Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:23 pm Doesn't that assume that any, "bun in the oven," is bread (to use your metaphor)?

As a irrational deist I believe the bun in the oven is bread even when it's just a cluster of rapidly dividin' bread cells.

Goin' solely by science, I'd have to say the bun is bread by the beginnin' of the second trimester and not before.


I'm questioning the meaning of, "human?" Is the "bun" human because it is the consequence of coitus? Is it human because the cells are are genetically human? Is it human whether it makes it to term or not?

Bein' an irrational deist, I think the meaning or definition of person is what we ought to focus on. What constitutes a person? Some folks think such a question has no factual answer. What do you think?


If the fetus is ectopic it is never going to reach term and if not removed it will kill the mother. Is that fetus a human being?

Goin' by science, after week 12, yeah, it's a person. It's also assumed the role of tumor. Mom has a decision to make.


One kind of molar pregnancy produces an organism that is genetically human but not viable because the fertilized egg was not fully mature. Another kind of molar pregnancy produces a non-viable organism with an extra set of chromosomes (all perfectly human) which cannot survive but can kill the mother. Are these buns human beings?

Are these deviations persons? I don't know. Mebbe. Probably. Again: Mom has a decision to make.


What is a parasitic twin? It is genetically identical to the host twin, but cannot survive on it's own if removed from the host twin, but the host may not survive if it isn't. Is a parasitic twin a human being? The argument that it isn't because it cannot survive on its own sounds suspiciously like the description of any fetus, which cannot survive on its own.

Which raises the question of all fetuses with cephalic disorders, such as anencephaly, which is a fetus without most of its head or brain, or no brain at all (like a parasitic twin). They are genetically human but can never gain consciousness, even if born.

Between 10 and 20 percent of all pregnancies involve one of these non-viable buns.

With these (ectopic, molar, parasitic, cephalic) we move from abortion as relief from inconvenience to abortion to save at least one life The first, in my irrationally morally realistic view is wrong; the second is a matter of soul-searchin' and hard choices.


So my question is what exactly identifies a mass of protoplasm as a human being? If murder is killing a human being, just exactly what a human being is must be specified, doesn't it?

As I say: I focus on what is a person?

Unlike some folks, I'll give you an answer...

As a deist (whacky, irrational, morally realistic, ought to be locked away): I believe personhood is when spirit is irrevocably coupled to substance (crazy, yeah?). This composite of spirit and substance (soul and flesh, information and matter) is a person.

Goin' only by science: a person arises from a particular and peculiar kind of biological complexity most clearly evidenced by human beings from the end of the end of the first trimester on.

We associate certain qualities or characteristics with personhood. A full listing would bore the forum, tax me, and isn't necessary for the conversation. We can sum personhood up in this way: I-ness (yeah, another whacky notion, like ownness [somebody get the white coat boys in here, Quirk done gone off the deep end!].

We can talk about I-ness if you want.
Thanks, Henry, but none of that is what I'm interested in. Unless I'm personally involved, abortion is one of the subjects I regard as nobodies' business but those involved in the actual case, just as I do about other's choice to use drugs or pursue self-destructive pleasures. My only question was about using the word, "murder."
I'm not discussing abortion, only the use of the word, "murder," to describe the termination of every and all pregnancies, which I regard as grossly dishonest.
The use of the emotionally loaded word, "murder," is meant to stimulate an emotional reaction, intentionally obfuscating clear reasoning about the issue, in the same way animal rights wacos call slaughtering animals, "murder."
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1349
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:57 pm What makes you a person?
What makes you a person?

You appeal to personhood as a factual basis for morality. And so far you've defined personhood as something like self-ownership, which clearly doesn't apply to a zygote. So I'm confused as to your position with regard to the abortion (killing) of a zygote.

I appreciate you don't want to answer my questions in the previous post. They're designed to expose fallacies.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

RC

Post by henry quirk »

Thanks, Henry, but none of that is what I'm interested in.

So: I wasted a bunch of time jibberin'.

Okay.


When I use murder I only refer to an unjustified killing. That you find it emotionally loaded is not my concern.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1349
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Henry

Is the distinction between justified and unjustified killing a matter of fact, or a matter of opinion, judgement or belief?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Pete

Post by henry quirk »

I appreciate you don't want to answer my questions in the previous post.

In my long ass, apparently unnecessary, response to RC upthread, you'll find your answers. Don't you read the thread?

I coulda replicated those answers for you but I don't wanna keep repeatin' myself. I've done enough of that just tryin' to get an actual answer from you.


I note: no attempt on your part to define you, as person.

Why?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:23 pm Henry

Is the distinction between justified and unjustified killing a matter of fact, or a matter of opinion, judgement or belief?
like I said just upthread...

A man belongs to himself. He has a inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property. His life, liberty, or property is only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of his life, liberty, or property.

Summed up: mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

As I say: I think a fact leads to a moral fact that in turns leads to practical applications.

Are we enterin' the land of beatin' a dead horse?

-----

goin' to work...back in a couple or three...play nice, you philosophers
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:15 pm When I use murder I only refer to an unjustified killing. That you find it emotionally loaded is not my concern.
It is your concern if you do it intentionally to deceive people. (I'm not accusing you of that, but it is definitely true of some,) and the word, "murder," is emotionally loaded, whether I find it so or not.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1349
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:29 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:23 pm Henry

Is the distinction between justified and unjustified killing a matter of fact, or a matter of opinion, judgement or belief?
like I said just upthread...

A man belongs to himself. He has a inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property. His life, liberty, or property is only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of his life, liberty, or property.

Summed up: mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

As I say: I think a fact leads to a moral fact that in turns leads to practical applications.

Are we enterin' the land of beatin' a dead horse?
But that doesn't answer my question: is the distinction between justified and unjustified killing a matter of fact or a matter of opinion?

If you think it's a matter of fact, because a man belongs to himself, how does self-ownership apply to a zygote?

And we've done the fact argument to death. A fact can't logically entail a moral assertion, which is why negating the moral assertion doesn't produce a logical contradiction.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: RC

Post by henry quirk »

"murder," is emotionally loaded, whether I find it so or not.

Not to me.
uwot
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: RC

Post by uwot »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:14 pm "murder," is emotionally loaded, whether I find it so or not.

Not to me.
Gotta say, it seems to me that the difference between 'kill' and 'murder' makes fuck all difference to the stiff. But to those of us still shuffling around his mortal coil, to kill another living being has no immediate emotional weight. Lotsa good reasons for killing someone. Murder? Well now, that's killing someone without any good excuse.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Pete

Post by henry quirk »

But that doesn't answer my question: is the distinction between justified and unjustified killing a matter of fact or a matter of opinion?

It does: a fact leads to a moral fact that in turns leads to practical applications.


If you think it's a matter of fact, because a man belongs to himself, how does self-ownership apply to a zygote?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:23 pmAs a deist (whacky, irrational, morally realistic, ought to be locked away): I believe personhood is when spirit is irrevocably coupled to substance (crazy, yeah?). This composite of spirit and substance (soul and flesh, information and matter) is a person.

Goin' only by science: a person arises from a particular and peculiar kind of biological complexity most clearly evidenced by human beings from the end of the first trimester on.
I believe the first, but -- understanding that's a religious viewpoint -- I grudgingly accept the second.

And, if that's not clear enough: every fertilized ovum is a potential person (it won't turn into an apple; it can only become a human being [or, a person] or fail (and die). You ought to leave it be (or, mebbe, help it). But, since you won't, you ought to at least recognize the science showing the 12 week old baby, while under-developed, possesses all the biological systems of any human.

Solely from a morally non-realistic position: if consensus over the long-haul (your morality) tells us we ought not kill a man simply cuz he inconveniences us, then we ought not kill a child simply cuz he inconveniences the woman whose actions put him in her womb.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

uwot

Post by henry quirk »

uwot wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:40 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:14 pm "murder," is emotionally loaded, whether I find it so or not.

Not to me.
Gotta say, it seems to me that the difference between 'kill' and 'murder' makes fuck all difference to the stiff. But to those of us still shuffling around his mortal coil, to kill another living being has no immediate emotional weight. Lotsa good reasons for killing someone. Murder? Well now, that's killing someone without any good excuse.
I disagree about killing a person havin' no emotional weight. Whether justified on not killin' a person is irrevocable, and shouodn't be taken lightly.

That's what I'm tryin' to communicate to RC: murder, as I use it, means the unjustified killing of another person. The act is a weighty one, irrevocable, emotionally charged; the word is just a placeholder. Substitute it with what you like.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Pete

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:56 pm Solely from a morally non-realistic position: if consensus over the long-haul (your morality) tells us we ought not kill a man simply cuz he inconveniences us, then we ought not kill a child simply cuz he inconveniences the woman whose actions put him in her womb.
If you get everybody in the whole world to agree to this and a woman still has an abortion, then what? Since it's, "murder," should she be burned at the stake, hanged, given the electric chair, given life in prison, forced to be sterilized, required to wear a giant "A" on her breast for the rest of her life, something else--or nothing?

I'd be interested in IC's answer to this question as well, if he sees it.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: uwot

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:01 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:40 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:14 pm "murder," is emotionally loaded, whether I find it so or not.

Not to me.
Gotta say, it seems to me that the difference between 'kill' and 'murder' makes fuck all difference to the stiff. But to those of us still shuffling around his mortal coil, to kill another living being has no immediate emotional weight. Lotsa good reasons for killing someone. Murder? Well now, that's killing someone without any good excuse.
I disagree about killing a person havin' no emotional weight. Whether justified on not killin' a person is irrevocable, and shouodn't be taken lightly.

That's what I'm tryin' to communicate to RC: murder, as I use it, means the unjustified killing of another person. The act is a weighty one, irrevocable, emotionally charged; the word is just a placeholder. Substitute it with what you like.
There are around 16,000 homocides (murders) in the United States each year. There are around 700,000 abortions a year in the United States. If one wants to know what their chances of being murdered in this country are it is about a .5% chance. If you add the abortion numbers to the homocide numbers (because you call abortions murder) the chance of being murdered suddenly becomes 4.3%, but it would include your being, "murdered by abortion." Somehow that seems unlikely.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Pete

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:21 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:56 pm Solely from a morally non-realistic position: if consensus over the long-haul (your morality) tells us we ought not kill a man simply cuz he inconveniences us, then we ought not kill a child simply cuz he inconveniences the woman whose actions put him in her womb.
If you get everybody in the whole world to agree to this and a woman still has an abortion, then what? Since it's, "murder," should she be burned at the stake, hanged, given the electric chair, given life in prison, forced to be sterilized, required to wear a giant "A" on her breast for the rest of her life, something else--or nothing?

I'd be interested in IC's answer to this question as well, if he sees it.
What happens today, in America, when a killing occurs: there's an investigation, an arrest, charges are levied, there's a trial.

Sentencing: depends on the circumstances of the killing (and how well the prosecution and defense present their cases).
Post Reply