization. At least, up until this point you have yet to name such an authority. If one exists, please name it so that we can appeal to that authority in order to establish truth.

    In the mathematical example you gave, math is a language that has been established to express observable phenomenon that exists independent of human intellect. This language has codified rules that define the nature of the observable phenomenon. The language of math cannot defy the nature of the observable phenomenon. 2+2 always equals 4 because it cannot not equal 4.

    In the instance of morality, what observable phenomenon do you appeal to to show that your conceptualization is always true?
     
  10. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I totally agree, excluding the fact people who are opposed to gay marriage are often bigots, particularly on PF.
     
  11. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's if we take your two points. But your two points are wrong - the miss a crucial fact:

    1. Moral THEORY exists as a code in the human mind is true

    2. Moral theory is derived from observations of truth/reality/objectivity and are therefore externalized process of reason

    3. Given 2, Moral theory is most accurate when most precise in utilizing truth/reality/objectivity and so on.

    Now you need to correct your own points, namely that, if 2 (in your list) is correct, interests are not the same or confined or bound to moral theory, and that interests can only be weighed equally where they are the same interests. So an interest in being alive can be weighed equally amongst beings whereas an interest in a particular theory cannot be because they are different and conflict to such an extent that their value and quality is entirely subjective.

    Externalized reason. I already said this. If you can think independently of your subjectivity, which I believe rational beings can for the most part, although with great strain at times, hten you can identify external truth and objectivity - ie reality as an external concept.

    Same goes for morality: moral theory is the language used to express observable truth that can lead codes of action via rational thought.

    External reality - ie the fact we all have a desire to live.
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet we've already established that there are situations in which an overriding interest does take precedence over a mother's interest in her own body. Why is no overriding interest created in the father's interest in the well being of the fetus for example, but an overriding interest is created in the father' interest in the mother's mental health (in the case of Body integrity identity disorder)

    In both instances the mother simply wishes the totalitarian right to remove part of her body. In one instance the interest of another human overrides, and in another instance the interest of another human does not override. Please explain this contradiction in your premise.
     
  13. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet we prevent suicide, establishing both that, we don't "all have a desire to live" and that we don't all agree that totalitarian power over one's own body is always moral.
     
  14. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as math cannot transcend its own nature, you cannot transcend your own nature. All choices you make are subject to your own nature, ie your own biases. You cannot externalize your own thought processes because they are internal to you and you alone.
     
  15. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WEll my authority is God as is every other believer. If you deny God, then you must rely on yourself and what you think is moral. So your saying rape is ok for some and we have no right intrude upon those beliefs. And a lot of things are unobservableÂ…that does not mean they aren't done with loveÂ…or felt as being love. And love is subjective to some. The pro-aborts on this siteÂ…think love is killingÂ…and power and that alone is a good thing. I don't think abortion has anything to do with love.
     
  16. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What overriding interest is that? We never determined an overriding interest in any situation. All interests are weighted equally.

    Again, there is no overriding interest. The father's interest is irrelevant because he has not connected to the woman's body (unless he created a contract etc). The fetus has no interest so only the mother's need be considered. If the mother is mentally unstable, her interest is not clear, and thus she requires others help determine her best interests. Again, there is no overriding interest.

    Indeed because she has an interest and the fetus doesnt.

    Only because the interest of the mother becomes uncertain/unclear.

    There is no contradiction.
     
  17. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    1. What society prevents is irrelevant to my point.
    2. Suicide need only be prevented where arising from mental illness and thus isnt a genuine interest a person espouses to.
    3. If people dont want to live, then they will kill themselves and be out of the equation - thus the universalization of interest is unchanged, as I said.
    4. What "everyone agrees with" is again irrelevant to the validity of my claim.
    5. As I said earlier, but which you did not address, if morally were determined correct by consensus we could justify ANYTHING - including abortion, as has been done by the very process you apparently advocate.
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sure, but reason is in human nature, ie we have the capacity to reason and thus realize and understand reality and truth.

    So you believe humans cannot comprehend reality as an external concept? You believe mathematics is all personally biased? Are you a post-modernist by chance?
     
  19. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Believing in God, as a basis for moral action, requires you justify God's teachings as morally correct. Your failure to do so points to the fact you cannot do this, and even further, it points to the inadequacy of religious morality.
     
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your theory succumbs to the same fallacy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

    So then it becomes a simple question of logic. If morality is defined by nature, and nature is not fixed, then the definition of morality is not fixed. After all, if your construct is based on observations that can and do change, then your construct must also necessarily change. Only something unchanging can define an unchanging morality, correct?
     
  21. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I dont recall having made an appeal to nature, rather to reason.

    No, you ar describing your own position. Again, my position is the universalization of interests which arises in logically recognizing the equal weight of shared interests amongst beings. There are no appeals to nature here. The only thing that changes is our ability to effectively recognize interests and secure them.
     
  22. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to your statements, reason is a product of nature.

    You can't argue that reason exists outside of human intellect, but originates from it. For example, "I think therefore I am" is not the same as "I think therefor I am right." The second statement assumes a value that (according to your premise) only exists within your own head. If it exists somewhere outside of your head, please show me where.
     
  23. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, reason if the ability for humans to understand reality. That is part of nature, true, but relying on reason is not an appeal to nature.

    Correct.

    By saying "I think therefore I am" is a means by which the thinker can determine he is real. This was the idea of Descartes. But this thought will not change the fact he exists in reality. If Descartes thought he did not exist, it wouldnt change the fact he did exist. The same is for the moral argument I make here. Using reason allows us to comprehend the reality that we have shared interests. In acting morally and logically we ought then to recognize this fact and act accordingly in response to it.
     
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is false. Descartes does not make a value judgement by saying a thinker can observe his own reality. Descartes is saying that his own thoughts are evidence of the existence of thought and since thought exists he must exist in order to think.

    You on the other hand are trying to tie thought to a moral value. Moral value is an abstract quality that cannot be observed independently of human thought. You cannot measure moral value. You cannot weigh it or watch it interact with other value independently of human thought. There is no yardstick that can tell you if its moral to sell your food to your neighbor, give your food to your neighbor, or keep the food for your own family. These judgments exist solely as a construct of human value judgement and are completely reliant on societal negotiation.

    Take the slavery example you gave. You said that slavery was "wrong" and that we became moral by abolishing it. How is this judgement based in reality? What objective source do you consult to determine slavery is wrong? Is it wrong for a person to willingly sign themselves into a slavery contract in exchange for shelter, housing, protection from disease, etc? Is it slavery for a mother to sell one of her children to another family? Is slavery wrong if a mother is unable to care for her child and needs money to care for others? Is it immoral for her to sell one into slavery and moral for her to kill one of her children to feed the others?

    For the purposes of this discussion, the value you've assumed is that a sentient life form has more value then non sentient life forms. Nowhere in your postings have you confirmed this value with a source that exists outside of your own ability to judge value. Descartes can appeal to logic to support his claim; I think therefore I am. You on the other hand cannot measure an amount of life. Life either is or is not. If this is the case, then one life cannot be better then another.
     
  25. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That is a value judgment. Depends how you define value. His sense of value here is EXACTLY THE SAME as the one I apply - he notes reality with use of reason, or specifically for him, his existence with thought.

    Yes, there is.

    Sure but these same judgment are also reliant on reality. The fact they are correct will not change in the case there are no humans - the truth of moral action will continue to exist, merely as an unknown value by other beings who cannot comprehend it.

    Stop twisting my language. We did not "BECOME" moral - we merely stopped an immoral activity.

    Because if two humans seek freedom, one cannot rationally put the other into slavery whilst still possessing an interest in being free.

    Reality - the reality that they have a shared interest in being free, or rather not slaves. "they" referring to the slaver and the slave.

    Nope because it is their interest. The slavery of which I referred was not done in this fashion, as you well know.

    No, unless the other family "owns" the child in a sense of permanency. If she is selling custody, that would not be slavery, no.

    Again, if she chooses to be a slave its her interest and thus totally fine.

    Possibly, if the situation required such action. The all have an interest in being alive, thus other interest would be subject to that end. Of course you wouldnt want to inflict so much harm that this interest in being alive is made redundant - ie that they would prefer death then their current state of living.

    Yes.

    Yes, I have. Let me put it to you this way. Does a sentient being value its existence if it chooses to be alive? Its a yes or no question.

    So you equate a sperm cell to an adult human - they are both "an amount of life", which according to you cannot be measured. Sorry, it is not logical to say life is not comparable - it is.
     

Share This Page