Pro-Life Women Shift to Majority?

[Sabastian]

MfA,

Do you understand where I am comming from and what I am trying to say?

Dr. Ffreeze

The reason for the denial of the creed is a political one. For example if it was a ultra sound on a human it is simply a zygote. If it were on a cow as you stipulated it is obviously a cows zygote. But pro abortionists are not interested in discussing such things as it slants the debate quickly to the truth. Just as Althornin did by trying to limit the terms one can use to describe the pro abortionist lobby. They are not interested in free open debate it has to be on their terms or you don’t get any debate. How pathetic, it is as if I demanded that they refer to the pro-"choice" lobby as pro-abortionist or I won’t debate with them at all. Political correctness obscures the truth.

 

[MfA]

By gosh you are right, I had never realized ... now I can never cut my nails again, I used to think they were just finger nails but now I realise they are human finger nails. Oh the humanity.

I called it a zygote because up till that point humans were the only species present in the thread (mostly anyway). I dont call it a human being because "a being" to me suggests consciousness. I have no trouble with you attaching the species from which it originated to a clump of undifferentiated cells.

I made slight of Freeze's point because the googley oogley baby talk which we pin on kids prooves as much as the enlightening fact that the teacher probably would believe it was human if you told him that was what he was looking at (which was my point). Both sound like they are meaningfull insights on the surface.

Most teachers would use the simplification of a (fertilized) egg to describe a zygote BTW. Although you would have a damn hard time finding it on an ultrasound ...

Marco

PS. as I said before, it would be nice if people put their cards on the table ... to argue against prevention of implantation of zygotes is to argue against the birth control pill. If you really think the zygote constitutes a human being with all applicable human rights then you should be for a ban on the pill.

Do you? Or is your brand of moral absolutism easier to justify to yourself without looking at the consequences?

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

MfA,

"I made slight of Freeze's point"
- thankx =/


"PS. as I said before, it would be nice if people put their cards on the table ..."
- Sure sounds good to me.

"If you really think the zygote constitutes a human being with all applicable human rights"
- I said nothing about applicable human rights. I was thinking more along the like of the fact that a zygote was human, in the fact that was not a cow, tree, car, or other thing. Maybe I was thinking too literal, I just found it an interesting thought and thought that I would share it. /shrug

Respectfully,
Dr. Ffreeze

PS. Moral Absolutism: I like that MfA. I am a very black and white type of person. In my mind, in my world, I try and boil things down as much as possible to their root issues. I then judge them, right or wrong for my own use and understanding. I find that things are much easier to deal with once I come to my own conclusion if the "thing" is morally right or wrong. Coarse, that does not mean that I always do the right thing, or that I try to impose my values on others. It makes my world a much easier place to understand and live in however.

I don't care how much the RIAA is price fixing, it is not my music therefore it is wrong for me to download MP3s. =) The more I think about it, the more I wonder if more people had Moral Absolutism how much of a better world this would be. Too many people muddy the waters when trying to think if something is right or wrong. For example the RIAA MP3 thing. When I put that up for personal debate with myself to see if it is right or wrong, I don't care how many things the RIAA has down wrong. That has zero bearing to me about downloading MP3s. Anyway, sorry for the tangent. Would like to hear any comments as I find this an intriguing topic. I would guess you would have a different opinion on Moral Absolutism? =)

 

[V3]

MfA

I called it a zygote because up till that point humans were the only species present in the thread (mostly anyway). I dont call it a human being because "a being" to me suggests consciousness.

There you go. Consciousness, is in the line of philosophy argument. That's why its a grey area.

In fact the thing you call zygote doesn't sit idle, releasing a chemical from its cells (human chorionic gonadotrophin) that shuts down menstruation and begins the effects of pregnancy in the mother.

So from the moment of conception, consciousness to survive already begin.

 

[Sabastian]

By gosh you are right, I had never realized ... now I can never cut my nails again, used to think they were just finger nails but now I realise they are human finger nails. Oh the humanity.

I called it a zygote because up till that point humans were the only species present in the thread (mostly anyway). I dont call it a human being because "a being" to me suggests consciousness. I have no trouble with you attaching the species from which it originated to a clump of undifferentiated cells.

I made slight of Freeze's point because the googley oogley baby talk which we pin on kids prooves as much as the enlightening fact that the teacher probably would believe it was human if you told him that was what he was looking at (which was my point). Both sound like they are meaningfull insights on the surface.

heh, I wouldn't compare a developing human to finger nails. I didn't realize that consciousness was the de facto standard for being human. Ironically you have found a way to rationalize both abortion and euthanasia in one foul swoop.

Back on to the matter of it being a cows or a humans zygote. Simply looking at the zygote won’t tell you if it is human or not but how is that a measure if it is human zygote or not? At any rate thanks for admitting it is a human zygote. Your argument for consciousness is precarious at best sense we don’t know when the developing child achieves a sense of being.

Most teachers would use the simplification of a (fertilized) egg to describe a zygote BTW. Although you would have a damn hard time finding it on an ultrasound ...

Marco

We ought to be a bit more specific when talking about human development. While zygote is a scientific term used to describe a fertilized cell in wide variety of species it also makes humans an equivalent to them. Personally I don't support that notion and don't equate animals to human. Clinically speaking it is a zygote but we are not scientist discussing a wide variety of different species we are being considerably more specific so the label of a human zygote is appropriate in every way.

PS. as I said before, it would be nice if people put their cards on the table ... to argue against prevention of implantation of zygotes is to argue against the birth control pill. If you really think the zygote constitutes a human being with all applicable human rights then you should be for a ban on the pill.

Do you? Or is your brand of moral absolutism easier to justify to yourself without looking at the consequences?

Thanks for putting your cards on the table. As for the pill most commonly used to deter pregnancy it keeps the egg from being released from the ovaries. So in effect no fertilization occurs. As for the morning after abortion pill which is what I believe is what you are talking about I am not sure I support the idea. As I said before abortion is more and more deplorable the older I get. I can't get passed the fact that I too once was a fertilized egg. So were you. Amazing how something so trivial can become articulate enough to rationalize the disposal of life which is developing in the same manner that it came to be. All humans were once in such a stage of development.

I have said that I despise the act of abortion but never did claim a point at which the act of abortion is tolerable. I did however say that some would argue that we all come from such a point. If really pushed on the subject of when it is no longer tolerable I would have to say before the end of the first trimester no later then the 8-10 week period. But I attack the actions and choices that lead to pregnancy and the use of abortion at all. It is usually a result of irresponsibility. Further I think the current criteria for abortion is not appropriate. I have a problem with the notion that the child is not human until it leaves the womb. I detest the pro abortion movements self label of pro-choice because the label is not specific enough. Again, I think that abortion is a barbaric medical procedure and I think we ought to do everything to avoid this form of birth control and that would include encouraging people to not be promiscuous and take the act of sex more seriously then is currently promoted as a form of entertainment.

BTW are you absolutely sure that consciousness is the key to determining humanity? That little tid bit seems like your own brand of moral absolutism. Are you a moral relativist? If so then I would suggest that for someone whom believes that there is no right or wrong in the choices of humans or their actions that you ought to have a lot less to contribute to the discussion really. Otherwise it would indicate hypocrisy in that when you judge others as being moral absolutist it leaves you with little to say with regards or are you indulging in your own brand of moral relativism?

 

[TheMightyPuck]

Especially the ones made with wire hangers.

So, by the same logic we should legalize all forms of drugs, automatic weapons and explosive devices since the items found in their respected black markets are of much worse qualty than it would be if legal... good logic.

Hell, anything's of better quality than what's comming out of most people's kitchen meth labs, right?

We should certainly legalize drugs but that is another topic.

 

[Fred]

All elements in your body came from nuclear fusion in stars, that doesn't mean they are 'special' like people label life.

You say we were all once a fetus, I say well we have parts of us that was derived from non sentient food as well. Part of you was once a vegetable =)

One has to define when things achieve consciousness. Consciousness scientifically is correlated with the development of the brain, something which is clearly not happened at the very early stages.

So how about labeling human life when the cerebral cortex and the limbic systems is first identifiable?

 

[MfA]

heh, I wouldn't compare a developing human to finger nails. I didn't realize that consciousness was the de facto standard for being human. Ironically you have found a way to rationalize both abortion and euthanasia in one foul swoop.

I support self/pre-approved euthanasia and the (morning after) pil on both emotional and rational grounds. So that is not strange.

Back on to the matter of it being a cows or a humans zygote. Simply looking at the zygote won’t tell you if it is human or not but how is that a measure if it is human zygote or not? At any rate thanks for admitting it is a human zygote. Your argument for consciousness is precarious at best sense we don’t know when the developing child achieves a sense of being.

IMO it would require one to see consciousness as seperate of the body in this particular case (which for certain religions is of course not that far fetched, the soul taking the place of consciousness, which is why some religious groups do honestly want to ban the pil for the reasons mentioned below!).

As for the pill most commonly used to deter pregnancy it keeps the egg from being released from the ovaries. So in effect no fertilization occurs.

Well that is the primary effect yes, but it is not 100% succesfull and as a backup effect also prevents implantation to a certain extent.

BTW are you absolutely sure that consciousness is the key to determining humanity?

I didnt say that as such, Im not clear enough on the term humanity anyway. I just said I didnt consider the zygote a human being.

Are you a moral relativist?

Yes, but that only means I think my morals can be as logically and ethically sound to me as yours are to you. Doesnt mean I have no concept of right and wrong, or even that I think it is wrong to impose my sense of right and wrong on others in some cases.

I recognize that there can be no absolute right and wrong, it is all personal. Would make live a lot much easier if it wasnt, but what you gonna do (except find religion).

Marco

 

[Sabastian]

Yes, but that only means I think my morals can be as logically and ethically sound to me as yours are to you. Doesnt mean I have no concept of right and wrong, or even that I think it is wrong to impose my sense of right and wrong on others in some cases.

I recognize that there can be no absolute right and wrong, it is all personal. Would make live a lot much easier if it wasnt, but what you gonna do (except find religion).

Marco

Well Marco this about ends the debate doesn't it? But I think you are wrong on your faith in moral relativism and here is why.(As a side note you will take note that I use the word "faith" to discribe how you feel with regards to moral relativism as there are no objective truths that would ever supports such a notion, faith indeed, a kin to religious stature.) Moral relativism has been abandoned by next to the entirity of legitimate secular ethicists and logicians. Nevertheless it is still all the rage to advocate this thinking in many of our secularized intellectual establishments. It's thought to be more broadminded and more academically reputable than the traditional absolutist objective truth based arguments. However, moral relativism is incompatable with tolerance, in conflict with the prospect of moral correctness, and a rational disappointment. By asserting that there is no truth, people have become narrow minded to the chance of perceiving the truth. The idea that someones opinion is simply that and has absolutely no bearing on the objective truth of the matter. Nothing can be resolved and thus anyone that disputes anothers view as being objectionable is stonewalled as soon as it becomes a matter of opinion. Forget about any sort of advancement for mankind as it is all a matter of personal truth. Bla, what rubbish. Clearly my actions and beliefs have effect on my surroundings including the people I live with, work with and know. What would happen if one day I decided that I decided to murder, rape and rob all the people I know. Well first off I may rationalize it all using moral relativism as there is no absolute right or wrong. If they protest my actions and what I say then I may dismiss all of their protests to my truth. Let me say this it certainly would be absolutely morally wrong to do such things. This may be an exaggerated example but if I take moral relativism literally as some sort of truth then I am warranted in my actions no matter what the moral arguments to say the contrary are.

You see you contradict yourself by saying that you have a concept of right and wrong which are absolutists by their very nature, and then suggest that indeed there is no right or wrong. This certainly would cause some very incoherent thinking. Consider if I and everyone else share your sense of right and wrong with regards to a particular thing for the exact same reasons should we dismiss the possibility that indeed that shared idea is irrelevant. Further when you use moral relativism to shut down debate are you not forcing your ideals on others? It does not resolve any dispute but rather relegates the dispute to a never ending quarrel. Ironically should all end up believing that moral relativism is the truth of the matter it in itself becomes the undeniable absolute truth but this is perfect as moral relativism dismisses all absolutes, even itself. You see how absolutely illogical it really is or will it be insisted on for the rationalization of certain political agenda?

To propose that we would all get along better by that thinking is fallacy. Consider that we know that there are acts that are morally wrong and that some disposition traits are good no matter who does them, no matter which culture. Moral relativism denies these conclusions, and so is in conflict with our best, measured moral beliefs, and understandings. In actuality, our moral beliefs include the belief that some things should not to be tolerated murder, torture, abusing children etc. The tolerance of these things would be encouraging moral malevolence. If ethical relativism is true it rules out the possibility of honest persuasion by seeking to persuade someone of the reality or legitimacy of an argument by giving reasons and opinion, so that another person or group can come to see its truth on rational grounds and make an intellectual conclusion with regards to it. Surely a stifling effect is achieved but for what good? I believe that what it does best is proliferate ignorance. Thus to propose that this thinking will help everyone get along as it were is an error.

In my not so humble opinion moral relativism has a far more damaging potential then abortion. It is chaotic, illogical and incoherent in nature and is only best suited as a critical tool and a means of robbing society of moral standards. The distruction of current moral standards is the reason the left uses it almost exclusively.(replacing them with their own moral standards.) But what most people don't realize is that if you believe in this ideal then it also dismisses whatever you have to share as irrelevant as well. Funny enough it was a professor whom I first heard explain relativism it was not at that time I realized that this also says that everything he is saying is not absolutely right ether. Heh, I wonder if he has tripped over the illogic of relativism yet. I do believe that you have been deceived but don't feel bad, you aren't the only one.

Sorry for the off topic dialogue but whenever I run into a moral relativist I have more then a few things to talk about with them.

 

[horvendile]

Back from vacation!

I know this first thing is a bit outdated now, but, well.

Especially the ones made with wire hangers.

So, by the same logic we should legalize all forms of drugs, automatic weapons and explosive devices since the items found in their respected black markets are of much worse qualty than it would be if legal... good logic.

That would be your logic, not mine. I do not really think I need to explain why.

As for the discussion on moral relativism:

Much of the criticism against it seems to be based on reasoning along the lines "this can not be true, because the consequences would be bad". That is muddy reasoning. Much as you can't deduce an ought from an is, you can't deduce an is from an ought.

Furthermore, my experience (and I have devoted quite a lot of time to this) is that people generally don't think through what they mean when they say that moral facts exist or do not exist. To make a long argument short I think that there are no reasons to believe that moral facts exist independently of humanity. That would be like stating that in the universe there was, roughly from the beginning, some particles, some forces, some radiation, the law of gravitation (etc) and the rule "you shall not steal".
That no moral facts exist totally independently does not however mean that there are no moral facts, just that they depend on premises. One such premise could be that it is good to maximise happiness. Given that premise, loads of moral facts crop up. Another premise would be that the human rights as defined by the UN are good.
Since I am not sure that I make myself quite clear, I will try an analogy. Imagine a game of chess. Supposing that your goal is to win the game, in a given position there exists a move that is better than others. That we can consider a fact, but it is not a fact that would exist if chess was not invented; i.e. it has no totally independent existence. But it still exists, given the game of chess and our stated goal to win the game.

It strikes me that some may wonder if I have a point with what I am saying. I think I can summarize myself as:
There are no totally independent moral facts, but that does not obstruct us from employing morals that are at least as well-founded as the rest of the society.

(I'm at work and thus should produce some work, but if I am unclear on any point I shall gladly try to clarify myself (Or indeed discover that I'm wrong, should that be the case!).)

 

[MfA]

Moral relativism has been abandoned by next to the entirity of legitimate secular ethicists and logicians.

To admit something cant be reasoned about is a horror to philosophers and their ilk, mental masturbation is what they get payed for after all ...

If you dig deep enough moral arguements can only go in circles, in the end morals are just feelings ... some of which are shaped by nurture. But opinions and feelings can change too BTW. In fact really most of the arguementative side of the pro life movement is just for show, showing cute fetus shots is much more effective.

I am painfully aware that as far as things go moral relativism isnt all that helpfull ... I did not mean to give you the impression I was providing it as a solution to anything. I just happen to think it is the truth. I mostly wanted to show a nasty side effects of a fundamentalist pro life approach to the issue (ie. a ban on the pil). Not as a moral arguement, but as a shock factor (ie. the equivalent of the cute fetus shot).

Still, now you brought it up ...

Your arguements against moral relativism break down to two things (a little simplified obviously .

1. It sucks.

Granted ... but irrelevant.

2. Everyone agrees murder is bad.

The problem with the second arguement is that it always goes for the easy targets instead of homosexuality, sex out of wedlock, redistribution of wealth etc. (Oh almost forgot, prevention of implantation too of course The views on these topics havent just been changed in an abberation by a small group for a short time, the opinions have sea-sawed throughout history and cultures.

Yes some moral views are shared by all but anti-socials and sociopaths, ie. the overwhelming majority, but some arent.

The knowledge that morals are relative has no effect on your own morals BTW. You cannot consciously change what you feel, at least not that easily. If you kill your friends you will still think it is wrong, and I will still think it is wrong.

Consider if I and everyone else share your sense of right and wrong with regards to a particular thing for the exact same reasons should we dismiss the possibility that indeed that shared idea is irrelevant.

No, we should vote for the same party.

It does not resolve any dispute but rather relegates the dispute to a never ending quarrel.

Like it doesnt anyway, even among absolutists disagreement is the only absolute Human progression withstanding, that is one of the constants.

You see how absolutely illogical it really is or will it be insisted on for the rationalization of certain political agenda?

I wouldnt say illogical, more a-logical.

But what most people don't realize is that if you believe in this ideal then it also dismisses whatever you have to share as irrelevant as well.

Facts remain facts. Merely because you dont respect my opinion is a poor reason to not pick up any relevant facts and check them for yourself. I personally distrust libertarians as far as I can shoot them out of a very big cannon, but I still have found them quite informative on occasion.

Marco

PS. talking about philosophers and their ilk, I ran across this while looking for a picture of a monkey fetus (curiously near impossible to find). All that dribble and what is the conclusion ... the people with the strongest feelings, aka the loudest mouths, are right. Weeeeeee ....

 

[Sabastian]

To admit something cant be reasoned about is a horror to philosophers and their ilk, mental masturbation is what they get payed for after all ...

If you dig deep enough moral arguements can only go in circles, in the end morals are just feelings ... some of which are shaped by nurture. But opinions and feelings can change too BTW. In fact really most of the arguementative side of the pro life movement is just for show, showing cute fetus shots is much more effective.

I am painfully aware that as far as things go moral relativism isnt all that helpfull ... I did not mean to give you the impression I was providing it as a solution to anything. I just happen to think it is the truth. I mostly wanted to show a nasty side effects of a fundamentalist pro life approach to the issue (ie. a ban on the pil). Not as a moral arguement, but as a shock factor (ie. the equivalent of the cute fetus shot).

I find it interesting that we keep going back to bashing religious folk even though I have made no relation to any religious sect (except for the dogmatic religious nature of believing in moral relativism.) in any of my arguments, none. I think you are so used to debating with these people and that they are absolutely wrong in their moral convictions that you throw out reason when confronted by logical rational debate. Case in point is moral relativism. The posting of that picture was not to make you all mushy about how cute the 16 week old baby was but to show the humanity of it. You could not look at that picture and objectively say it is not human. It most certainly is.

Moral Relativism or faith in it removes your judgment of others beliefs and actions as something that could be good or bad, it is all about personal truth, right? Paradoxically you wanting to show the bad side of the fundamentalist pro life approach runs diametrically to your faith in moral relativism. Therefore you cannot say that they are wrong or "nasty" in their convictions only that they are different and somehow (illogically so) equivalent in their moral convictions as everyone else. Interestingly enough society and humanity thrived well for hundreds of thousands without such inventions as the pill so what makes you think that such a law would be reprehensible. Besides you not being able to make any sort of moral judgment on the matter for the better or worse because of your faith in moral relativism what objective truths would lead you to conclude that indeed a ban on the pill would be a bad thing to do?

You and everyone else that thinks rationally, know that moral relativism is not helpful because it denies truth. The fact of the matter is that you presented moral relativism in the debate in some way to discredit my arguments as being absolutist because of objective truth. BTW I do not take any sort of shame in admitting that I believe in the objective truth, science is based on it. While I think that moral relativism is trend / myth and those whom subscribe to it do so dogmatically even in the face of logic.

Still, now you brought it up ...

Your arguements against moral relativism break down to two things (a little simplified obviously .

1. It sucks.

Granted ... but irrelevant.

Interesting why do you think moral relativism sucks? It is not irrelavant, if this is the mechanism you use to determine your morals then we ought to pick at it.

2. Everyone agrees murder is bad.

The problem with the second arguement is that it always goes for the easy targets instead of homosexuality, sex out of wedlock, redistribution of wealth etc. (Oh almost forgot, prevention of implantation too of course The views on these topics havent just been changed in an abberation by a small group for a short time, the opinions have sea-sawed throughout history and cultures.

Yes some moral views are shared by all but anti-socials and sociopaths, ie. the overwhelming majority, but some arent.

The knowledge that morals are relative has no effect on your own morals BTW. You cannot consciously change what you feel, at least not that easily. If you kill your friends you will still think it is wrong, and I will still think it is wrong.

Why are some moral views shared and others not? Indeed sociopaths love moral relativism because it gives them licence to do what ever they like to whomever and dismiss anothers moral arguments with ease but that is only with the presumption that moral relativism is truth.( argh, I do not understand how you insist that moral relativism is the absolute truth when it dismisses itself as being the truth.)

If I were too actually believe that indeed morals are a relative thing then absolutely it will effect my morals. If I take the moral relativism literally that there are no right and wrong choices or actions then I may feel what ever I like about any actions or choices even if I do not know what the consequences of these are, which is what is happening on a massive scale. What if I do not think that killing my frend is wrong? Under the pretense of moral relativism it is not wrong or right but equal to the act of going over to have a decent conversation with them.

No, we should vote for the same party.

Well, I suppose that would depend on what they have for a platform. I hope you do not vote for a party simply because everyone else is voting for another.

Like it doesnt anyway, even among absolutists disagreement is the only absolute Human progression withstanding, that is one of the constants.

When absolutist disagree it is because they do so because the truth is in conflict not because there is none. However if you are a moral relativist the debate could never be concluded on the bases that there is no truth. Better a dead lock on competing moral values that are based on finding the truth of the matter then to suggest that there is no truth at all, except moral relativism of course.

I wouldnt say illogical, more a-logical.

Moral relativism is illogical. It dismisses itself in being an absolute moral truth.

Facts remain facts. Merely because you dont respect my opinion is a poor reason to not pick up any relevant facts and check them for yourself. I personally distrust libertarians as far as I can shoot them out of a very big cannon, but I still have found them quite informative on occasion.

Marco

What facts are you talking about? Moral relativism is not a truth, which is the primary tenent of relativism. Relativism kills facts, truth and science. What would be a good reason to respect anothers opinion if indeed moral relativism is the only absolute moral truth? (I find myself cringing when I say that BTW it defies all logic.)

You cannot criticize me you are a moral relativist.

 

[Fred]

The Vikings believed murder was appropriate, as warriors who died in combat went to Valhalla (heaven). Personally I don't like murder, as it messes up any idea of a peaceful society, but then again who am I to say that Valhalla doesn't in fact exist and that maybe they were right.

Moral absolutism is bunk, ethics are not something that can be 'proven' by any chain of logic, its just more circularity (unless there is an invisible deity out there who 'sets the law'). So I am in MFAs camp. Not a moral absolutist, not a moral relativist, more like an abject skeptic to the whole thing. One could say I was a pragmatist, some ethics are good for the benefit of our race, though they can change depending on the nature of our times.

 

[Sabastian]

The Vikings believed murder was appropriate, as warriors who died in combat went to Valhalla (heaven). Personally I don't like murder, as it messes up any idea of a peaceful society, but then again who am I to say that Valhalla doesn't in fact exist and that maybe they were right.

Which is a more logical factual tenant to work from, murder messing up a peaceful society or the possibility that Valhalla exist and murder is a good thing? You see moral relativism says that both are equivalent in value. The idea that all acts and morals are equal in value is ludicrous and they are prostrate in the face of truth no matter if you like the moral or not.

Moral absolutism is bunk, ethics are not something that can be 'proven' by any chain of logic, its just more circularity (unless there is an invisible deity out there who 'sets the law'). So I am in MFAs camp. Not a moral absolutist, not a moral relativist, more like an abject skeptic to the whole thing. One could say I was a pragmatist, some ethics are good for the benefit of our race, though they can change depending on the nature of our times.

If you are in MFAs "camp", as you put it, you are a moral relativist. If there is any truth in morality it discharges relativism as the fixed truth. You can not be neither a moral relativist nor an absolutist. Ether there is truth or there is not. Mystified, it seems, you grab out at certain truths when they appeal to you, otherwise you discard them, right? Not all actions and choices are equal in value undeniably there is good and bad choices and behavior. This alone debunks relativist arguments and provides a naturally forming hierarchy of morals and values without any deity. Again the bias here against religion shines through, I find this hard to believe coming from moral relativist.

Freedom of will gives us the responsibility to make our own choices. Some choices are not as good as others. Freedom of choice therefore increases the responsibility we face on a daily bases individually and collectively. I am of the mind that society ought to be naturally forming and individuals should have a shared set of common morals in order to have a thriving society, to argue for otherwise is to argue for disorder but that is what moral relativism does and is doing currently in society. What is worse is that it dogmatically denies any truth or even the possibility of it, despite that we know that there are truths in science that we can apply to our environment and they work absolutely.

Lets entertain the idea that moral relativism is true again for fun. Imagine all of my neighbors do and act accordingly the idea that there is no right and wrong doing whatever they feel is acceptable robbing one another when they are low on money, raping each others families, the odd murder, adultery and so on. It would not be morally reprehensible to do such things because all morality is equal under moral relativism. To suggest that depending on the time and place these would be ok or not is absolutely absurd. It never would be accepted ever in a decent and civil society. This implies that indeed there is absolute truth in morality and the canons of moral relativism are fundamentally flawed.

 

[MfA]

I find it interesting that we keep going back to bashing religious folk even though I have made no relation to any religious sect

Doubly curious, since I didnt either. Fundamentalism is not strictly a religious thing.

The posting of that picture was not to make you all mushy about how cute the 16 week old baby was but to show the humanity of it. You could not look at that picture and objectively say it is not human. It most certainly is.

I didnt say it wasnt effective, but there is nothing objective about that determination. It could after all be a monkey fetus for all I know ...

Moral Relativism or faith in it removes your judgment of others beliefs and actions as something that could be good or bad, it is all about personal truth, right?

Yeah, but mine is still better than yours

Paradoxically you wanting to show the bad side of the fundamentalist pro life approach runs diametrically to your faith in moral relativism. Therefore you cannot say that they are wrong or "nasty" in their convictions only that they are different and somehow (illogically so) equivalent in their moral convictions as everyone else.

Bad side is so relative, I wanted to show the side effects of a fundamentalist approach because people who have no strong views on the sanctity of fertilized eggs in the earliest stages of embryonal development will think twice before taking such a moral stand ... if that stand means they have to support a ban on the pil.

Besides you not being able to make any sort of moral judgment on the matter for the better or worse because of your faith in moral relativism what objective truths would lead you to conclude that indeed a ban on the pill would be a bad thing to do?

Ask a couple of women.

BTW I do not take any sort of shame in admitting that I believe in the objective truth, science is based on it.

That is only half of it, the other half is that absolute truth outside of math is unknowable (hell even in math truth can only be framed in regards to the axioms you picked yourself in some cases, so even there we run into the same problem).

Interesting why do you think moral relativism sucks? It is not irrelavant, if this is the mechanism you use to determine your morals then we ought to pick at it.

I believe in a predetermined universe too, and that free will is an illusion ... that sucks too, sucks even to such an extent I dont "let" it enter my normal frame of mind. Doesnt change the fact that I think it is true.

Truth doesnt have to be nice. When in doubt I could choose the nicer truth, but I dont have it in me ... Occam's razor cuts away that option for me.

Why are some moral views shared and others not?

Why are you asking me? From my point of view it is perfectly natural.

Indeed sociopaths love moral relativism because it gives them licence to do what ever they like to whomever and dismiss anothers moral arguments with ease but that is only with the presumption that moral relativism is truth.( argh, I do not understand how you insist that moral relativism is the absolute truth when it dismisses itself as being the truth.)

You ignored every single moral I mentioned for which no absolute shared view can be formulated. Now you bring up sociopaths ... do you mean that the human race as a whole is irrevociably sociopathic? As I said, the moral views on a lot of topics havent just changed ... they have oscillated, and there really is no indication that that is going to end.

Now moral relativism might not be very helpfull, but declaring the human race sociopathic is taking it a step too far even for me.

If I were too actually believe that indeed morals are a relative thing then absolutely it will effect my morals. If I take the moral relativism literally that there are no right and wrong choices or actions then I may feel what ever I like about any actions or choices even if I do not know what the consequences of these are, which is what is happening on a massive scale. What if I do not think that killing my frend is wrong? Under the pretense of moral relativism it is not wrong or right but equal to the act of going over to have a decent conversation with them.

Moral relativism does not preclude moral views, I dont know where you got that idea. You may feel whatever the hell you want as far as I am concerned, but as I said before it is not like you really have a conscious choice.

Like it doesnt anyway, even among absolutists disagreement is the only absolute Human progression withstanding, that is one of the constants.

When absolutist disagree it is because they do so because the truth is in conflict not because there is none. However if you are a moral relativist the debate could never be concluded on the bases that there is no truth.

Ultimately might gets right of way ... as true with modern democracy as when the village council were burning witches. Does this make democracy always right? Well not from my point of view, but hell ... I dont think anyone is going to make me supreme ruler, so it is the best way to decide things.

That is partly why I participate in threads like this. Mostly just for the hell of it, but also there is always the nagging want to sway a few sheep by exposing some facts they are probably not aware of ... to try to make democracy do what I think is right.

Better a dead lock on competing moral values that are based on finding the truth of the matter then to suggest that there is no truth at all, except moral relativism of course.

Now see, to me this is illogical. How can you acknowledge that a deadlock might occur in perpetuity and still maintain an absolute set of morals exist? To me this is just moral relativism with a detour ... with the caveat that to believe it to be true you have to declare all humans sociopaths (because while the true set of morals exist, they are obviously not sticking to them).

I wouldnt say illogical, more a-logical.

Moral relativism is illogical. It dismisses itself in being an absolute moral truth.

Moral relativism is a-moral, it says nothing about itself.

What facts are you talking about?

Well, you arent going to identify a zygote on an ultrasound for one.

Marco

 

[horvendile]

I still think that you aren't arguing about quite the same thing. But I've already indicated what I mean.

 

[Sabastian]

MFA, hypothetically speaking of course imagine society where it was common place to beat and sexually abuse children younger then ... 2, would this be acceptable? If your answer is yes then you are a moral relativist if not then you never were but that is a good thing. Indeed I could ask an incredible wide variety of similar questions and if you were to disagree for any reason at all you would disqualify your self as a moral relativist.

You have stripped yourself of the right to judge using the highly unqualified grounds of moral relativism. Usually what one finds after picking at a moral relativist for a bit is that they quickly show themselves to not actually be a moral relativist at all but simply another person with absolutist values hidden just under the skin.

Moral relativism is a farce. In actuality moral relativism says that anything goes as long as I believe it is ok. After all morals are simply a matter of socializations and humans really do not have the ability to objectively determine what is right or wrong, right? Me believing it is ok, whatever the matter, is all that is really required to rationalize any act or choice. If you think your morals are better then mine you are not a moral relativist.

 

[notAFanB]

Usually what one finds after picking at a moral relativist for a bit is that they quickly show themselves to not actually be a moral relativist at all but simply another person with absolutist values hidden just under the skin.

really? for awhile I'd think that that allows alteration of their maral framework in ligh tof more information/experience.

 

[Sabastian]

MFA, hypothetically speaking of course imagine society where it was common place to beat and sexually abuse children younger then ... 2, would this be acceptable?

simply put yes.

Thanks for that. We can see that indeed moral relativism is a sick mentality.

EDIT: heh, I would have edited it too. I even have it cashed still and saved a print screen of it.

 

[notAFanB]

MFA, hypothetically speaking of course imagine society where it was common place to beat and sexually abuse children younger then ... 2, would this be acceptable?

simply put yes.

Thanks for that. We can see that indeed moral relativism is a sick mentality.

EDIT: heh, I would have edited it too. I even have it cashed still and saved a print screen of it.

although to the point I felt it overly provocative.

ie flamebait.

EDIT:

no, thank you..

EDIT: heh, I would have edited it too. I even have it cashed still and saved a print screen of it.

er..why?

on second thoughts don't answer that.