A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[manifold]

Would you withold judgment of someone that felt YOUR child was inconvenient and murdered THEM? What's the difference?

The difference is it's not my child.

 

[Agnapostate]

I get your point. It's using as a basis for a moral or ethical standard that I don't agree with.

Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals.

I don't believe that's the case. To illustrate this, why are humans as a species generally superior to nonhuman animals? Or perhaps more appropriately, why is a chimpanzee morally superior to an ant?

My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really.

"Morality" exists outside of the sense that the Christian Right has defined it as. Our laws are fundamentally based around morality, and in a sense, they are based around meta-ethical utilitarianism. They institute rules intended to foster collective happiness.

 

[del]

I get your point. It's using as a basis for a moral or ethical standard that I don't agree with.

Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals.

I don't believe that's the case. To illustrate this, why are humans as a species generally superior to nonhuman animals? Or perhaps more appropriately, why is a chimpanzee morally superior to an ant?

My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really.

"Morality" exists outside of the sense that the Christian Right has defined it as. Our laws are fundamentally based around morality, and in a sense, they are based around meta-ethical utilitarianism. They institute rules intended to foster collective happiness.

more appropriately, where do you come up with these strawmen?

oz, perhaps?

there's nothing more amusing than a professional sophomore. thanks for the giggles.

 

[Agnapostate]

more appropriately, where do you come up with these strawmen?

oz, perhaps?

there's nothing more amusing than a professional sophomore. thanks for the giggles.

Do we really need another person exhibiting their ignorance of logical fallacies? There were no "strawmen" contained in my post. I understand that it's a popular two-cent word, but try and use it correctly, slappy.

 

[del]

more appropriately, where do you come up with these strawmen?

oz, perhaps?

there's nothing more amusing than a professional sophomore. thanks for the giggles.

Do we really need another person exhibiting their ignorance of logical fallacies? There were no "strawmen" contained in my post. I understand that it's a popular two-cent word, but try and use it correctly, slappy.

if i thought it was worth the effort i'd explain it to you, slappy, but i've got a better idea. see if you can figure it out, slappy.

 

[Agnapostate]

if i thought it was worth the effort i'd explain it to you, slappy, but i've got a better idea. see if you can figure it out, slappy.

Tough luck, short round. Better luck next time.

 

[del]

if i thought it was worth the effort i'd explain it to you, slappy, but i've got a better idea. see if you can figure it out, slappy.

Tough luck, short round. Better luck next time.

shouldn't you be diddling corpses?

 

[manifold]

I get your point. It's using it as a basis for a moral or ethical standard that I don't agree with.

Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals.

I don't believe that's the case. To illustrate this, why are humans as a species generally superior to nonhuman animals? Or perhaps more appropriately, why is a chimpanzee morally superior to an ant?

Because we've collectively declared it so, regardless of any judgements about the implicitness. There exists no objectively measurable criteria. A decidedly gray area if you will.

My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really.

"Morality" exists outside of the sense that the Christian Right has defined it as. Our laws are fundamentally based around morality, and in a sense, they are based around meta-ethical utilitarianism. They institute rules intended to foster collective happiness.

I don't think it's intellectually difficult to distinguish between less moral behavior that causes direct harm to your fellow man and that which does not. To suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, insulting. No offense.

 

[Agnapostate]

shouldn't you be diddling corpses?

What the hell? Maybe you should keep that one to yourself.

Because we've collectively declared it so, regardless of any judgements about the implicitness.

That's effectively an ad populum fallacy, or an "appeal to the people." Majority support of a certain practice or policy doesn't render it true, as can be seen with the example of organized religion, for instance.

There exists no objectively measurable criteria. A decidedly gray area if you will.

I think we can refer back to the aforementioned "traits of personhood," which would include basic sentience and a capacity to feel pain, rationality, self-awareness, and related traits. Beings endowed with such traits would possess a greater capacity to suffer than others.

I don't think it's intellectually difficult to distinguish between less moral behavior that causes direct harm to your fellow man and that which does not. To suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, insulting. No offense.

I don't even understand what your point of contention is here.

 

[Ravi]

Would you withold judgment of someone that felt YOUR child was inconvenient and murdered THEM? What's the difference?

The difference is it's not my child.

Sanctimonious, much? If someone doesn't believe a fetus is a living human and therefore wouldn't choose the word kill over abort they have moral issues but then there's you, who apparently does equate a fetus with a living, breathing person and sees no harm in killing it as long as it isn't yours...or its death doesn't harm you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Would you withold judgment of someone that felt YOUR child was inconvenient and murdered THEM? What's the difference?

The difference is it's not my child.

Is it Mani? Really?

I agree that there's different strokes... but can't we agree that there's a point where we can't turn our back? Shouldn't there be a point where we just will not accept CERTAIN behaviors... and shouldn't that line be somewhere NORTH OF CONDONING THE MURDER OF THEIR CHILDREN?

I don't know you at all, but you seem like a decent person and there is NO WAY that 'decent people,' as broad as that scale is, can't agree that killing the children is a behavior we just can't tolerate; thus such behavior should come at some serious cultural consequence.

 

[manifold]

Because we've collectively declared it so, regardless of any judgements about the implicitness.

That's effectively an ad populum fallacy, or an "appeal to the people." Majority support of a certain practice or policy doesn't render it true, as can be seen with the example of organized religion, for instance.

And that is slightly less effective bullshit, no offense. "Truth" is subjective, and therefore the majority view is still a better indicator of truth than any arbitrary objective measure you've offered thus far...in the context of our valuation of a fetus discussion of course.

 

[Agnapostate]

And that is slightly less effective bullshit, no offense. "Truth" is subjective, and therefore the majority view is still a better indicator of truth than any arbitrary objective measure you've offered thus far...in the context of our valuation of a fetus discussion of course.

Returning to the original question quickly reveals the inconsistency of this position: On what grounds are humans in general superior to nonhuman animals? For what reason? Is it not due to their greater possession of the aforementioned "traits of personhood"?

 

[manifold]

And that is slightly less effective bullshit, no offense. "Truth" is subjective, and therefore the majority view is still a better indicator of truth than any arbitrary objective measure you've offered thus far...in the context of our valuation of a fetus discussion of course.

Returning to the original question quickly reveals the inconsistency of this position: On what grounds are humans in general superior to nonhuman animals? For what reason? Is it not due to their greater possession of the aforementioned "traits of personhood"?

Superiority?

Silly me, I thought we were talking about relative value.

 

[Agnapostate]

Superiority?

Silly me, I thought we were talking about relative value.

Superior in moral value.

 

[Shogun]

Poor little utilitarian. Are you so busy sniffing your own farts to recognize a kantian categorical imperative? The maxim is that HUMAN BEING > ANIMALS. All day long. Crying that no one is playing by your ethical standard is both hilarious and, truthfully, sad.

Really, friend? Aside from your inaccurate conceptions of the categorical imperative...the most influential philosopher of the world is a utilitarian. His work directly contributed to the growth of the animal rights movement. Abortion has been legalized in many countries, and euthanasia is following down the same path. Where do you get the impression that your crude deontologist idiocy has any acceptance except amongst the Christian Right?

Would you care to elaborate on how this maxim is an incorrect application of a kantian categorical imperative or should we all just take your monkey loving word for it? I can back up my post. Can you?



animal rights movements do not trump the superiority of HUMAN LIVES. poor little utilitarian... myawww...

 

[Shogun]

I get your point. It's using as a basis for a moral or ethical standard that I don't agree with.

Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals.

I don't believe that's the case. To illustrate this, why are humans as a species generally superior to nonhuman animals? Or perhaps more appropriately, why is a chimpanzee morally superior to an ant?

My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really.

"Morality" exists outside of the sense that the Christian Right has defined it as. Our laws are fundamentally based around morality, and in a sense, they are based around meta-ethical utilitarianism. They institute rules intended to foster collective happiness.

more appropriately, where do you come up with these strawmen?

oz, perhaps?

there's nothing more amusing than a professional sophomore. thanks for the giggles.

Did you see how fast he ran away from applying a Kantian ethical paradigm that conflicts with his own bullshit?

 

[Shogun]

And that is slightly less effective bullshit, no offense. "Truth" is subjective, and therefore the majority view is still a better indicator of truth than any arbitrary objective measure you've offered thus far...in the context of our valuation of a fetus discussion of course.

Returning to the original question quickly reveals the inconsistency of this position: On what grounds are humans in general superior to nonhuman animals? For what reason? Is it not due to their greater possession of the aforementioned "traits of personhood"?

 

[sealybobo]

George Carlin said: "Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

 

[manifold]

Superiority?

Silly me, I thought we were talking about relative value.

Superior in moral value.

In that case, I stand by my posts on the matter. Superiority of moral value is subjective. Your attempts to force objective, measurable criteria upon it borders on the ridiculously silly. Are you a ridiculously silly person? Not that there is anything wrong with that of course.