|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 20:29:59 GMT
gadreel Do some research. Goznell is reported to have killed hundreds of infants born alive during abortion procedures. I know you're the board's most resident contrarian but the least you can do is get informed on a subject before commenting on it. reported, that means nothing, he is convicted of three, he is not a prolific serial killer.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 4, 2018 20:33:38 GMT
Before anything else, kudos for not dodging the questions. I don't get to see that very often. I'd say that your criteria for personhood is as extreme as those "pro-lifers" who say that personhood begins at conception (before implantation). You're just extreme in the opposite direction. Since "personhood" is just a value judgment, it can never be established that anyone is correct in his view. My own placement for personhood is just somewhere in between those extremes, and I think society needs to work on arriving at a consensus answer that a large majority can agree to settle on. Then the abortion question will become much easier to work out.
In some societies the consensus is birth, in others it's viability outside of the womb. And in others abortion is completely illegal. I don't know if there ever will be a universal consensus. We could come to consensus in the USA because I think most Americans would be willing to compromise for the simple sake of getting the matter settled and behind us. Unfortunately, the public debate is not in the hands of people who advocate finding such a compromise. It would take nothing short of a president (not our current one of course) willing to take lead in this, and that would start us on the road.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 20:34:13 GMT
I am not looping through 20 questions to find you just saying you pulled the demarcation line out of a hat. I get the moral stance is an opinion, I wondered a little about the background of yours. I am coming to the understanding that I have found out as much as I will. Sorry for wasting your time. So probably "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason" is foundational for you, which means that it's a starting point for you; it's simply how you feel about the idea of hurting someone for no reason; it's not built on another moral stance you hold. We're always going to get to a foundational stance within a few steps. In this case, it appears that we got to a foundational stance in just one step, which isn't unusual. However, understand that you could just start by stating a foundational stance. If you do that, there's nowhere to go with respect to giving a more foundational stance. I started by stating a foundational stance. I am not asking if it is built on another moral stance, I am asking why you hold that moral stance, I cannot fathom what appears to be your claim that you just hold it for no reason other than this is the opinion you hold.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 20:38:23 GMT
So probably "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason" is foundational for you, which means that it's a starting point for you; it's simply how you feel about the idea of hurting someone for no reason; it's not built on another moral stance you hold. We're always going to get to a foundational stance within a few steps. In this case, it appears that we got to a foundational stance in just one step, which isn't unusual. However, understand that you could just start by stating a foundational stance. If you do that, there's nowhere to go with respect to giving a more foundational stance. I started by stating a foundational stance. I am not asking if it is built on another moral stance, I am asking why you hold that moral stance, I cannot fathom what appears to be your claim that you just hold it for no reason other than this is the opinion you hold. Sure, and it's just like I could ask you why you hold the moral stance that it's wrong to hurt another person for no reason. Your answer to that is either going to be another moral stance that it's a consequence of (just in case "It's wrong to hurt another person for no reason" is not foundational for you), or the only answer that you'd be able to give is essentially "that's just the way I feel" (if it is a foundational stance for you). Again, whatever the foundational moral stance turns out to be--maybe you'd go a number of other steps, maybe not--only you can know, because we're talking about how your mind personally works, you could just start by stating that foundational moral stance.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 4, 2018 20:39:43 GMT
gadreel Do some research. Goznell is reported to have killed hundreds of infants born alive during abortion procedures. I know you're the board's most resident contrarian but the least you can do is get informed on a subject before commenting on it. reported, that means nothing, he is convicted of three, he is not a prolific serial killer. This is why people like you are not worth discussing anything with. You can never acknowledge that you could be wrong about anything. Go and read the wiki i linked earlier on Goznell.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 4, 2018 20:45:00 GMT
His spiel just amounts to proclaiming (unconvincingly) that personhood begins at conception. Thanks. I don't really feel like watching an 8 minute video, linked by the OP who is too lazy to post a synopsis.Personhood does not begin at conception. It doesn't even begin at birth in my opinion. It begins when the being has a sense of self, and a sense of time, and plans and/or expectations for the future. I'm the lazy one huh?!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 20:46:13 GMT
I am not asking if it is built on another moral stance, I am asking why you hold that moral stance, I cannot fathom what appears to be your claim that you just hold it for no reason other than this is the opinion you hold. Sure, and it's just like I could ask you why you hold the moral stance that it's wrong to hurt another person for no reason. Your answer to that is either going to be another moral stance that it's a consequence of (just in case "It's wrong to hurt another person for no reason" is not foundational for you), or the only answer that you'd be able to give is essentially "that's just the way I feel" (if it is a foundational stance for you). Again, whatever the foundational moral stance turns out to be--maybe you'd go a number of other steps, maybe not--only you can know, because we're talking about how your mind personally works, you could just start by stating that foundational moral stance. I disagree, I think that there are reasons for holding stances.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 20:47:39 GMT
So probably "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason" is foundational for you, which means that it's a starting point for you; it's simply how you feel about the idea of hurting someone for no reason; it's not built on another moral stance you hold. We're always going to get to a foundational stance within a few steps. In this case, it appears that we got to a foundational stance in just one step, which isn't unusual. However, understand that you could just start by stating a foundational stance. If you do that, there's nowhere to go with respect to giving a more foundational stance. I started by stating a foundational stance. I am not asking if it is built on another moral stance, I am asking why you hold that moral stance, I cannot fathom what appears to be your claim that you just hold it for no reason other than this is the opinion you hold. By the way, if someone says: "I feet that <moral stance A>" and someone else asks, "Why do you feel that way?" And they say, "Because I feel that <moral stance B>" where <moral stance A> is a consequence of <moral stance B> And then the other guy asks, "Why do you feel that way?" And the first guy goes, "Because I feel that <moral stance C>" where <moral stance B> is a consequence of <moral stance C> etc. Obviously that's not going to go on forever. It's going to get to a point where some moral stance that they feel is not a consequence of some other moral stance to them--the person hasn't spent their entire life going through a chain of consequential moral stances, and even if they did, that's a finite amount of time. So at some point they're going to get to a moral stance that's not a consequence of other moral stances to them. That's a foundational stance to them, and they hold it simply because they feel that way, not because it's a consequence of some other moral stance. Well, they can start by stating that foundational stance.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 20:49:08 GMT
Sure, and it's just like I could ask you why you hold the moral stance that it's wrong to hurt another person for no reason. Your answer to that is either going to be another moral stance that it's a consequence of (just in case "It's wrong to hurt another person for no reason" is not foundational for you), or the only answer that you'd be able to give is essentially "that's just the way I feel" (if it is a foundational stance for you). Again, whatever the foundational moral stance turns out to be--maybe you'd go a number of other steps, maybe not--only you can know, because we're talking about how your mind personally works, you could just start by stating that foundational moral stance. I disagree, I think that there are reasons for holding stances. You mean non-moral reasons? That doesn't work because of the is/ought problem. No is implies any ought. And in this case, it would just turn out that you're asking because you have a misconception of what morality is ontologically.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 20:50:17 GMT
I am not asking if it is built on another moral stance, I am asking why you hold that moral stance, I cannot fathom what appears to be your claim that you just hold it for no reason other than this is the opinion you hold. By the way, if someone says: "I feet that <moral stance A>" and someone else asks, "Why do you feel that way?" And they say, "Because I feel that <moral stance B>" where <moral stance A> is a consequence of <moral stance B> And then the other guy asks, "Why do you feel that way?" And the first guy goes, "Because I feel that <moral stance C>" where <moral stance B> is a consequence of <moral stance C> etc. Obviously that's not going to go on forever. It's going to get to a point where some moral stance that they feel is not a consequence of some other moral stance to them--the person hasn't spent their entire life going through a chain of consequential moral stances, and even if they did, that's a finite amount of time. So at some point they're going to get to a moral stance that's not a consequence of other moral stances to them. That's a foundational stance to them, and they hold it simply because they feel that way, not because it's a consequence of some other moral stance. Well, they can start by stating that foundational stance. But they must feel that way about their foundational stance for some reason right? Yours is the act of birth, are you telling me that you just chose that for no reason at all, that it was just as good as the day before birth but it is your opinion that it is the day of birth and no more thought went into it?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 20:51:20 GMT
By the way, if someone says: "I feet that <moral stance A>" and someone else asks, "Why do you feel that way?" And they say, "Because I feel that <moral stance B>" where <moral stance A> is a consequence of <moral stance B> And then the other guy asks, "Why do you feel that way?" And the first guy goes, "Because I feel that <moral stance C>" where <moral stance B> is a consequence of <moral stance C> etc. Obviously that's not going to go on forever. It's going to get to a point where some moral stance that they feel is not a consequence of some other moral stance to them--the person hasn't spent their entire life going through a chain of consequential moral stances, and even if they did, that's a finite amount of time. So at some point they're going to get to a moral stance that's not a consequence of other moral stances to them. That's a foundational stance to them, and they hold it simply because they feel that way, not because it's a consequence of some other moral stance. Well, they can start by stating that foundational stance. But they must feel that way about their foundational stance for some reason right? Yours is the act of birth, are you telling me that you just chose that for no reason at all, that it was just as good as the day before birth but it is your opinion that it is the day of birth and no more thought went into it? The reasons can't go back infinitely, can they?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 20:52:40 GMT
reported, that means nothing, he is convicted of three, he is not a prolific serial killer. This is why people like you are not worth discussing anything with. You can never acknowledge that you could be wrong about anything. Go and read the wiki i linked earlier on Goznell. I read the wiki. He is not a prolific serial killer. In any case it may not be the guy that Shapiro is talking about as far as I am aware he does not mention who it is, at least he had not when he introduced the idea, so it could be anyone. The context of him introducing it implied that he thought doctors performing abortions were serial killers.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 4, 2018 20:53:49 GMT
No is implies any ought.
I like that. It's got a ring to it. Some jazz composer should turn that into a song.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 20:54:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 21:10:24 GMT
But they must feel that way about their foundational stance for some reason right? Yours is the act of birth, are you telling me that you just chose that for no reason at all, that it was just as good as the day before birth but it is your opinion that it is the day of birth and no more thought went into it? The reasons can't go back infinitely, can they? They can until they are not an opinion I would have thought, what I am saying is that if you hold an opinion surely you base that opinion on something, obviously personal preference in foodstuffs and movies is exempt from this but if you hold an opinion on how something should be handled or dealt with, surely you base that on some thing more substantial than just another opinion. Take my murder stance, It seems that people are separate entities, and for one to take away the life of another is wrong based on that observation. I guess you could say that people being separate entities is an opinion though. But the issue I have with your stance is that the demarcation line seems to be too abstract for this to be just the opinion you have without any deeper reasoning behind it, but that appears to be what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 21:17:08 GMT
The reasons can't go back infinitely, can they? They can until they are not an opinion I would have thought, what I am saying is that if you hold an opinion surely you base that opinion on something, obviously personal preference in foodstuffs and movies is exempt from this but if you hold an opinion on how something should be handled or dealt with, surely you base that on some thing more substantial than just another opinion. Take my murder stance, It seems that people are separate entities, and for one to take away the life of another is wrong based on that observation. I guess you could say that people being separate entities is an opinion though. But the issue I have with your stance is that the demarcation line seems to be too abstract for this to be just the opinion you have without any deeper reasoning behind it, but that appears to be what you are saying. So you don't agree that oughts can't be derived from is's. But that's incorrect in my view. "People are separate entities" does NOT imply anything about whether it's wrong to take away the life of another person. No facts imply any moral stances, period. It's not that "people are separate entities" is an opinion. It's that "it's wrong to take the life of a separate entity" is an opinion--simply a way that one feels (or not). So the problem/disagreement is stemming from the fact that (in my view) you have a misconception about what morality/ethics is ontologically, a misconception about how it works. You're looking for something that I consider severely mistaken. And you also apparently are expecting people to be more similar than they sometimes are. Since my foundational stance isn't similar to anything you personally feel, you're having trouble parsing it as a foundational stance.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 4, 2018 21:29:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 21:31:28 GMT
Take my murder stance, It seems that people are separate entities, and for one to take away the life of another is wrong based on that observation. I guess you could say that people being separate entities is an opinion though. No, people being separate entities is as close to factual as things get. What's an opinion is that "therefore it is wrong to take the life of another". Nothing about that fact leads to that conclusion. If, for example, I am of the opinion that I should be the only entity in the universe then the logical conclusion that would follow from observing that other people are separate entities is that I should kill them. Terrapin really is right. If you take any moral stance and keep saying "But why do I feel that?" then sooner or later you will always get to the point where you say "I just do". The closest thing you will ever get to an explanation is along the lines of "I was raised to believe it". But he's not just saying that this is true for him on this particular moral opinion. He's saying that it's true for everyone on every moral opinion. Including your opinion that it's wrong to kill people.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 21:36:38 GMT
They can until they are not an opinion I would have thought, what I am saying is that if you hold an opinion surely you base that opinion on something, obviously personal preference in foodstuffs and movies is exempt from this but if you hold an opinion on how something should be handled or dealt with, surely you base that on some thing more substantial than just another opinion. Take my murder stance, It seems that people are separate entities, and for one to take away the life of another is wrong based on that observation. I guess you could say that people being separate entities is an opinion though. But the issue I have with your stance is that the demarcation line seems to be too abstract for this to be just the opinion you have without any deeper reasoning behind it, but that appears to be what you are saying. So you don't agree that oughts can't be derived from is's. But that's incorrect in my view. "People are separate entities" does NOT imply anything about whether it's wrong to take away the life of another person. No facts imply any moral stances, period. It's not that "people are separate entities" is an opinion. It's that "it's wrong to take the life of a separate entity" is an opinion--simply a way that one feels (or not). So the problem/disagreement is stemming from the fact that (in my view) you have a misconception about what morality/ethics is ontologically, a misconception about how it works. You're looking for something that I consider severely mistaken. And you also apparently are expecting people to be more similar than they sometimes are. Since my foundational stance isn't similar to anything you personally feel, you're having trouble parsing it as a foundational stance. No I am having trouble figuring out how you came to that foundational stance, I do not agree that it can possibly be a stance held without any other thought process to back it up, but that seems to be what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 4, 2018 21:37:27 GMT
tpfkar As always Ben has a beguiling way of making statements, but they tend to be just his opinion presented as fact. Personally I find his presentation to be the very antithesis of "beguiling". And his content ever a mixture of noncontroversial truism as lead-in to his meat of high-pitched rabid demagoguery. Not that I think you were necessarily using "beguiling" as a compliment in this case. Johnny, Angry Johnny
|
|