iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 8:29 pm Again, though, my own point here focuses less on what one believes about abortion and more on how, existentially, what one believes is the embodiment of dasein rather than any "objective moral system" that can be derived using the tools of philosophy. Claiming rights here is one thing, establishing that the rights you claim are logically and epistemologically sound -- the soundest -- another thing altogether.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:57 am I really don't get the sense you're arguing against my position, since I actually agree with many of the points you make -- but in a general sense, not so much in relation to my proposed approach to objective Morality.
In a "general sense"? But my point here revolves precisely around the distinction I make between discussing the morality of abortion theoretically in an "ethical theory" forum, and taking whatever conclusions you come to here to a Planned Parenthood clinic where there is a confrontation between those who support a woman's right to choose and those who do not. Given all of the vast and varied sets of existential circumstances that can unfold pertaining to any one particular unwanted pregnancy.
That's why, above, I noted this:
This being posted in the "ethical theory" sub-forum, what is discussed and debated will probably not revolve around my own main interest here...connecting the dots between conclusions reached theoretically and the applicability of these "definitions and deductions" pertaining to actual moral conflicts out in the world of human interactions.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:16 pm
You agreed to explore this distinction with me in regard to abortion.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:30 am From my point of view, this is exactly what I did. I provided you with examples for various circumstances and explained how they can be approached on the basis of a morally objective model. Not in perfect detail, not nearly comprehensive, and not even very accurate -- but it was a start.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:11 pm In my view, you explained it as one might expect it to be explained in an "ethical theory" philosophy forum. The explanation that I am interested in however is one that would be noted to a woman confronting "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" that revolves around an unwanted pregnancy. Your "morally objective model" explained to those outside the abortion clinic where those on both sides of the issue are going at each other.
Exactly. That why I am curious as to what you would say to those for and against abortion at the Planned Parenthood clinc, or in a legislature considering laws pertaining to abortion or in a court about to rule on abortion legislation, such that you would enable them to grasp more clearly objective Morality as you encompass it theoretically here.Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:44 amI truly understand your argument; I understand that you're concerned with real-life circumstances, tragedies and states of affairs.
But the reason why any of these questions are "difficult" is because we're talking about people who have their own subjective interests and usually are only open to hearing whatever supports those interests.
That's what philosophers who pursue objective Morality in an "ethical theory" forum are eventually/ultimately faced with, right? Taking their definitions and deductions down out of the academic/scholastic clouds and introducing them to the actual existential realities embedded in the abortion conflagrations themselves.
Again and again: the pro-life folks insist that the problem "down here" is that the pro-choice folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace the "natural right" of the unborn to exist beyond the womb. And then the "pro-choice" folks insist that, on the contrary, the pro-life folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace a woman's "political right" to choose abortion in order to secure equality with men in a world where biologically only women can become pregnant.Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:57 am There is nothing that you can say or do to convince a person who has no intention of honestly considering your point of view. All you can do in such a case is to make yourself aware of this fact and dispel the illusion that you're obligated to respect their point of view.
The part where in regard to morality those on both sides are honestly able to make reasonable arguments given different sets of assumptions about the human condition pertaining to unwanted pregnancies.
Then the part where you do bring your own subjective assumptions about objective Morality down out of the theoretical clouds. But not here. There. Given the contexts I noted above.
Come on, in an actual human community it will rarely come down to the two individuals alone. Instead, others in the community will react to the conflict. To the murder if there is one. And out in the real world that will often revolve around how individual community members construe the morality of killing another. Why did John feel justified in killing Jim? Why did Jim believe it was unjustified?Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:57 am For example, if a serial killer intends to murder you, the morally correct conclusion is to understand that they do not have your interests in mind and as such you are under no obligation to respect their interests. It's not about whether killing is moral or immoral -- that's just noise. It's all about what right can legitimately be claimed. In this particular case, you can claim a right to self-defense.
Then the nature of the community itself. In a might makes right world if John can kill Jim [for whatever reason] that justifies it. In a right makes might world the community attempts to determine which side was morally justified in behaving as they did...John killing Jim, Jim killing John in self-defense.
And in a community that revolves around "democracy and the rule of law" courts of law are established to hear both sides and attempt to determine which man acted the most reasonably. And then for many, rationality and morality -- think Ayn Rand and Immanuel Kant -- are interchangeable.
Only Rand was an atheist and Kant embraced a "transcending font".
Right. Stop a thousand men and women at random in communities from coast to coast and ask them if "is abortion moral or immoral"? is meaningful to them.Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:57 am So it's not meaningful to ask: "is abortion moral or immoral"?
Then, from my own frame of mind, straight back up into the theoretical clouds you go:
Again, what I am interested in is you explaining it "to those for and against abortion at the Planned Parenthood clinc, or in a legislature considering laws pertaining to abortion or in a court about to rule on abortion legislation, such that you would enable them to grasp more clearly objective Morality as you encompass it theoretically here."Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:57 am This question can't be answered, because this would violate the is-ought-dichotomy. Rather, the question is under which circumstances a right to abortion can legitimately be claimed. This question can be answered by reference to the concrete circumstances (but without relying on subjective preferences). On this basis it's possible to create laws which are, in theory, sophisticated enough to respond to any circumstance in the morally precisely correct manner. I would be happy to explain this in more detail, but I gather this isn't what you're interested in.