"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I think you rely overmuch on intuition.

I'm not talking about intuition. Not at all. I'm talking about genuine encounter. That's quite different.

One has some power of regulation over one's intuitions. But when one meets someone in reality, then one's intuitions have no power. In fact, the reality of the One confronting you dispels whatever intuitions you may have.

Is this "reality" mystical or empirical knowledge?

God is an important idea , and moderns want and need to have God presented in explicit language or in poetic language but not in the ritualistic old time language game .

Perhaps. But as the great theologian Mick Jagger once intoned, "You can't always get what you want."

Men need meaning therefore we have no choice but to try to find our God.

Modern man may prefer a weak and neutral "god," a mere conceptual toy with which to play, or a pretty poem he can quote. Whether or not that's what he can have in reality is quite a different question.

Few men choose happy pills instead of truth.

There is no codified sacred law about abortion.' Thou shalt not murder' applies to both the pros and the cons regarding clinical abortion.

No, actually. It pretty clearly forbids murder.

It's not "Thou shalt not murder unless thou choosest so to do," it's "Thou shalt not..."

[/quote]

Again, Immanuel, you opt for the letter of the law instead of ordinary human kindness.

[henry quirk]

If I’m a libertarian free will (I am) and if cause and effect stands (it does), then there must be ‘something’ intrinsic to me that makes my defiance of cause and effect possible.

This ‘something’ must be supra-natural because anything wholly of nature is mired in cause and effect.

So, this supra-natural ‘something’ must come from somewhere or someone.

A conscious ‘Someone’ is more likely than an unconscious ‘somewhere’ because of the nature of this ‘something’ allowing me to consciously, with intent, bend and start and end and step neatly out of causal chains.

This ‘someone’ must be supra-natural (as the natural, it seems to me, can't beget that which defies it), has an interest in seeing libertarian agency manifested, but never – it seems – directly intervenes in the workings of Reality.

This is a pretty clean definition of ‘Prime Mover’, the deistic ‘clockmaker’, the Architect, Creator, Sustainer of Reality

The only ‘reason’ for Prime Mover to install libertarian free will in a finite, on-going organic event is because PM expects the organic event to be ‘free’, to be motivated toward self-direction which implies PM expects self-responsibility. Self-responsibility implies self-ownership (if you don’t own it, you aren’t responsible for it).

This self-ownership is intrinsic, extending from, gifted by, the source and Final Arbiter of ‘what is’. This self-possession is not dependent on shifting or shifty cultural norms or notions. It is ‘fact’. And it is moral fact because it is a true statement about the nature of the human individual and therefore how the human individual ought be treated (not as meat, but as person; not as resource, but as owner of resource; not as ‘object’ (an animal), but as ‘subject’ (an ‘I’).

I’m sure, for you, the above falls apart in a number of places (the first being ‘If I’m a libertarian free will (I am)’ cuz I can’t ‘prove’ it, I can only ‘know’ it), but it holds together well for me (so I’m stickin’ with it).

[Nick_A]

I C wrote

Modern man may prefer a weak and neutral "god," a mere conceptual toy with which to play, or a pretty poem he can quote. Whether or not that's what he can have in reality is quite a different question.

A very important point. To compensate for this tendency it was necessry to create the noble lie:

In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.

Christianity contains a number of noble and not so noble lies. When they are noble their purpose is to preserve the authenticity of the teaching. Then there is the not so noble self deception and taking advantage of the gullible.

What of the minority who sense the truth of Christianity and objective values? They are included in the secular attempt to rid the world of the religious influence and the help of grace.

Those who have yet to experience the help of grace cannot understand those who have had the experience so it is as natural to abort their ideas as lacking value as it is to abort a fetus declared lacking value. But there are those who respect these people considered odd by society. As much as they may be ridiculed by society I support them regardless of the growls it inspires.

"Pity them my children, they are far from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines" Meister Eckhart

[Peter Holmes]

If I’m a libertarian free will (I am) and if cause and effect stands (it does), then there must be ‘something’ intrinsic to me that makes my defiance of cause and effect possible.

This ‘something’ must be supra-natural because anything wholly of nature is mired in cause and effect.

So, this supra-natural ‘something’ must come from somewhere or someone.

A conscious ‘Someone’ is more likely than an unconscious ‘somewhere’ because of the nature of this ‘something’ allowing me to consciously, with intent, bend and start and end and step neatly out of causal chains.

This ‘someone’ must be supra-natural (as the natural, it seems to me, can't beget that which defies it), has an interest in seeing libertarian agency manifested, but never – it seems – directly intervenes in the workings of Reality.

This is a pretty clean definition of ‘Prime Mover’, the deistic ‘clockmaker’, the Architect, Creator, Sustainer of Reality

The only ‘reason’ for Prime Mover to install libertarian free will in a finite, on-going organic event is because PM expects the organic event to be ‘free’, to be motivated toward self-direction which implies PM expects self-responsibility. Self-responsibility implies self-ownership (if you don’t own it, you aren’t responsible for it).

This self-ownership is intrinsic, extending from, gifted by, the source and Final Arbiter of ‘what is’. This self-possession is not dependent on shifting or shifty cultural norms or notions. It is ‘fact’. And it is moral fact because it is a true statement about the nature of the human individual and therefore how the human individual ought be treated (not as meat, but as person; not as resource, but as owner of resource; not as ‘object’ (an animal), but as ‘subject’ (an ‘I’).

I’m sure, for you, the above falls apart in a number of places (the first being ‘If I’m a libertarian free will (I am)’ cuz I can’t ‘prove’ it, I can only ‘know’ it), but it holds together well for me (so I’m stickin’ with it).

Thanks for your explanation. If I understand it, you think 'self-ownership' or 'self-possession' is the (or an) essential element of human nature. You're right that I think your reasoning is flawed at every stage. But the moot point here is this:

'And it is moral fact because it is a true statement about the nature of the human individual and therefore how the human individual ought be treated (not as meat, but as person; not as resource, but as owner of resource; not as ‘object’ (an animal), but as ‘subject’ (an ‘I’).'

So: a human being is a subject, not an object, so it should be treated as such. Exactly there is the mistake: the shift from a fact to a moral opinion, where the one can never entail the other. And here 'opinion' means judgement or belief. The opinion is not a 'moral fact' - how ever much we want it to be.

Needless to say, I agree with your moral opinion, with reservations about the anthropocentrism. But that isn't the point.

[RCSaunders]

nd post_id=412415 time=1560364082 user_id=15443]

Instead, moral assertions express value-judgements, which are subjective.

A thing's value is determined by its relationship to some end, purpose, goal, or objective. If a thing supports, furthers, or favors some particular end or purpose it has a positive value, such as good or right. If thing undercuts, inhibits, negates some particular end or purpose it has a negative value, such as bad or wrong.

Since only human beings have ends, purposes, goals, or objectives, values only pertain to human choices and actions. While there is no metaphysical predetermined life goal any individual must choose, and historically human beings have chosen almost every possible objective to live for, one's own values will be determined by one's own personal objectives.

Whatever an individual chooses as their objective is relative and subjective only in the sense that one's goals must be individually chosen and one's values will be related to their objective. With regard to anyone's personal objectives, however, what will be a positive value and what will be a negative value is absolute, determined by the nature of reality, the nature of the physical world and one's own nature as a human being. One may choose anything as their personal objective or purpose, but cannot do just anything to achieve that objective or purpose.

I have some objections to the ethical views posted above.

... The claim that something only has value (moral worth) if it can be utilised (instrumentally) by an individual human being to further the achievement of some future objective/s or goal/s that nature of which he or she has decided, denies the notion of intrinsic value. ...

"Moral worth," is only one kind of possible value. "Important," is a value, "useful," is a value, "necessary," is a value, "good," is a value but none have any meaning unless that which a thing is important for, useful to, necessary for, or good for is specified, just as nothing can be just right, or inside, or above unless what a thing is right of, inside of, or above is specified. A thing that is not good or bad for anything to anyone has no value whatsoever.

Only human beings need values. Values are those principles that described the consequences of choices--those which will succeed and those which will fail. Only human beings must do all they do by conscious choice, which means they are responsible for what they do.

Ethical (or moral) values are a special class of values. Most values are not ethical values. They simply identify, for any end, purpose, goal, or objective, what will work or achieve the desired goal. If one is writing a program in a specific programming language it is good to conform to the syntax and structure of that language and bad to violate them if the objective is a program that will work. It is bad to fail to keep an automobile (and almost any other machine) lubricated if the objective is to keep the car running. Regularly changing the oil is good for the same reason. Regular and rigorously study of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax is good if one's objective is to learn a language, neglecting that study is bad.

What is the objective of moral values? What is it (a thing, an act, a belief, a thought) relative to which it is good or bad morally? If it is not the successful satisfying life of a human being, physically and psychologically, it would have to be some objective that was less than or even contrary to an individual's own successful satisfying life. The purpose of ethical principles is to identify how one must live if they choose to live successfully and happily in this world.

Certain animals can be used to explain the moral concept of intrinsic value.

You could have saved a lot time by saying at the outset that your views were influenced by that crackpot Vegan, Tom Regan. Regan, and those gullible enough to believe him, claims to know that animals have, "beliefs; desires; memory; feelings; self-consciousness; a [sic] emotional life; a sense of their own future." None of these things could be known, even if they were true (which they aren't) unless Regan can read animal's minds. No one can know the actual conscious experience of any other living thing, not even other human beings. Other human beings can at least describe what their experience is and in most cases can be believed, but one cannot know what another consciously experiences, or be certain other's descriptions are true. There is absolutely no way to know what any animals actual conscious experience is. We can conjecture what an animal's experience is based on their observed behavior, though we are prone to anthropomorphize that behavior. What is absolutely certain is that no animal has a sense of past or future. No animal says to itself, "gee, I really enjoyed last night's dinner," or, "I think I'll go visit the collie down the street tomorrow." No animal knows what last night, or tomorrow is. It lives in a perpetual now.

You say that: "...one's own values will be determined by one's own (choice of) personal objectives" and "one may choose anything as their personal or purpose" (telos). Therefore, you are suggesting that one is absolutely free to determine his/her own values in accordance with a pretty much infinite number of possible personal objectives/ goals/purposes. Right?

Right.

First of all, the idea that one's values are determined by their choice of future objective or goal is arse about. Very often the case is that one future-oriented, objectives and goals ( that which is in ones self-interest to achieve) are inculcated by external, environmental factors/agents. That is, values are mostly passed down from one generation to the next.
...
More generally, we "absorb" ( in an "osmotic" fashion) values from: the family we have; from the kind of society we live in; the schools/colleges we attended or the religious principles we were taught, if any, while we were growing up. We might subsequently come to "discover" these values, and then decide whether we want to accept or reject them, and actively seek alternative values for ourselves. It is extremely difficult, however, to create meaningful values for oneself out of "thin air", unless, of course, you happen to be a real-life Nietzschian Superman.

I did not say anything about how most people go about choosing their values. In fact I agree with you that most people do not consciously think for themselves and choose their values. That effort is too difficult for most people who choose to default on the responsibility to think for themselves and allow their teachers, peers, society, authorities, and feelings to make their choices for them, which is why most people's values are so corrupt and their lives such failures.

Sometimes, however values are innate, for example, mainstream psychologists agree that human babies can identify right from wrong even at the age of 6 months.

All of psychology is a pseudo-science and you can find some psychology quack to support almost any idea you like. (Neurology is a true science which many confuse with psychology.) Unless a 6-month old can explain how it knows the difference between right and wrong, it cannot have such knowledge. It is epistemologically impossible.

You argue in your post that : "What will be a positive value and what will be a negative value is ...determined by the nature of reality, the nature of the physical world and one's own nature as a human being.

As to the nature of absolute/ultimate reality, I have no idea what it is like. And if you're in the same boat, I think we'll put it to one side for now.

It is not, "knowing," what the nature of reality is that determines whether one's values will be correct or not, although not knowing makes right values impossible. Many people do understand aspects of reality yet have values in defiance of that knowledge. Most people know that it is not possible, in reality, to use or spend something and still have it--you cannot have your cake and eat it too; yet many people live as though their resources, financial, physical, emotional, psychological, and their time had no limits. Their values allow them to live as thought there were no consequences to their chosen actions.

If you have the wrong values for any reason which leads you to act in defiance of reality you suffer the consequences whether you "know" that reality or not. Ignorance is no excuse for wrong choices in this world. If you don't want to be a complete failure in life you better learn as much as possible about the real world as you can, and base your values on that.

Next, as to human nature as it exists in the "physical world" (here on Earth) we basically have no detailed or even remotely comprehensive knowledge either.

I have no idea who, "we," is, but it does not include me. I know that I am a living organism with a particular physical nature that determines what I can and cannot eat for food, that I need air, water, and nourishment, and in most environments shelter and clothing to survive. I know that I have a conscious mind and that everything I do as a human being I must consciously choose to do. I know that to choose effectively I must have knowledge and must use my reason to evaluate my choices to ensue I make the best ones possible. I also know a great deal about my physical nature and what is required to keep me well and healthy. Perhaps you and those you regard as part of your, "we," have no detail or remote comprehension of human nature, but if that so, it is because you have not made the effort to learn it.

Man is by nature ... a social animal) ...

Man is by nature a volitional individual. A human being may choose to interact with other human beings, when it is to the mutual benefit of all those interacting socially, but it is certainly not a requirement of human nature. Unless he is a fool, no human being will choose a social relationship with those who are a threat to themselves and what they value.

Liebermann is another pseudo-scientist. There is nothing in the human brain that determines how human beings think or choose. The human brain provides the material of consciousness from the neurological system, but it is consciousness (which is not physical) that makes human volition possible. It is human nature to choose what kind of being, within the limits of physical and psychological possibility, to be. Nothing, not evolution, not heredity, not one's genetics, not one's environment or economic status, and not his feelings, emotions, or desires determine what any individual is. Only an individual's own conscious choices determines what he is.

Finally, Dachshund, let me say I am not trying to convince you to agree with my view. I'm only trying to make my view perfectly clear for you, or anyone else, who might be interested in a different understanding than the one's everyone else accepts, perhaps as a starting point for thinking for themselves.

I've noticed that you reinforce most of your views by quoting others I assume you accept as authorities, and I do not think you came to your views by your own thinking. You use Aristotle at one point as an authority. Perhaps you are not aware that Aristotle wrote that women have fewer teeth than men, a mistake he could have easily corrected by asking Mrs. Aristotle to open her mouth so he could count her teeth.

Most of what we learn in life we learn from others, not by simply accepting what they teach, but examining what we are taught using our own reason to ensure what we are being taught is true, else what we believe is not knowledge, but credulity.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I get what you're sayin: that is, there are no moral facts, it's all opinion (well-founded or pulled directly from one's keister), so it's on us -- not to discover and understand (a nonexistent) natural law -- but to hold and act on opinions that are productive or beneficial to, presumably, the greatest number of folks possible.

Utilitarianism, consequentialism, yeah?

#

"Needless to say, I agree with your moral opinion, with reservations about the anthropocentrism."

Well, at least we aren't enemies: that's a good thing (cuz I got way too many enemies).

[Peter Holmes]

Yeah, I get what you're sayin: that is, there are no moral facts, it's all opinion (well-founded or pulled directly from one's keister), so it's on us -- not to discover and understand (a nonexistent) natural law -- but to hold and act on opinions that are productive or beneficial to, presumably, the greatest number of folks possible.

Utilitarianism, consequentialism, yeah?

#

"Needless to say, I agree with your moral opinion, with reservations about the anthropocentrism."

Well, at least we aren't enemies: that's a good thing (cuz I got way too many enemies).

Fair enough. I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts and therefore undeniable. It leads to inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on.

The problem with utilitarianism and consequentialism is that what actually is 'the greatest good for the greatest number', or 'a good consequence' is and can only ever be a subjective moral judgement - never a fact.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough. I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts and therefore undeniable.

Facts are deniable.

At one point, every living human being would have denied that the Earth revolves. One can deny facts: it's what one does with that that makes the difference.

It leads to inquisitions...

And apparently, Atheism kills more people than any other ideology, by orders of magnitude....well over 100 million in the last century, more than all other causes combined. So that hardly looks like a win.

The problem with utilitarianism and consequentialism is that what actually is 'the greatest good for the greatest number', or 'a good consequence' is and can only ever be a subjective moral judgement - never a fact

This is true.

And subjective moral judgments come with no duty, so people just follow or ignore them as they see fit. So that makes it necessary for the subjective morality to be enforced with nothing but power, rather than with reasons, evidence, facts or rational moral legitimacy. That's a chronic problem, because using nothing but power on people instead of appealing to rational conscience, is pretty much the dead opposite of moral, as John Locke pointed out.

[Skepdick]

And apparently, Atheism kills more people than any other ideology, by orders of magnitude....well over 100 million in the last century, more than all other causes combined. So that hardly looks like a win.

False dichotomy. Everything that isn't theism is not atheism.

[Dachshund]

"Your argument seems to be: people don't want to die, so killing people is morally wrong."

Well, if 'morality' is subjective, has no grounding in reality, is just consensus or is just majority-determined: then 'morality' literally is what the majority sez it is, yeah? If the majority choose to respect what seems to be the natural and normal desire of individuals to 'be', then killing folks will deemed 'wrong' or 'immoral'.

If that same majority, however, chooses to disregard the individual's desire to 'be': killing folks may be viewed neutrally, or even as beneficial; might be taken as 'moral'. Not seein' how such a community can survive, but people in masses are sometimes the worst kind of jackasses.

That's how it seems to me (but, I'm a moral objectivist lookin' in from outside, so I might be wrong in how hiw I assess these things).

Why does 'subjective' mean 'having no grounding in reality'? Isn't the social reality we all subjectively experience real? What a strange idea.

Subjective morality doesn't mean majoritarianism. Again, what a strange idea. Why should it? Why should what any people think is morally good necessarily be morally good?

You claim to be a moral objectivist, which I assume means you think there are moral facts or truths, independent of opinion. Please can you produce an example and show how it describes a feature of reality correctly, independent of opinion - which is what a fact does? If you can't - and I don't believe you can - then I don't understand why you think there are moral facts.

We can think there are moral facts because, first, our moral opinions matter deeply to us; and second, our moral opinions are usually universal - not restricted to place and time - if we think slavery is wrong, then we think it always was and will be wrong.

Dear Henry/Peter,



I'm a moral objectivist (moral realist) like Henry, and I think their are some serious contradictions in Peter's points of view on the subject. I will try to explain them in what follows.


As this is a thread dealing with the morality of abortion, let me introduce my defence of moral objectivism with the following opinion...


I think that if I were to raise the topic of abortion as a talking point at any dinner party in polite society where I was a guest, it would be regarded by all present as either very bad manners or concrete evidence of arrant stupidity.(Kind of like farting loudly in church during the vicar's sermon on prudence and self-restraint, only worse) The reason is that all normal, rational, civilised adults know for a fact that abortion is morally wrong - that it is a dark, diabolical and profoundly tragic business (literally). At the same time, they know that the abortion industry in their own country, the United States, is killing hundreds of thousands of unborn babies every year, and not uncommonly killing them in circumstances that would set the mind of even "Jack the Ripper" recoiling in horror. Thus, abortion is not merely a dreadful fiction, it is an all too real and shameful fact, and that is why in social situations like a dinner party or which are organised with the intention of having guests to enjoy a pleasant evening, the topic is taboo.


As a matter of fact, it seems to me that unless the morality of abortion is a topic that is being discussed by philosophy professors and their students in ethics courses at college, or, is being debated by members of the clergy or students of theology, or crops up as a topic for discussion on an internet forum thread like this one, where obviously, those who participate in the dialogue are happy debate the issues, it seems to me that the entire question of abortion is conscientiously avoided by the majority of members of the general public. Even the abortion industry itself, dares not speak it own name, referring to its abortion clinics by any number emollient and benign euphemisms including : "Planned Parenthood", "Centre for Women's' Reproductive Health", "Women's Fertility Clinic" and such like. But this is just the surface layer of the kind of subterfuge and chicanery these organisations are engaged in.


To give an example of what I mean, the ironically-named "Planned Parenthood" organisation, which , if memory serves is the largest of American abortion providers was exposed recently employing extremely devious/ deceptive/misleading "accounting" tactics to disguise the actual number of abortions it performed. It had claimed that abortions accounted for only 3% of the medical procedures it carried out. They had invented a devious system whereby any and all minor interactions with staff a woman seeking an abortion had were recorded. For example: arriving at the clinic, meeting a doctor, and requesting an abortion = 1 "occasion of service"; requesting some pain-killing paracetamol tablet for a headache = 1 "occasion of service"; the actual abortion procedure itself = 1 "occasion of service"; being written a prescription to have filled upon leaving the clinic after having an abortion = 1 "occasion of service" and so on. Fortunately "Planned Parenthood", were caught by an investigative journalist engaging in this obscene skulduggery and the truth that they were too afraid/ashamed to admit, namely, the fact that performing abortions is by far the largest part of their business (that, and selling aborted babies body parts: eyes, livers, intestines, and other tissue) has been revealed.


So why did "Planned Parenthood go to such lengths to cover up the reality of what they were doing? Why did they LIE (and let's face it, that's effectively what they were doing) to the public and the regulatory authorities? I'll tell you why; it was because they- the human vermin that work in these places - all knew for a concrete, cold FACT that what they were doing was MORALLY WRONG. They knew that it was an OBJECTIVE TRUTH that killing innocent human being is a profoundly IMMORAL (WICKED) thing to do. THAT'S WHY.Take a look at your wristwatch... every 90 seconds "Planned Parenthood" kills a baby - but "Planned Parenthood" is just one of the organisations currently operating in the US abortion market - so let's cut that 90 seconds down to 60 seconds. How do you feel about that?


INTUITION and THE MORAL EPISTEMOLOGY OF ABORTION


To begin with, In an earlier post on this thread I argued that from the moment a human male sperm cell fertilises a human female ovum a unique individual living human being exists. If you wish to dispute this, then the mainstream Western scientific establishment will tell you that you are simply wrong, and a mountain of empirical evidence has been collected to prove for a objective, scientific FACT that you are wrong. You might as well argue that the Earth is flat or that the Periodic Table is a hoax. They will tell you that this entire debate is concluded, - that it ended years ago, - and if you wish to enlighten yourself on the issue you should get off your butt and start reading the relevant literature. Secondly, In that same earlier post, I argued, from an ontological perspective that from the moment of fertilisation, not only does a living member of the species homo sapiens exist, but that this biological organism also has genuine moral status as a person. I am not going to set out the later argument again here, if you wish to read it, or read it again, you can find it on p.30 of this thread.


Killing a living, human person in utero is called abortion. It does not matter at what stage of its development ( fertilised ovum,zygote, morula, embryo, foetus, etc) the living human person is killed in utero, killing it - terminating its life is morally wrong. (And) If you find it difficult to understand why a fertilised egg is a living human BEING/ PERSON, then for now, let's proceed by considering the case of aborting a second trimester foetus instead. If you are willing, I would like you - when it's convenient - to concentrate on imagining that you present in an abortion clinic observing this procedure being carried out up close. It is a surgical procedure, BTW and involves the use of instruments like forceps, surgical pliers, scissors and other hardware.(And, BTW, if you think 2nd trimester abortions are rare, think again) Try to envisage everything in detail in your mind's eye: the mother the abortionist, the medical instruments, the surgical theatre and so on. The exercise should take, say, 10 minutes... (?)


OK, I'll continue now, and presume that you have completed the mental exercise above.


If, you are a normal rational/reasonable adult, then in the process of imagining the abortion procedure you would have immediately and directly know that what you were "seeing" was WRONG, and also that the fact it was wrong was the TRUTH. The way you came to know this is through intuition. The kind of intuition I am talking about is described in the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy as...


"Immediate, (pre-logical/rational and pre-verbal) knowledge of the truth of a proposition, where "immediate" means "not preceded by inference."



Thomas Aquinas, the medieval philosopher and theologian (1225-1274) was also referring to the kind of intuition I am speaking about when he wrote...


[i]"A truth can come to mind in two ways, namely, as known in itself, and as known through another. What is known in itself is like a principle, and is perceived immediately by the mind... it is a firm and easy quality of mind which sees into principles."

[/i]
Intuited knowledge is a priori knowledge that one has prior to sense experience; it emerges from the unconscious and is pre-logical and pre-verbal. The statement abortion is (morally) wrong is an intuitional truth, it requires no defence - no justification of the steps that brought one to this knowledge. The reason is that this truth is not the kind of truth that is a result of reasoning step-wise to a conclusion. It is an obvious truth that no normal, rational person would deny.


INTUITION IS THE FOUNDATION OF MORAL EPISTEMOLOGY


Intuition is the basis of moral knowledge because if we were unable to know some facts about morality unless we knew why we knew them - that is, if we didn't have some things in place to begin with - then we couldn't know anything at all. We couldn't even start the task of discovery. Intuition is the foundation from which we start to know everything. As C.S. Lewis wrote:


[i]"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved."
[/i]

Aristotle put the same insight this way...


"Some, indeed, demand to have the law proved, but this is because they lack education; for it shows lack of education not to know of what we should require proof, and of what we should not. For it is quite impossible that everything should have a proof, the process would go on to infinity, so there would be no proof."


In other words, if it's always necessary to give a justification for everything we know, then knowledge would be impossible, because we could never answer an infinite series of questions. It is clear though, that we do know some things (e.g; "Thou shalt not kill) without having to go through the regress.


The intuitional moral knowledge, "Thou Shalt not Kill" (or in the case of abortion, "Thou Shalt not Kill the Unborn") can't be "proved" because, on this level of intuition no further analysis is possible. Certain moral rules like these and ,for example, rape is (morally) wrong or cruelty is (morally) wrong, are not conclusions that we reach, they are premises that we begin with. All moral knowledge must start with foundational concepts that can only be known by intuition. These are the kind of truths that any reasonable, normal rational person understands. So when I say that abortion,- because it is murder of the innocent is morally wrong - I do not carry the burden of proof, because this is a clear-cut example of moral truth; and anyone who fails to see this is a morally handicapped human being.


Kindest Regards


Dachshund WOOF, WOOF !!

[Peter Holmes]

Dachsund

Your essay is nothing more than an extended explanation of why you think abortion is morally wrong.

Your appeal to intuition is the standard dodge in defense of opinions with no other justification.

Your appeal to the human personhood of the foetus does nothing to justify the claim that the immorality of abortion is a fact. We kill human beings in some circumstances, even innocents - for many people, with a clear moral conscience. Civilian 'collateral damage' in war is an example.

In my moral opinion, your belief that woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is grossly immoral. But I'm not conceited or arrogant enough to think that my opinion is a fact, let alone a fact that 'everyone knows intuitively'.

[henry quirk]

"I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts and therefore undeniable. It leads to inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on."

Yeah, unless you take my route, adhere to my notion of natural rights, in which case "inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on" are all clear violations of an individual's right to life, liberty, and property.

-----

"The problem with utilitarianism and consequentialism is that what actually is 'the greatest good for the greatest number', or 'a good consequence' is and can only ever be a subjective moral judgement - never a fact."

Indeed. And such utilitarian thinkin' can lead to the insanity of "inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on."

##

Mannie,

You're right, but I do see Pete's point. If moral facts are subtle things (not blunt like 'fire burns') then the consequence of denyin' them is not always apparent. If I deny 'fire burns', I'm gonna get burned. My error will be shown to be obvious. But if I kill unborn children, and live in a time and place where such a thing is permissible (or encouraged), the consequences of my error may not be apparent. I may have to wait till Valhalla for my comeuppance. It's this 'subtly' that can lead one to say moral facts have no grounding in the way the world works.

##

Dachshund,

If natural laws/rights exist, are fundamental to what 'is', then -- yeah -- intuition is a valid means of 'knowing' these precepts. Unfortunately intuition isn't error-proof, it can lead one down dead ends, which -- on the face of it -- kinda feeds into Pete's points.

I don't agree with Pete that "intuition is the standard dodge in defense of opinions with no other justification" but I see how he got to that place.

[Dachshund]

"I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts and therefore undeniable. It leads to inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on."


Dachshund,

If natural laws/rights exist, are fundamental to what 'is', then -- yeah -- intuition is a valid means of 'knowing' these precepts. Unfortunately intuition isn't error-proof, it can lead one down dead ends, which -- on the face of it -- kinda feeds into Pete's points.

I don't agree with Pete that "intuition is the standard dodge in defense of opinions with no other justification" but I see how he got to that place.

Henry,


Yes, I agree, the epistemological deliverances of moral intuition are not always "correct". They ARE generally reliable in the case of normal, reasonable, rational adults, however, some individuals are , as I made clear, "morally handicapped". This can be due to a variety different reasons, for example, persons suffering from: the presence of organic brain damage or certain psychiatric disorders (e,g. severe delusional disorders, psychopathy, psychotic conditions like chronic schizophrenia, narcissistic/borderline personality disorders, sexual sadism, sado-masochism or acute intoxication with some addictive psychoactive drug) may well experience moral intuitions that are aberrant. For such individuals, witnessing a gruesome murder, or, say, the cruel torture of a defenceless animal like a dog or horse may, not spark a direct, immediate intuitive knowledge of that which is indubitably morally wrong. The capacity for sound moral reasoning is grounded in normal moral intuition, and where the later is dysfunctional in an individual, he or she may well perpetrate all sorts of moral outrages from serial rape to serial murder, violent child abuse, the kidnapping and torture/mutilation of innocent persons, extreme gratuitous cruelty to animals. Where a court establishes that such individuals do not know right from wrong, they are judged criminally insane and incarcerated in institutions like the notorious Broadmoor Asylum in the UK; though sometimes, especially in the US, they are simply handed the death sentence and incarcerated on death row to await execution by the state. Ted Bundy was one such example.


You are correct as well in noting that Peter does not, it would seem, understand the difference between intuitive knowledge and opinion. Briefly, "opinion" is a lower grade of knowledge that concerns the world of perceived sensory experience. Intuition, by contrast is immediate and direct (it is like sticking your finger in an electric socket) arises from the subconscious, it is pre-logical/rational and pre-verbal. It is the highest (strongest and most lucid) class of knowledge and concerns the realm of intellect. Plato called it noesis and placed it at the pinnacle of all the different categories of knowledge.


Regards


Dachshund

[Peter Holmes]

Dachsund

You wrote this:

'You are correct as well in noting that Peter does not, it would seem, understand the difference between intuitive knowledge and opinion. Briefly, "opinion" is a lower grade of knowledge that concerns the world of perceived sensory experience. Intuition, by contrast is immediate and direct (it is like sticking your finger in an electric socket) arises from the subconscious, it is pre-logical/rational and pre-verbal. It is the highest (strongest and most lucid) class of knowledge and concerns the realm of intellect. Plato called it noesis and placed it at the pinnacle of all the different categories of knowledge.'

Your confidence in knowing what knowledge is, and what the different kinds of knowledge actually are, is remarkable. And reference to Plato sums it up: metaphysical delusion that abstract nouns are the names of things of some kind that we can describe - assuming they exist.

Opinion is not 'a lower grade of knowledge' - or, rather, that's not how we use the word. We use it in a way that's similar to the way use 'judgement' and 'belief' - to distinguish opinions from facts, which are independent of judgement and belief. And anyway, if opinion is, as you claim, concerned with 'perceived sensory experience', then an electric shock surely qualifies - so your characterisation of intuition fails to distinguish it from opinion.

But the main point is that, there's no way to distinguish between conflicting deliverances of intuition (instinctive 'understanding'?), unless we investigate the facts of the matter - how reality really is. And it may be true that many people experience an instinctive, reactive revulsion to certain behaviour, but that doesn't entail the conclusion that such behaviour is (factually) immoral. Moral rightness and wrongness are not features of reality, so there can be no 'facts of the matter'. It's judgements, beliefs or opinions all the way down - so whether they're intuitive or not is irrelevant.

If you disagree, please focus on one moral claim - one example of what you think is a moral fact - and show why it describes a feature of reality correctly, independent of judgement, belief or opinion, without begging the question, and without appealing to intuition - which also begs the question. (To say 'X is wrong because we intuitively know it's wrong' gets us nowhere.)

[Peter Holmes]

Dachsund

I let go something you wrote earlier - but here it is:

'So why did "Planned Parenthood go to such lengths to cover up the reality of what they were doing? Why did they LIE (and let's face it, that's effectively what they were doing) to the public and the regulatory authorities? I'll tell you why; it was because they- the human vermin that work in these places - all knew for a concrete, cold FACT that what they were doing was MORALLY WRONG.'

Does the phrase 'human vermin' ring any bells for you? Does the language of fascist antisemitism spring to mind? And what must we do with vermin - exterminate it, of course. It's obvious. And while we're at it - homosexuals are human vermin too - everyone knows that - 'intuitively' - so let's exterminate them too.

You probably don't think of yourself as an immoral monster. But then, neither did the Nazis, or the ordinary 'decent' people poisoned by their ideology and rhetoric. Talk of 'human vermin' is a moral obscenity, and if you stand by it, I think you should fuck off back under the stone from whence you crawled. But that's just my moral opinion.