Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debate Proposal For Starlight: Infantcide

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Consider this conversation:

    A: "I believe murder is morally wrong."
    B: "Are you a neurosurgeon? What's your understanding of the details of the process of brain death?"
    A: "I have no clue, and it's irrelevant. I believe murder to be morally wrong for philosophical reasons. The details of the current science on brain death do not interest me."
    B: "What an ignorant person having opinions on a topic you know nothing about."
    A: ~rolls eyes at how much B is missing the point~

    A is me in this discussion.
    Right.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
      We can pretty easily identify kind and seek to preserve all humans as being of the same kind. Brain development isn't a relevant factor.
      Consider if we were to encounter an alien space-fearing species in future. I would believe that to murder one of them would be as morally wrong as killing another human, since they were intelligent entities. Your reasoning would seem to lead down the path of "do to them whatever you like, they ain't human".
      Last edited by Starlight; 06-15-2016, 11:58 PM.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Are these things normal in modern day New Zealand?
        I am unable to find any survey results regarding what New Zealanders believe about abortion. It is not a topic that gets much, or even any, political or social discussion here. However it is my personal belief that if you asked people a survey question about to what extent they agreed with a statement like:
        "I think abortion should continue to be legal in New Zealand. I haven't thought much about, and/or have no strong opinion on, the maximum age of the fetus allowable for abortion purposes."
        then I suspect you would get a majority of the country agreeing with that statement. i.e. most people don't have a view other than that they're fine with the current law.

        Similarly if you quizzed people on a premise like:
        "I think that the more intelligent animal species should be granted more rights and protections than the less intelligent animal species."
        again, I believe you would get majority agreement.

        Once the premise is granted that the intelligence level of the animal affects what rights it has and how it should be treated, and once the premise that human abortion of the fetus is generally fine is granted, then the general conclusions of my view are pretty hard to logically avoid. Thus, a couple of my friends, both of whom are unusually thoughtful and philosophical guys, who have actually sat down and thought hard about the matter both independently reached the conclusion that infanticide could be morally justifiable, and they happened to mention it to me independently because they know I like philosophy and that I am always interested in hearing an interesting argument, and I ended up being convinced by their logic. Various international philosophers such as Peter Singer etc seem to agree.

        This gives me every reason to believe that a large number of other people in my country have likely also reached the same conclusion, or would do so were they to think through the same logic.
        Last edited by Starlight; 06-16-2016, 12:00 AM.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          Consider if we were to encounter an alien space-fearing species in future. I would believe that to murder one of them would be as morally wrong as killing another human, since they were intelligent entities. Your reasoning would seem to lead down the path of "do to them whatever you like, they ain't human".
          There's a lot more to it than that, but it's close enough for now. But so what? I've encountered exactly one coherent account for how non-human animals can factor into human morality, and I'm not yet convinced that it's actually coherent.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #20
            I think a crucial moral premise here on which people are holding differing opinions is how they justify treating animals morally differently to humans.

            Christianity supplies 3 main options for that premise:
            1) Because God says so - in Genesis, God puts mankind in charge of the animals on the earth.
            2) The Image of God - Humans are made in the "image of God" (whatever that is perceived to be) and so are different to the animals who aren't.
            3) An immortal soul - Humans live on after death, while animals don't. Hence the morality of actions toward them are different.

            Christians can endorse any or all of those as a moral justification for treating animals by a completely different standard to how they treat humans. Thus a conscious human fetus can be vastly more important to them than a dolphin, because the fetus is human and the dolphin isn't.

            Atheists don't have those options. The two main options seemingly available to atheists (and Christians too if they want them) are:
            A) In Group vs Out Group - Our moral obligations to beings who are similar to us are significantly greater than our moral obligations to beings that are different than us.
            B) Higher mental functions - Morality relates not merely to the very basic mental function of consciousness, but instead there is a continuum where additional higher brain functions being present imply greater moral personhood.

            Studies have shown that conservatives in general tend to quite like (A) and liberals in general tend to dislike it. It gives us an obvious reason to treat animals differently - they're not like us, and treat humans well because they're like us. But it equally means that people of other races and cultures who "aren't like us" can be treated badly, and people who live in other countries, who have other religious beliefs, or anyone in general who ain't like us, can be legitimately be treated worse than someone who is like us. Premise A, in other words, is the Donald Trump Premise. It lets us be racist and xenophobic, and even goes almost as far as mandating that we have to be those things in order to be moral.

            Liberals, as everyone may have observed, are not fans of the Donald Trump Premise. As a result, secular liberals basically have to opt for premise (B) (or come up with something I've never seen or thought of). And they generally do. Premise B is widely accepted, in some form or another. To given an example, The Thinker, who sometimes posts here, has an essay explaining his views of secular objective morality, and he explains his version of (B) as "since human beings have the greatest cognitive faculties concerning consciousness, emotion, reason, empathy and compassion that we are aware of, the greatest ethical considerations should be with the treatment of human beings. And from this, through scientific inquiry we can learn to the best of our ability [the level of mental function] in all other living things and categorize the ethical treatment of animals, fish and insects accordingly." Or, as he phrases it in another post "there is a very striking difference between someone who's lived and has been conscious and was able to contemplate life, have dreams, have thoughts of love and happiness, and someone who's never consciously experienced any of those things, at all, ever. It is a qualitative difference and it seems to me a very natural distinction." That's premise (B) again, phrased differently, with the importance of mental functions beyond mere consciousness being asserted to have moral relevance. (I'm not citing him as any particular authority, merely as an example of another secular liberal endorsing (B))

            A consequence of B is that as a human fetus matures, killing it becomes gradually more wrong over time.

            It is, I guess, possible to come up with some creatively constructed versions of B that gives a different result:
            (S) Additional brain functions in a species imply greater moral obligations to that species / greater moral personhood for that species.

            Premise (S) is a version of (B) where we've decided that it's not the individual being's mental capabilities that matter but instead arbitrarily applied those protections and obligations out to the entire species, just because. This would allow a person endorsing (S) to say "but you can't kill a fetus because it's a member of the human species!" Membership of a genetic species thus becomes really important, because they said it was.

            Another alternative that I've seen Joel using in this forum is:
            (T) A being is to be evaluated not only on the cognitive functions it currently has, but upon its capacity to naturally develop those in the future.

            Premise (T) is a version of (B) where time is ignored, and things that could and might happen in the future are essentially counted as morally relevant in the present. A fetus's potential to grow into a cognitively fully-functioning adult human is counted as a present reality for moral purposes.

            So secular liberals can make up versions of (B) that get them more towards a pro-life view, but those other versions of (B) I think are arbitrary and unjustifiable.
            Last edited by Starlight; 06-16-2016, 03:16 AM.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #21
              Moderated By: sparko

              The Arena is for one on one debates, not free-for-alls. This debate is between Catholicity and Starlight. Others should just watch and not participate. Thanks!

              ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
              Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.


              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                I am unable to find any survey results regarding what New Zealanders believe about abortion. It is not a topic that gets much, or even any, political or social discussion here. However it is my personal belief that if you asked people a survey question about to what extent they agreed with a statement like:
                "I think abortion should continue to be legal in New Zealand. I haven't thought much about, and/or have no strong opinion on, the maximum age of the fetus allowable for abortion purposes."
                then I suspect you would get a majority of the country agreeing with that statement. i.e. most people don't have a view other than that they're fine with the current law.

                Similarly if you quizzed people on a premise like:
                "I think that the more intelligent animal species should be granted more rights and protections than the less intelligent animal species."
                again, I believe you would get majority agreement.

                Once the premise is granted that the intelligence level of the animal affects what rights it has and how it should be treated, and once the premise that human abortion of the fetus is generally fine is granted, then the general conclusions of my view are pretty hard to logically avoid. Thus, a couple of my friends, both of whom are unusually thoughtful and philosophical guys, who have actually sat down and thought hard about the matter both independently reached the conclusion that infanticide could be morally justifiable, and they happened to mention it to me independently because they know I like philosophy and that I am always interested in hearing an interesting argument, and I ended up being convinced by their logic. Various international philosophers such as Peter Singer etc seem to agree.

                This gives me every reason to believe that a large number of other people in my country have likely also reached the same conclusion, or would do so were they to think through the same logic.
                Oh, please. What a load of bull. You can use as much convoluted sophistry as you like, but the majority of New Zealanders do not find infanticide normal, and you know it. Or if you don't know it, then you're living in your own little bubble out there.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Moderated By: sparko

                  The Arena is for one on one debates, not free-for-alls. This debate is between Catholicity and Starlight. Others should just watch and not participate. Thanks!

                  ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                  Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                  I thought this was just a proposal for a debate. Is this the debate itself?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    I thought this was just a proposal for a debate. Is this the debate itself?
                    I assumed if starlight agreed it would be the debate thread. But even if not, the proposal discussion should be between starlight and catholicity and be about the debate, not actual debate posts by you and others which is the case.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      I assumed if starlight agreed it would be the debate thread. But even if not, the proposal discussion should be between starlight and catholicity and be about the debate, not actual debate posts by you and others which is the case.
                      Since I'm not agreeing to the debate, I would prefer the thread be moved to civics so that others could participate. Although it's Catholicity's thread, so ultimately her decision I guess.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        We could do that. however I have a thread open in civics that is more or less a "free for all" where I've asked some questions about a piglet then posted some chronological pictures regarding giving birth. We could attach this thread to that thread and continue and I'll be happy to continue either way. If I'm slow at responding be aware that I'm making an attempt to give well thought and marked responses.
                        A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                        George Bernard Shaw

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Your views are not normal by a long stretch. Not in the US, and I'm fairly certain not in New Zealand either.
                          Peter Singer (prominent ethicist at Princeton University) is one significant scholarly voice who would agree with Starlight's views. So while certainly not mainstream, they are not exactly an outlier either.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Amazing Rando View Post
                            Peter Singer (prominent ethicist at Princeton University) is one significant scholarly voice who would agree with Starlight's views. So while certainly not mainstream, they are not exactly an outlier either.
                            Yep, I realize that, and Starlight has name dropped him a few times as his role model. Outside of a few utilitarians on the fringe-left though, it's still not a "normal" view in the modern West. Treating animals as more sacred than children, Singer is morally bankrupt, an example of the insanity of the naturalistic worldview taken to it's extremes.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Treating animals as more sacred than children, Singer is morally bankrupt, an example of the insanity of the naturalistic worldview taken to it's extremes.
                              Not from the animals perspective.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Not from the animals perspective.
                                I had an elderly cat that went blind. My Mom was upset about this, saying, "the poor thing, how awful it must be for her!".

                                I replied, "She doesn't recognize that she is 'blind'. She doesn't know it isn't a normal condition. She doesn't know she is a cat. For all she knows, this thing happens to everything."

                                We give animals far too much credit when it comes to self-awareness.


                                Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X