Why We Can't Resolve Ethical Arguments

Homepage Forums Small Talk Why We Can't Resolve Ethical Arguments

This topic contains 26 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Simon Paynton 11 hours ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #33228

    Unseen
    Participant

    I love the way Simon and Davis are proving my point. Nothing either of you can offer as evidence will change either mind. It’s because your attitudes aren’t fact driven. You use facts to justify your position but no fact will prove your position.

    #33229

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I’m actually pro-choice.

    All these attitudes are fact-driven.  It’s how people interpret the facts – what value they place on various facts – that makes the difference.

    #33230

    Davis
    Participant

    What the hell are you talking about? Simon stated that it is a fact that a fertilised egg is alive. I countered that it depends on the definition of alive. Instead of defining “alive” he gave a bad analogy. I countered with an equally silly analogy to show how silly his analogy was. He replied by throwing in a new term “dormant” that also totally evades dealing with “defining what alive means”.

    It is an absolute fact that how Alice a fertilised embryo is depends on the definition of “Alive”. I never said in this discussion that it is or isn’t alive but that it’s questionable how alive it is based on which definition is used and I implied that it is difficult to give a definition that doesn’t arbitrarily include some but exclude others.

    Unseen you have completely micharicterised the debate. I’m not trying to change any moral or ethical view here but challenge Simon’s completely wrong assumption that:

    Everyone knows that a foetus is alive.

    That is not true. Simon and I are both pro-life. Our stance here is irrelevant. He thinks it comes down to interpretation. I claim it comes down to definitions.

    #33231

    Davis
    Participant

    That should read pro-choice

    #33232

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    You use facts to justify your position but no fact will prove your position.

    What do you mean by “prove”?  The fact is, in some matters, there’s an ethical dilemma.  Each side has a good case.  But what the anti-abortion people are not stating, is that it’s also a patriarchal attempt to control women’s bodies and reproduction.  Is there a hidden agenda for pro-choice people?  Conservatives might say that “liberals just enjoy murdering babies” as Trump says, or “want to destroy the family” which has some kind of twisted grain of truth to it.  But both positions are ridiculous and childish.

    #33233

    Unseen
    Participant

    Is there a hidden agenda for pro-choice people?

    Introducing facts and rationality into an emotional issue in order to create a rational world, but it’s futile. Emotional issues are generally not based on misunderstandings that a fact or two will change.

    #33234

    About 20 years ago I joined a demonstration, organized by some local Catholic zealots, to protest stem cell research. My sign read “This could be the sign you are looking for”. They were so passionate about not allowing scientists to murder these “living” organisms. Did not matter to them if the cells were adult or embryonic because “life is life”. I explained to one of their ringleaders that my main concern was all the space these cells were using up. “I mean a mere 100 of them could take up almost an entire millimeter of space so what would happen if it all went unchecked?” I suggested the solution would need to be much more than a mere “ecumenical matter” but they asked me to leave. “OK, but I am taking my sign with me!”

    #33235

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Introducing facts and rationality into an emotional issue

    To pro-life people, it’s a “fact” that the foetus is a human being.  To pro-choice people, more accurately in my opinion, it’s a proto-human being, not yet a human being.  However, it has rights under the law, not to be killed in an assault.  It’s one big grey area, and the stakes are high.  Hence the emotions and disagreements.

    If something is pre-human, and not yet fully human, this doesn’t necessarily negate its rights.  Rights are given to all human beings, for being human.  That’s why Peter Singer’s tortuous, excluding definitions of “person” are such a load of crap.

    #33236

    Unseen
    Participant

    Introducing facts and rationality into an emotional issue

    To pro-life people, it’s a “fact” that the foetus is a human being. To pro-choice people, more accurately in my opinion, it’s a proto-human being, not yet a human being. However, it has rights under the law, not to be killed in an assault. It’s one big grey area, and the stakes are high. Hence the emotions and disagreements. If something is pre-human, and not yet fully human, this doesn’t necessarily negate its rights. Rights are given to all human beings, for being human. That’s why Peter Singer’s tortuous, excluding definitions of “person” are such a load of crap.

    It’s all definitions in the service of attitudes. Isn’t that obvious?

    #33239

    Ivy
    Participant

    Because people are stupid, selfish, and utterly incapable of living in a way that benefits others….and they will kill us all.

    or maybe that’s just the orange one’s sheep…

    #33240

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I don’t know, I think we have to assume that each side is well meaning, and start from there.  Everyone tends to have the same motivations, unless they have “dark traits” or some kind of hidden agenda.

    #33241

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Introducing facts and rationality into an emotional issue in order to create a rational world, but it’s futile.

    So, your side is “rational”, but the other side are stupid liars?  That’s also what they think of you.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.