Sunday School

Sunday School November 13th 2022

This topic contains 117 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 1 week, 6 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 118 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45634

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Strega,

    Murder by definition, is always wrong, morally and legally, but the right and wrong of homicide, per se, depends on what the homicide is.

    An act of self-defense against initiated force is perfectly morally right as well as legal in a free (or our present semi-free) society, as well as is owning the means of self-defense.

    A free society, by extension of the individual right of self-defense, has a right to defend itself against foreign aggression as well as counter-attack to stop the source of aggression, though how far this goes is subject to debate.

    The morality of suicide is debatable depending on the circumstances,but in a free society based on the premise that each individual sapient adult is self-owned, suicide is and should be always legal.

    These are three examples that come to mind. There ore other sure to come up.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: More AutoCorrect
    #45636

    Unseen
    Participant

    @Reg

    For me at least, your elements link is dead.

    #45637

    Unseen
    Participant

    was having a conversation with a Christian guy recently on the William Lane Craig Facebook page.  He was saying, if your morality isn’t objective, then how can you justify imposing it on other people?  I was saying, I don’t.  This was in the context of the recent overturning of Roe vs. Wade.  He said, how can you justify imposing your morality onto unborn children?  Which I admit, I couldn’t answer right off.

    Put simply, he’s right. Morality doesn’t work without morals (objective standards). But the fact is there are no such objective standards. Common beliefs give the appearance of being objective standards, but the fact is they vary from place to place. Even the most common examples, murder and incest, are clearly not universal. Murder is often excused and incest is practiced in various tribal cultures, where elders (male and female, typically uncles and aunts) provide teens with their first sexual experiences.

    So our morals are inculcated socially/societally. I don’t think there’s any way past that.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  Unseen.
    #45638

    Unseen
    Participant

    You’re right – it’s not a baby, below a certain age, it’s just a lump of stuff.  “Unborn child” or “unborn baby” is an emotionally loaded term designed to elicit undue alarm for a termination.

    So, to take an analogical example, to keep emotions and prejudices and wishful thinking out of it, a chick isn’t a baby chicken until it breaks its way out of the egg? Hmmm…

    That strikes me as a very odd theory. I think we need a different approach.

    #45640

    Unseen, Once again I cannot see a problem with the link.

    https://www.ehu.eus/en/web/campusa-magazine/-/supernova-tom-brodahurst-nature

     

     

    #45641

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    And according to Abrahamic legend, their God JHVH-1 punished Adam and Eve and, by inheritance all humanity afterwards, because Adam and Eve partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. How can the words of such a Nihilistic God be a valid guide for anything?

    I’ve never understood what the lesson of that story is supposed to be.  It just doesn’t seem to symbolise anything real.

    What I question is the whole premise that Theistic Morality is objective.

    I actually think it does satisfy the criteria for objective morality.  It’s external to the minds of human beings.  By contrast, non-theistic moral theory states that it can only exist in the minds of humans, and in some aspects, other species too.

    #45642

    Autumn
    Participant

    So where does our morality come from then?

    He said, how can you justify imposing your morality onto unborn children? Which I admit, I couldn’t answer right off.

    Setting aside the unborn child bit which has already discussed, what morality is imposed? The foetus isn’t required to adopt any moral position whatsoever. In terms of whether the foetus is going to be impacted by someone else’s moral decision, well that was always the case. Parents will make decisions which impact offspring in many situations where those offspring cannot decide for themselves or act autonomously.

    While most decisions are less immediately and significantly impactful than deciding if a pregnancy will be carried to term or not, decisions have to be made each with a consequence and/ or benefit to the foetus/ child. The decision to carry to term is virtually guaranteed to result in more pain and actual moral impositions than the decision to terminate if we want to get technical. That’s the nature of living. Condemning a being to live is rarely seen as a negative for good reason, but we can’t escape the fact that existing comes with greater moral impositions than not existing.

    #45643

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Morality doesn’t work without morals (objective standards). But the fact is there are no such objective standards. Common beliefs give the appearance of being objective standards, but the fact is they vary from place to place.

    But surely if we follow your logic, morality doesn’t work since it is not objective because there are no objective standards.  You seem to be implying, that morality has to be objective.  But what’s the appeal of objectivity?  Authority?  In what sense could that objectivity and authority exist, without a God?

    Why do people require that morality is objective?  If they are good people, they are ethical anyway, and if they are not good people, they will ignore ethics altogether.  It must be a philosophical or theological point.  It’s not true that ordinary people believe all their moral beliefs to be objective.

    The fact is, in my opinion, it is objective to some extent, in a philosophical, logical sense.  It has a consistent logical structure (formed from cooperation, interdependence, normativity) that is an actual part of human mind-external reality, in a similar way to mathematics. So this is a form of objectivity.  At least for interpersonal morality, its structure can’t be changed.  For group-level morality, the picture is more complicated, since there are some seemingly vast differences between the East and West.

    #45644

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Setting aside the unborn child bit which has already discussed, what morality is imposed?

    I think he meant, my moral belief that abortion is acceptable.

    In terms of whether the foetus is going to be impacted by someone else’s moral decision, well that was always the case. Parents will make decisions which impact offspring in many situations where those offspring cannot decide for themselves or act autonomously.

    Yes, but you’re talking about actual killing – life or death.  It doesn’t get much more serious than that for any organism.  It’s a matter of ethics from the point of view of the foetus, or embryo.  So if it’s capable of surviving outside the womb, that’s probably too late to terminate it – for example.  I’m sure most people would agree with that judgment.

    #45645

    Unseen
    Participant

    @Reg

    It now works for me as well. Go figure.

    #45646

    Autumn
    Participant

    Setting aside the unborn child bit which has already discussed, what morality is imposed?

    I think he meant, my moral belief that abortion is acceptable.

    I am aware, but it’s nonsense. The baby doesn’t have to adopt your moral position neither is it required to make a moral decision. As I stated, if all he means is that the foetus is impacted by your moral position, that was always the case where you were, hypothetically, in a position to make the decision regarding termination.

    In terms of whether the foetus is going to be impacted by someone else’s moral decision, well that was always the case. Parents will make decisions which impact offspring in many situations where those offspring cannot decide for themselves or act autonomously.

    Yes, but you’re talking about actual killing – life or death. It doesn’t get much more serious than that for any organism. It’s a matter of ethics from the point of view of the foetus, or embryo.

    The foetus doesn’t have an appreciable point of view. It certainly lacks the cognitive ability to have an ethical position on the matter. What I am saying is we aren’t imposing morality on the foetus. We are imposing consequences related to someone else’s moral stance which is what we were doing by default anyway. The foetus is an unwilling participant in the consequences of our moral and ethical views no. matter. what.

    So if it’s capable of surviving outside the womb, that’s probably too late to terminate it – for example. I’m sure most people would agree with that judgment.

    Not really. Even birth is a somewhat arbitrary line more meaningful to those of us who aren’t newborns than those who are. Death is the cessation of existence. It’s a loss of potential, but to the dead, it’s not a state of suffering or despair. Things like suffering a painful death, a fear of death, a fear of loss of loved ones, these are all tangible experiences and pains. Non-existence isn’t. Were someone to painlessly snuff me in my sleep without me being aware, I’m one of the few people who doesn’t suffer of those directly and indirectly involved. It’s others who have to live with the fear that it could happen to them. It’s others who will feel pain and sorrow because I’m gone. It’s the killer who has to deal with any moral or ethical ramifications, psychological impacts, social consequences (etc.).

    In that scenario, I die as the consequences of someone else’s moral (or lack of moral) considerations, but they aren’t imposing their morality on me. There isn’t a moral position or obligation that I take on from them. This is markedly different than coercion or indoctrination, let’s say, of examples where morality is imposed.

    #45647

    Strega
    Moderator

    @simon – why do you think late term abortions are carried out?  Do you think a woman gets to 7 or 8 months and then thinks “fuck it, I’ve changed my mind”?  Late term abortions are carried out because the baby is deformed to the degree it cannot survive, or the mothers life is massively at risk, or the baby has died and needs to be removed, or other heartbreaking reasons.
    Who exactly do you think needs to make this heartbreaking decision?  A woman with her doctor? Or a political party or rule-making committee?

    Laws are not required to regulate women’s healthcare. Late term abortions are for awful reasons. Keep your legislative nose out of things that have no business being legislated over.

    #45648

    Unseen
    Participant

    But surely if we follow your logic, morality doesn’t work since it is not objective because there are no objective standards.  You seem to be implying, that morality has to be objective.  But what’s the appeal of objectivity?  Authority?  In what sense could that objectivity and authority exist, without a God?

    Your unstated assumption is that “morality has to work.” The appeal of objectivity is that, if it truly existed, moral issues would have only one answer no matter what one’s point of view. I won’t explain the sense in which moral objectivity and authority (do) exist, since they don’t.

    Why do people require that morality is objective?  If they are good people, they are ethical anyway, and if they are not good people, they will ignore ethics altogether.  It must be a philosophical or theological point.  It’s not true that ordinary people believe all their moral beliefs to be objective.

    It is the supposed objectivity of moral precepts that raises so called moral acts above those based on mere belief or opinion. You say “It’s not true that ordinary people believe all their moral beliefs to be objective.” What is true that people often have to make moral decisions based only on their beliefs and operational values, but to the extent that they stand behind an action or belief as moral, it’s very hard to justify them as such without reference to something outside themselves as a standard. In other words, something objective.

    Understand, by something objective outside themselves, I mean something instrumental and practical, not something undeniable or cosmic. For example, people justify certain actions “Because the Bible says it is wrong to lie.” So, lying is wrong not as a universal truth, but as a justification for punishing or shunning a liar. However, believing it strongly fails to make it a fact.

    The fact is, in my opinion, it is objective to some extent, in a philosophical, logical sense.  It has a consistent logical structure (formed from cooperation, interdependence, normativity) that is an actual part of human mind-external reality, in a similar way to mathematics. So this is a form of objectivity.  At least for interpersonal morality, its structure can’t be changed.  For group-level morality, the picture is more complicated, since there are some seemingly vast differences between the East and West.

    “The fact is, in my opinion” is an oxymoron.

    I don’t think mathematics has anything to say about morality or systems of morality.

    I don’t see anything else  in that last paragraph that last paragraph anything other than your opinion, which you offer without proof.

    #45649

    Unseen
    Participant

    Who exactly do you think needs to make this heartbreaking decision?  A woman with her doctor? Or a political party or rule-making committee?

    Ironically, it was the GOP that objected to nationalized medicine by raising the specter of “death committees.” All’s fair in love and politics, I guess.

    And, BTW, death committees already exist by necessity when the delegation of harvested organs is to be decided, hopefully on a rational basis.

    #45650

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I don’t see the problem. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. And if you can’t raise the child properly in the US, be assured the pro-life crowd’s work is all done as far as the baby is concerned.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 118 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.