User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 122

  1. #101
    Senior Member The Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    2,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    I didn't think that there were any nazi countries left in the world, after Franco's Spain ended in the seventies. You mean just a standard dictatorship?
    Not an actual officially nazi country of course. A democracy that just raises nationalism and the preservation of our people to the bar of utmost importance on a constitutional level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    As for religious reasons, you are not looking at it from a religious point of view. If you grant that the religion is true, then to the religious person, it is irrelevant whether or not the woman is also religious; her views would have no bearing on the objective truth of the religion. So, if you were such a religious person, unless you believed in the total separation of church and state you would have an obligation to try and impose your religious views on the state.
    Some toes will inevitably be stepped upon, but the problem with a religious point of view in this case is that it directly seeks to hinder the freedom of otherwise minded people on very suspect and wholly unsubstantiated grounds. Whereas a non-religious view seeks no such hinderance on the religious people, for they will remain free to conduct in a way acceptable to them, insofar as their conduct doesn't start directly bearing on the freedoms of others. One seeks to impose their right on others, while the other seeks to defend their rights from those of others. One is motivated by subjugation, the other by guaranteeing the beings and becomings of all individual people.
    And more pragmatically - the entities and relations evoked by a religious worldview are, by and large, denied or strongly contested. The fact of human suffering caused by unsubstantiated doctrines, is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    Think of it this way: why is murder of an adult wrong? Either for religious reasons, or because of a philosophical reason. However, the state considers it wrong for neither of these reasons, but because by fiat the state declares this is necessary for maintaining order. The state could do the same thing with abortion, unless it decides the rights of the individual should be respected. But why do we have to think the rights of individuals are a moral cause? This cannot be proven; it is a moral principle not everyone values equally. In the case of religion, often a greater priority is placed on forbidding what the religion considers immoral than on preserving individual liberty.

    The point is that you must declare as a moral principle that the state should be non-religious and respect individual rights; this is not self-evident.
    The fact that ethical principles cannot be "proven" by, presumably, looking at the world (which, however, isn't a fact of the matter), doesn't negate the value of thousands of years of ethical work on such principles. It is a discourse from which theological considerations have largely been stripped from, for either irrelevance or incompatibility. The principles thus developed or found or what will you in this discourse, are at the very basis of our political, medicinal, militaristic, etc. frameworks. The claim that an individual shouldn't be caused to suffer is not an empty postulation, but is held by many to be the very center of ethics in general. As Beorn noted, laws are by and large formed from the grounds of ethical considerations, and for a good reason. Moreso, individual liberty is one of the very cornerstones of modern liberal democracy. The primacy of religion is substantiated only in a theocracy, of which there are no more in the western world. It is admittedly baffling to me that all this even needs to be spelled out.
    To put it a little more bluntly - of course religious worldviews shouldn't be forcefully imposed upon all. And certain ethical principles will of course have to be imposed on all. For this is what we agreed to in our hypothetical social contract. Right? Give away some of our freedom in order for the state to guarantee as as much freedom to all as possible in a civil social setting. Now hashing out the details of how these freedoms should be defended from those of others is what ethics is all about. This is what everybody wants. A heaven-on-earth is what a select group of people wants. And the latter is one of the considerations that the former should be defended from. What makes a theocracy work is that ethics and religion are in such a system inseparable. In modern democracy they are separated, and ethics trivially takes the primacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    He must also declare that the 'individual' component of individual rights is determined by something other than humanity itself (subjective benchmarks such as 'breath of life', self-awareness, etc.).

    I'm also curious if @The Outsider thinks abortion should be allowed at any advanced stage of pregnancy, if the legal or moral principle behind his position is that the 'life' (I think 'rights' would be a more applicable term) of the mother must always supersede the rights of the unborn?
    Tho the firs comment - absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, the property of being a human (if you can put it that way) is of no inherent ethical value. I could get a bit more into this, but I don't think I have to. I concede your point.

    To the second - well, yes, technically. Despite the fear of coming off as some devil-worshipping callous maniac, I do accept that a reasonable case can also be made for infanticide, for instance. I am not myself in favor of infanticide, but at this point this is just a gut reaction and not a view held for any serious philosophical considerations. Some thoughts on it revolve around the social connotations of this practice and the possible emotional and social effects of such a practice. However, this is quite irrelevant, for all I am saying is that the project of defining life (and indeed, very strictly defining it) is a red herring in the matter of abortion. I have my doubts that a definition satisfying all even can ever be found. I'm fine with leaving the line to whatever those involved (or not) are more-or-less comfortable with, as long as the woman has ample time to make up her mind and the doctor doesn't feel like a butcher. Or why not, stress the consciousness angle, and even be safe about it by tying it to certain developmental stages of the brain, as we admittedly know very little of consciousness.
    Finding a self-evident guiding principle that would solve the whole issue, seems a conceptual impossibility to me. What, however, is relevant, is the fact of the matter that people are currently being shamed for their decisions, or even forbidden to make some serious decisions about their own bodies because of some incredibly arbitrary, and often self-serving, criteria.

  2. #102
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    No, it's not. You're using inductive reasoning which is logically faulty.
    This is an old trick by catholic apologists: they claim inductive reasoning is logically faulty.

    They make this claim by comparing inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning.

    And if you read a book or attend a lecture on inductive reasoning you will find it is not faulty but rather is the highly succesful method of science.

    But catholics hark back to the Scholastics of catholic Europe (1100-1700 AD) who used deductive reasoning to defend catholic dogma.

    The Scolastics even got to the point of arguing about how many angels could fit on the tip of a needle, using deductive logic.

    Catholicism reaches the height of its power about 1100 AD and catholics have never forgotten it, nor forgotten the propanda success of deductive reasoning.

    Catholics remind me of cats who were worshipped in Ancient Egypt and have never forgotten it.

    Doesn't your cat still want to be worshipped?

  3. #103
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ESI None
    Posts
    3,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    When we use words we don't understand, our parents think we are cute.

    And if we live at home and are dependent financially and emotionally on our parents, we are unlikely to discover that it is only our parents who think we are cute.
    Thats nice.

    How does this apply to me and/or the topic at hand?

  4. #104
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Thats nice.

    How does this apply to me and/or the topic at hand?
    Your use of inter-subjective shows you don't know what it means, yet you use it cavalierly, with great confidence.

    This suggests your parents and teachers are more interested in boosting your self esteem than teaching you English.

    And so like Humpty Dumpty you are the master of words and words mean what you want them to mean.

  5. #105
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I'm also curious if @The Outsider thinks abortion should be allowed at any advanced stage of pregnancy, if the legal or moral principle behind his position is that the 'life' (I think 'rights' would be a more applicable term) of the mother must always supersede the rights of the unborn?
    I won't presume to speak for Outsider, but I certainly do. God/Nature/the Universe has vested this responsibility in women; it is not for others to usurp it.

    That being said, those who truly want to reduce late-term abortion have ample means at their disposal to do it. These include ensuring ready access to first trimester abortion; or even before that, effective birth control; and even before that, orienting the ambitions of young women to something beyond motherhood, and the understanding of young men to their potential responsibilities as unintended fathers. We know how to prevent unintended pregnancy, and without unintended pregancy, abortion rates drop to the bare minimum medically necessary to preserve women's lives and health.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes BluRoses liked this post

  6. #106
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ESI None
    Posts
    3,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Your use of inter-subjective shows you don't know what it means, yet you use it cavalierly, with great confidence.

    This suggests your parents and teachers are more interested in boosting your self esteem than teaching you English.

    And so like Humpty Dumpty you are the master of words and words mean what you want them to mean.
    I dont even speak English with my parents.

    Nice try, though.

  7. #107
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    I really don't like the dichotomy that is set up:pro-life versus pro-choice, as if being "pro-choice" means that you are implying that you are pro-death/anti-life (and also for the other side, that you're anti-(freedom of)choice/pro-coersion). They're not neutral terms. They're political and meant to carry weight, and each party took it upon themselves to align with that terminology.

    I am pro-abortion.
    Likes BluRoses liked this post

  8. #108
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Fine with abortion. Against late term abortion (with exceptions for medical necessity obviously).

  9. #109
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    I really don't like the dichotomy that is set up:pro-life versus pro-choice, as if being "pro-choice" means that you are implying that you are pro-death/anti-life (and also for the other side, that you're anti-(freedom of)choice/pro-coersion). They're not neutral terms. They're political and meant to carry weight, and each party took it upon themselves to align with that terminology.

    I am pro-abortion.
    As I've written on other threads already, everyone is "pro-life". The difference lies only in exactly whose lives we are "pro". Who are we willing to see die an avoidable death in the interests of some "greater" goal? Some see it as the government's responsibility to answer this question; others place responsibility with churches/religions; still others reserve it for the individual. I tend to favor individual choice as much as possible, hence I am "pro-choice", not just regarding abortion, but on many other questions as well. I suppose I am also "pro-abortion", just as I would be pro-chemotherapy, pro-amputation, or pro any other measure that, while extreme and traumatic, can be taken for some greater good.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #110
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    As I've written on other threads already, everyone is "pro-life". The difference lies only in exactly whose lives we are "pro". Who are we willing to see die an avoidable death in the interests of some "greater" goal? Some see it as the government's responsibility to answer this question; others place responsibility with churches/religions; still others reserve it for the individual. I tend to favor individual choice as much as possible, hence I am "pro-choice", not just regarding abortion, but on many other questions as well. I suppose I am also "pro-abortion", just as I would be pro-chemotherapy, pro-amputation, or pro any other measure that, while extreme and traumatic, can be taken for some greater good.
    Your last statement may imply the conflation of individual rights and the common good, which can be in conflict. How do you resolve your pro-choice stance in those instances (here, speaking to the individual's freedom of choice)?

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] ENTP's and Ethics
    By WALMART in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-22-2012, 05:25 PM
  2. Type and Ethics.
    By King sns in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 11:11 AM
  3. Abortion: The Ethics of Liberty
    By TheLastMohican in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 07:49 PM
  4. [MBTItm] NFs and ethics
    By Lotr246 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-09-2009, 07:26 PM
  5. The Ethics of Probability: A Poker Metaphor for Faith and Ethics
    By simulatedworld in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-17-2008, 08:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO