Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 11:58 |
The T wrote:
Ww should be given a new smiley, one I would also frequently have to be shown: an arrow saying "This way to the libertarian thread". |
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 12:00 |
|
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 12:01 |
Aaaaanyway...
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 12:12 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you?
|
I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality. What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch. I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree. I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken.
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 12:24 |
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you?
|
I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality. What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch.
I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree.
I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken.
|
Just seems like you might give the same considerations to an almost human than you would to a dog even ignoring a rights viewpoint.
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 12:29 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you?
|
I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality. What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch.
I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree.
I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken.
|
Just seems like you might give the same considerations to an almost human than you would to a dog even ignoring a rights viewpoint.
|
Pretty true, which is why I've been harping on about not aborting after the point in which a fetus feels pain. I'm not sure if there's a scientific consensus about that, or if it has a specific trimester, or whatever. I just don't think all stages of life should be given equal consideration. I can't imagine a cluster of cells and think, "What a beautiful human life just beginning!" It just doesn't resonate with me like that. Apparently it does with a lot of people.
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 12:43 |
It doesn't with me either. I don't see an ultra sound and get filled with any sort of warm feeling. My feelings on abortion aren't driven by some emotional response to babies.
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 13:45 |
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you?
|
I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality. What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch.
I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree.
I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken.
|
Just seems like you might give the same considerations to an almost human than you would to a dog even ignoring a rights viewpoint.
|
Pretty true, which is why I've been harping on about not aborting after the point in which a fetus feels pain. I'm not sure if there's a scientific consensus about that, or if it has a specific trimester, or whatever. I just don't think all stages of life should be given equal consideration. I can't imagine a cluster of cells and think, "What a beautiful human life just beginning!" It just doesn't resonate with me like that. Apparently it does with a lot of people.
|
There certain people I don't think qualify as beautiful human life. Does that mean it's okay to kill them? Because I don't feel for them? There may be legitimate arguments for supporting abortion. But "the fetus does nothing for me" is hardly one of them.
|
|
|
himtroy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 20 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1601
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 13:58 |
Epignosis wrote:
If I own an airplane, and mid-flight a passenger becomes unwanted, may I then throw him out?
|
If your passenger is a chemical equation inside of somebody who doesn't think/feel then yes.
|
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance.
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 14:13 |
himtroy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
If I own an airplane, and mid-flight a passenger becomes unwanted, may I then throw him out?
|
If your passenger is a chemical equation inside of somebody who doesn't think/feel then yes. |
We're all just chemical equations. Everything's made of atoms. What makes one group of atoms more (or less) significant than another?
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 14:52 |
Deathrabbit wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you?
|
I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality. What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch.
I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree.
I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken.
|
Just seems like you might give the same considerations to an almost human than you would to a dog even ignoring a rights viewpoint.
|
Pretty true, which is why I've been harping on about not aborting after the point in which a fetus feels pain. I'm not sure if there's a scientific consensus about that, or if it has a specific trimester, or whatever. I just don't think all stages of life should be given equal consideration. I can't imagine a cluster of cells and think, "What a beautiful human life just beginning!" It just doesn't resonate with me like that. Apparently it does with a lot of people.
|
There certain people I don't think qualify as beautiful human life. Does that mean it's okay to kill them? Because I don't feel for them? There may be legitimate arguments for supporting abortion. But "the fetus does nothing for me" is hardly one of them.
|
I don't really know how many times I can restate the same thing, only to add one new little side note and have that picked out as my main argument before I give up....
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 15:10 |
^ I think Stonebeard is merely reiterating (similar to Equality) that he cannot understand why some people would source their opinion on abortion based on an emotional/aesthetic response. To infer from his post that he sanctions the killing of people he does not 'care' for is frankly preposterous.
Edited by ExittheLemming - November 04 2011 at 15:11
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20390
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 15:22 |
Pat, I don't know where your signature comes from, "Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned." but the French equivalent goes along this: Educatuion is what's left after you've forgotten everything you've learned Which is of course pretty close... ------------------ Foetus can't live on their own (this means without a mother's assistance or scientific/medical help), so they don't count as a living being >> it is simply not a viable form of life as it stands at that stage....
|
let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 15:23 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
^ I think Stonebeard is merely reiterating (similar to Equality) that he cannot understand why some people would source their opinion on abortion based on an emotional/aesthetic response. To infer from his post that he sanctions the killing of people he does not 'care' for is frankly preposterous.
|
I just trying to show the logical conclusion of such a line of thinking is all. I don't actually think stoney is a sociopath. You just gotta be careful how you justify your actions or you may open the door for situations and circumstances you never thought of. Read "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" sometime. It's a good read.
Edited by Deathrabbit - November 04 2011 at 15:26
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 15:46 |
Sean Trane wrote:
Pat, I don't know where your signature comes from,"Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned." but the French equivalent goes along this:Educatuion is what's left after you've forgotten everything you've learned Which is of course pretty close... ------------------ Foetus can't live on their own (this means without a mother's assistance or scientific/medical help), so they don't count as a living being >> it is simply not a viable form of life as it stands at that stage.... |
You can't live on your own. You're dependent on countless other living organisms for oxygen, water, and nutrition. I believe the quote is attributed to Twain. But academics seem to just attribute every saying originating roughly in the 19th century in America to Twain regardless a lack of evidence so who knows. I like the French version too. How is it said in French?
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - November 04 2011 at 15:46
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20390
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 15:56 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
Pat, I don't know where your signature comes from,"Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned." but the French equivalent goes along this:Educatuion is what's left after you've forgotten everything you've learned Which is of course pretty close... ------------------ Foetus can't live on their own (this means without a mother's assistance or scientific/medical help), so they don't count as a living being >> it is simply not a viable form of life as it stands at that stage.... |
You can't live on your own. You're dependent on countless other living organisms for oxygen, water, and nutrition.
I believe the quote is attributed to Twain. But academics seem to just attribute every saying originating roughly in the 19th century in America to Twain regardless a lack of evidence so who knows. I like the French version too. How is it said in French?
|
Yeah, if you wish (I know your taste for the last word in a debate, and since I'm in a good mood, I'll let you have it, this time!!! )... but let's face it, the foetus doesn't even know how or is incapable of surviving on its own for more than three seconds outisde its womb... this is why it's an integral part of the woman's body.... and therefore HER choice ---------------- l'éducation, c'est ce qu'il reste, quand on a oublié tout ce qu'on a appris....
Edited by Sean Trane - November 04 2011 at 16:01
|
let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 15:59 |
Sean Trane wrote:
Foetus can't live on their own (this means without a mother's assistance or scientific/medical help), so they don't count as a living being >> it is simply not a viable form of life as it stands at that stage. |
A baby can't survive without help during the first 6 months (At least), they need to fed, clothed,cleaned, etc. And I believe they are viable. Iván
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 16:18 |
Sean Trane wrote:
Yeah, if you wish (I know your taste for the last word in a debate, and since I'm in a good mood, I'll let you have it, this time!!! )... but let's face it, the foetus doesn't even know how or is incapable of surviving on its own for more than three seconds outisde its womb... this is why it's an integral part of the woman's body.... and therefore HER choice ---------------- l'éducation, c'est ce qu'il reste, quand on a oublié tout ce qu'on a appris.... |
I'm not trying to have the last word. I wouldn't even say I'm in this debate. I'm not really interested in it. I'm just throwing in things here and there. We're all dependent on things to survive on our own. The fetus is tied to one specific person. We're tied to a variety of other living organisms. I don't see much of a different down at the core. We're all a part of a much larger system. Thank you for the french.
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20390
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 16:23 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
Yeah, if you wish (I know your taste for the last word in a debate, and since I'm in a good mood, I'll let you have it, this time!!! )... but let's face it, the foetus doesn't even know how or is incapable of surviving on its own for more than three seconds outisde its womb... this is why it's an integral part of the woman's body.... and therefore HER choice ---------------- l'éducation, c'est ce qu'il reste, quand on a oublié tout ce qu'on a appris.... |
I'm not trying to have the last word. I wouldn't even say I'm in this debate. I'm not really interested in it. I'm just throwing in things here and there.
We're all dependent on things to survive on our own. The fetus is tied to one specific person. We're tied to a variety of other living organisms. I don't see much of a different down at the core. We're all a part of a much larger system.
Thank you for the french.
|
I was only kidding
|
let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 04 2011 at 16:31 |
Even better!
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|