The Atheist Agora

Davis wrote:
It is very difficult to imagine how one could possibly create a coherent let alone effective moral system by combining the two.

But surely, both actions and consequences are important.  Consequences are what we have to live with, and actions are putting the conditions in place for consequences.

Ethics, considered qua ethics, should be about intentions, not actions or consequences. Actions can be undertaken for good or sinister reasons, and as to consequences, one has to wait and see, doesn’t one?

Utilitarianism and deontological ethics cannot be bridged or merged or compromised. They are two totally different systems. Taking away the absolutism of deontological ethics would make it an entirely new system, as with taking away the flexibility of utilitarianism. It would not be utilitarianism anymore, but something new. It is very difficult…[Read more]

Good one Unseen. I have never even considered this particular dilemma. If abortion wasn’t so wrapped up in politics I would immediately argue that a potential father should at least have right of knowledge and a chance to at least voice his thoughts about it. But after thinking about it the politics….maybe that particular right isn’t really practical.

I don’t have a strong desire to debate the topics about wife vs husband interests, but whether or not the state has a vital interest is more central to the general topic of abortion.

The quick and short answer to that is No; the state’s only interest should be in terms of defining terms and making law, while executing enforcement of those…[Read more]