The Morality of Abortion
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
The Morality of Abortion
This most contentious of issues has yet to be discussed among us. The mid-term U.S. elections showed resounding defeat for abolitionists seeking referendums on all types of abortions, yet defeat for pro-choice activists advocating the termination of parental-notification legislation. While it seems a sign of a centrist majority desiring a middle ground, it is, as with the vast portion of hot-button issues, truly the product of zealous, motivated far-sides of the spectrum. So what is the answer? What's the epistomological truth of the issue?
Personally, I came down on the side of parental-notification in the elections; if a minor has to have a parent's authorization to a get a piercing, a tattoo, a day off of school, why would an abortion not require, at the very least, that the parents of the girl (emphasis on girl, under 18,) are notified of her plan? Isn't any elective surgical procedure something that requires a guardian? However, when it comes to the abolitionists, I have no kind words either.
Our culture is a society of death.
This previous sentence is important to remember when considering the following. Our religions ("our" to mean our world), without major exception, reject life and embrace death. This cannot be put more simply. They reject the value of life, replacing it with vagaries about salvation and man-made, allegedly "divinely inspired" morality sets. Are there exceptions? Assuredly, in individual adherents. But, even assuming the grandiose visions of the ancients were not drug-and-ego induced hallucinations and were indeed valid information about the afterlife and guideposts to constructing one, these do not negate the value of life in this earthly plane, as insidious philosophies would have you believe.
Now, that all seems histrionic and paranoid, but observe the subtleties; notice how anti-life religionists pervert the value and rights of the living by assigning rights to the non-living, i.e., the unborn. Devaluing life is the cornerstone of a religionist philosophy, as men must be broken against the jagged rocks in order to be ruled. By battering mankind into believing it is impotent to change itself, that the universe is unknowable, and that reality and knowledge will always escape us, they attempt to mold the malleable masses into fodder for their respective god, as if (as has been said here) the one with the biggest summer camp is the one and true AllMighty(TM).
I may be hamhanded in my attempts to convey my stance (to thus invoke opposition for the sake of testing and expanding my understanding), but try and see through my incomplete analysis to the truth within - setting aside technical issues such involved in the subject such as terms, trimesters and partial vs. impartial-birth, the issue at its core is one of morality. Do we, a secular society, embrace the values of a death-oriented religious philosophy, or approach it from our own, again secular, ethical standpoint? Do the rights of the unborn (i.e., non-living) supercede the rights of the living? I posit that they do not.
Personally, I came down on the side of parental-notification in the elections; if a minor has to have a parent's authorization to a get a piercing, a tattoo, a day off of school, why would an abortion not require, at the very least, that the parents of the girl (emphasis on girl, under 18,) are notified of her plan? Isn't any elective surgical procedure something that requires a guardian? However, when it comes to the abolitionists, I have no kind words either.
Our culture is a society of death.
This previous sentence is important to remember when considering the following. Our religions ("our" to mean our world), without major exception, reject life and embrace death. This cannot be put more simply. They reject the value of life, replacing it with vagaries about salvation and man-made, allegedly "divinely inspired" morality sets. Are there exceptions? Assuredly, in individual adherents. But, even assuming the grandiose visions of the ancients were not drug-and-ego induced hallucinations and were indeed valid information about the afterlife and guideposts to constructing one, these do not negate the value of life in this earthly plane, as insidious philosophies would have you believe.
Now, that all seems histrionic and paranoid, but observe the subtleties; notice how anti-life religionists pervert the value and rights of the living by assigning rights to the non-living, i.e., the unborn. Devaluing life is the cornerstone of a religionist philosophy, as men must be broken against the jagged rocks in order to be ruled. By battering mankind into believing it is impotent to change itself, that the universe is unknowable, and that reality and knowledge will always escape us, they attempt to mold the malleable masses into fodder for their respective god, as if (as has been said here) the one with the biggest summer camp is the one and true AllMighty(TM).
I may be hamhanded in my attempts to convey my stance (to thus invoke opposition for the sake of testing and expanding my understanding), but try and see through my incomplete analysis to the truth within - setting aside technical issues such involved in the subject such as terms, trimesters and partial vs. impartial-birth, the issue at its core is one of morality. Do we, a secular society, embrace the values of a death-oriented religious philosophy, or approach it from our own, again secular, ethical standpoint? Do the rights of the unborn (i.e., non-living) supercede the rights of the living? I posit that they do not.
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
- Title: Stayin' Alive
- First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
- Location: Evansville, IN
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
I imagine that in a perfect world that the only pregnancies occurring would be those that were planned.
I think that the primary problem with your stance is that you are automatically assuming that the unborn are not living. One of the primary issues in the debate on whether abortion should be allowed or not is whether the unborn fetus is in fact alive.
Although I can understand your view that the more common religions are advocates of death, that is not how they in fact see themselves. Most of the Christians I know, who take their beliefs seriously, do what they do because they actually believe that it is right. The fact that it also leads to eternal salvation is a nice benefit, but they aren't in fact doing it because of fear of the alternative. I don't think that they believe that they are not in fact living their life to the fullest and I am inclined that they would argue that due to the love of God that they supposedly feel, that they are in fact living a fuller life than one who does not.
That being said, I am not particularly pleased when they attempt to intrude on what I do in my private life. If I am involved with a girl who decides to have an abortion, I want her to be able to do so without some right wing anti-abortionist getting in the way. I believe that the only people who should have a say on whether a child is aborted or not are those who are directly financially and physically affected by it.
As for the parental notification laws, I agree that they should be notified, but only after the abortion has occurred. I understand that parents need to consent to a number of things, but anything that they choose not to consent to can easily be undone once the child turns 18. For instance, if a parent refuses to consent to a 17 yr old getting a tattoo or getting married, then when the kid turns 18 they can just go ahead and do it anyways. However, the same is not true of an abortion. You can't undo the pregnancy and its affects after all is said and done. Being forced to have the child will have long-lasting effects on the girl's life which cannot simply be undone once she turns 18.
I think that the primary problem with your stance is that you are automatically assuming that the unborn are not living. One of the primary issues in the debate on whether abortion should be allowed or not is whether the unborn fetus is in fact alive.
Although I can understand your view that the more common religions are advocates of death, that is not how they in fact see themselves. Most of the Christians I know, who take their beliefs seriously, do what they do because they actually believe that it is right. The fact that it also leads to eternal salvation is a nice benefit, but they aren't in fact doing it because of fear of the alternative. I don't think that they believe that they are not in fact living their life to the fullest and I am inclined that they would argue that due to the love of God that they supposedly feel, that they are in fact living a fuller life than one who does not.
That being said, I am not particularly pleased when they attempt to intrude on what I do in my private life. If I am involved with a girl who decides to have an abortion, I want her to be able to do so without some right wing anti-abortionist getting in the way. I believe that the only people who should have a say on whether a child is aborted or not are those who are directly financially and physically affected by it.
As for the parental notification laws, I agree that they should be notified, but only after the abortion has occurred. I understand that parents need to consent to a number of things, but anything that they choose not to consent to can easily be undone once the child turns 18. For instance, if a parent refuses to consent to a 17 yr old getting a tattoo or getting married, then when the kid turns 18 they can just go ahead and do it anyways. However, the same is not true of an abortion. You can't undo the pregnancy and its affects after all is said and done. Being forced to have the child will have long-lasting effects on the girl's life which cannot simply be undone once she turns 18.
The unborn is alive. As most of our cells are.
But is an embryo a living human being?
I think what defines a human being is our cortical activity. Embryos have not such thing yet. Their brain is still completely undiferentiated. It's not human, yet.
About damages, abortions also can cause severe psychological trauma. And in any case, the psychological trauma for a pregnancy carried out till the end is something the feminine body is trained for by evolution. But not for abortion.
But is an embryo a living human being?
I think what defines a human being is our cortical activity. Embryos have not such thing yet. Their brain is still completely undiferentiated. It's not human, yet.
About damages, abortions also can cause severe psychological trauma. And in any case, the psychological trauma for a pregnancy carried out till the end is something the feminine body is trained for by evolution. But not for abortion.
[devil's advocate] But the fetus is physically effected by the abortion, to say the least. And it can't speak for itself. By your argument, the police should not intervene if you kill someone, because it was a private argument between the two of you. [/devil's advocate]That being said, I am not particularly pleased when they attempt to intrude on what I do in my private life. If I am involved with a girl who decides to have an abortion, I want her to be able to do so without some right wing anti-abortionist getting in the way. I believe that the only people who should have a say on whether a child is aborted or not are those who are directly financially and physically affected by it.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm
That's not true. Sex with a condom or with birth control helps prevent pregnancy, but it still happens. Sex causes pregnancy; you can just help reduce the chances that it will happen by using protection.Drive through abortions?
EDIT: And, hopefully, you meant "only people intending to procreate would have unprotected sex", since having sex doesn't cause procreation - having sex with no condom/birth control does; and second, since you don't actually have to have sex anymore to procreate.
In a perfect world, people would only be able to conceive, period, if they wanted to.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm
Matty -- In the analogy you mentioned, you refer to two people that exist and have families and friends of their own. A death of someone in an argument like that would affect a number of people. When a woman decides to have an abortion, the only people that have to even know about it are the woman and the doctor, which greatly reduces the number of people that it may have an affect on. Until the baby is out of the woman, or at least capable of surviving ouside of her, I am not inclined to think that it should have any rights. It, like a cancer, is a collection of living cells that will not survive without an attachment to the host, so it, like a cancer, should be cut out of the mother if she so chooses.
Elena -- The fact that they are having unprotected sex is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. Although the parents should not stop her from having an abortion, they should do what they can to stop her from having unprotected sex.
Elena -- The fact that they are having unprotected sex is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. Although the parents should not stop her from having an abortion, they should do what they can to stop her from having unprotected sex.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
- Title: Age quod agis
- First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
- Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
As a member of a church whose leader repeatedly refers to a "Culture of Death" pervasive in modern, developed (and to a lesser extent, undeveloped) countries, I'm baffled that religions are being broadly painted as embracing it. I honestly do not see how one can take a church which is unrelenting in its stance that human life be protected and cared for from conception to natural death, and say it's "rejecting the value of life."
Do you mind clarifying, AB?
Do you mind clarifying, AB?
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
Absolutely.
It's the standard protection racket format, in all Abrahamic religions. It's the fuel of both the suicide bomber and the evangelical. You say that the church wants human life "protected, from conception to natural death". "Protection" - the language and slogan of any good racket. If the church, as an organization truly desires to protect human life and human rights, then it needs to leave humans alone.
It's the standard protection racket format, in all Abrahamic religions. It's the fuel of both the suicide bomber and the evangelical. You say that the church wants human life "protected, from conception to natural death". "Protection" - the language and slogan of any good racket. If the church, as an organization truly desires to protect human life and human rights, then it needs to leave humans alone.
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
- Title: Age quod agis
- First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
- Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Even if they don't care if it's Christian or non-Christian life they're defending? If the reason for it is simply "This life is good"?
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII
- hive_king
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
- Title: has been eaten by a bear
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
I disagree with your painting of our culture as a culture of death. every sociology class I've ever taken, espcecially the "death and dying" class I'm in now, have reaffirmed that America is one of the most severe death-denying cultures on earth. Americans avoid and deny thinking about and accepting their death to an almost neurotic level.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
But Abrahamic religions don't believe life is good. They believe (or delude themselves otherwise) that life is evil, that we are evil, and that the universe and nature are evil forces. That life is a foxhole full of mud to stoop in until glorious salvation. They fight for the Terri Schiavo's and fetus's because they are desperate for something to do. They don't realize that by devaluing life in every tenet of their scriptures, they leave themselves with a horrible gaping hole of perceived self-impotence, that nothing they do other than keeping the 'faith' matters or effects the universe in any way. In a sense, Abrahamic religions desperately try and change what is unchangable, and passively accept what can be changed.Even if they don't care if it's Christian or non-Christian life they're defending? If the reason for it is simply "This life is good"?
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
Not thinking about death and not accepting the inevitability of it do not make a culture about "life." Just because a sociology class said America deny's death does not mean America is not a culture of death. And the only reason we have a certain level of death-avoidancy is because of the secular, capitalist undertone in our government (which is being eroded by collectivists like religionists.)I disagree with your painting of our culture as a culture of death. every sociology class I've ever taken, espcecially the "death and dying" class I'm in now, have reaffirmed that America is one of the most severe death-denying cultures on earth. Americans avoid and deny thinking about and accepting their death to an almost neurotic level.
- hive_king
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
- Title: has been eaten by a bear
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
What about all the commandments Jesus gave to help and feed the hungery and poor? Jesus, according to the gospels, focused very much on commanding his followers to help try to improve the living conditions for the poor and destitute, probably more than he gave about the afterlife.
Also, your ascertation that the religious fought the Terri Shiavo case for something to do doesn't even make sense. Are you saying they were sitting around and were like "i'm bored, lets protest pulling the plug on Terri Shiavo"? It seems absurd that these people would go against everything they believe in, death, to save a life, if they don't value life.
Also, your ascertation that the religious fought the Terri Shiavo case for something to do doesn't even make sense. Are you saying they were sitting around and were like "i'm bored, lets protest pulling the plug on Terri Shiavo"? It seems absurd that these people would go against everything they believe in, death, to save a life, if they don't value life.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
Yes, yes - give up all of yourself and give it to others. Altruism is not a life-affirming philosophy. It is self-immolation.What about all the commandments Jesus gave to help and feed the hungery and poor? Jesus, according to the gospels, focused very much on commanding his followers to help try to improve the living conditions for the poor and destitute, probably more than he gave about the afterlife.
The woman was brain dead. That's not life. They weren't fighting for a life, they were fighting for political PR.Also, your ascertation that the religious fought the Terri Shiavo case for something to do doesn't even make sense. Are you saying they were sitting around and were like "i'm bored, lets protest pulling the plug on Terri Shiavo"? It seems absurd that these people would go against everything they believe in, death, to save a life, if they don't value life.
- hive_king
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
- Title: has been eaten by a bear
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
I disagree. Altruism, as Jesus taught it, looks at humanity as the base group, instead of the individual. It seeks to bring everyone up to the same level of dignity, (not neccesarily wealth, remember the myth of the talents) instead of letting some prosper while some suffer. How does collectivism, as you refer to it, equal death? And how can you reject what you refer to as "collectivism" and the "nanny state" and still think native americans as a collective should get special privilages? The two seem very contridictory. I believe the playing field should at least be level for everyone, not giving certain groups special privilages.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
- Title: Age quod agis
- First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
- Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Perhaps some fought for PH through Terri Schiavo. Not all of them, though. She wasn't brain dead, either, she was in a persistent vegetative state, which is very different.
If you can resist the urge to tell me to roast in a fire, I will do my best to come back and elaborate. I have class in the morning and was just heading to bed when I let myself check the forum.
If you can resist the urge to tell me to roast in a fire, I will do my best to come back and elaborate. I have class in the morning and was just heading to bed when I let myself check the forum.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
Because collectivism does equal death. In every society it has ruled. This is an issue where I can't even begin to teach you. But altruism, collectivism and mysticism (the big 3 of evil philosophies) are death, wholesale and unrelenting.I disagree. Altruism, as Jesus taught it, looks at humanity as the base group, instead of the individual. It seeks to bring everyone up to the same level of dignity, (not neccesarily wealth, remember the myth of the talents) instead of letting some prosper while some suffer. How does collectivism, as you refer to it, equal death? And how can you reject what you refer to as "collectivism" and the "nanny state" and still think native americans as a collective should get special privilages? The two seem very contridictory. I believe the playing field should at least be level for everyone, not giving certain groups special privilages.
And if you believe that the plaing field should be "level" for everyone, than you inherently believe in individual, rather than collective rights. Which is, in a word, capitalism.
- hive_king
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
- Title: has been eaten by a bear
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
But capitalism doesn't equal the playing field for everyone. But that's something i'm planning on exploring in another field.
And I don't understand your reasoning, why do the "big 3" lead to death? You seem to be more apt in philosophy than I am, so I ask you for your knowledge.
And I don't understand your reasoning, why do the "big 3" lead to death? You seem to be more apt in philosophy than I am, so I ask you for your knowledge.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
Let's not get back into this "persistant vegetative state" BS. There was no consciousness in the shell that used to be Terri Schiavo. She was dead long before the tube was removed.Perhaps some fought for PH through Terri Schiavo. Not all of them, though. She wasn't brain dead, either, she was in a persistent vegetative state, which is very different.
If you can resist the urge to tell me to roast in a fire, I will do my best to come back and elaborate. I have class in the morning and was just heading to bed when I let myself check the forum.
And I object to the backhanded insult. Something I said to someone tet-a-tet has nothing to do with a reasonable debate we now have, and would never enter into the equation.
To elaborate, altruism is an unattainable vagarie, an ideal that cannot be lived up to. It is the perfect cover for other ideals, the glorification of the afterlife and the rejection of the earthly.
A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in, of his own will, and that he build the furnace, besides.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
My knowledge is the knowledge of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand and Dr. Andrew Bernstein. Look to them for the answers.But capitalism doesn't equal the playing field for everyone. But that's something i'm planning on exploring in another field.
And I don't understand your reasoning, why do the "big 3" lead to death? You seem to be more apt in philosophy than I am, so I ask you for your knowledge.
- hive_king
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
- Title: has been eaten by a bear
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
In other words, you have not an original thought in your head.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
- hive_king
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
- Title: has been eaten by a bear
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
*due to computer problems, I repeat posted. Please see below*
Last edited by hive_king on Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
- hive_king
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
- Title: has been eaten by a bear
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
In other words, you have not an original thought in your head.
You know, I could give you an equally long list of philosophers that disagree with much of what yours say. What would make yours any more valid than mine?
You know, I could give you an equally long list of philosophers that disagree with much of what yours say. What would make yours any more valid than mine?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
Said the kid from the sociology class. If you want to know about capitalism, you go to its founders and to its vanguard, not to some guy you know from a science-fiction forum online. I've given you the outline, if you want to fill it in, do it yourself. I'm not going to do research for you. If you wish to remain ignorant, by all means. But you're slipping into that noose you try and hang everyone with, so learn a few facts of your own and make your own valid points. Burning down straw-men with one-liners does not make you worth the time to elaborate on the tenets of individualism.In other words, you have not an original thought in your head.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
Beacuse your list would consist of people who hate mankind and desire totalitarianism like Immanuel Kant, Marx, Hegel and the whole lot of collectivist apologists.You know, I could give you an equally long list of philosophers that disagree with much of what yours say. What would make yours any more valid than mine?
PS: having trouble posting? Heh.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
We're trying to be serious here, Jota. If you don't know anything about Kant or objectivism, refrain from comment. Kant's collectivist, altruist morality is dictatorship. Statism and all totalitarianism stem from collectivism, which is the antithesis of objectivism, making your statement not just incorrect, but exactly backwards. The only system of philosophy which glorifies individual rights and reason is objectivism, from its Aristotlian roots to Rand's vanguarding, and the root for all philosophies that reject them in favor of "common good", "common morality", altruism, mysticism or any form of tribalism is collectivism. Please, study up first.The objectivist morality looks a lot more "mankind hating" than Kant's morality, to be honest. Furthermore, it's a lot more open to dictatorship and totalitarianism.
A moral system that promotes the good of an individual over more altruistic behaviours, maybe doesn't justify dictatorship as a form of government, but justify the attitude of dictators: they are just looking for their own good, what is, under the objectivist system, morally good.
I might not know much about objectivism, but just the possibilities i saw when i start reading about it horrified me. I think i should be forgiven for not dwelling in a phylosophy that says that a mother sacrificing her well being for her daughter is behaving morally bad.
Btw, since we are at it, and you obviously know more about Kant than me, i would like you to point out where Kant is totalitarian. Or how his moral system can be seen as collectivist.
Because i am afraid that, by applying "collectivist" to so many different ideas, it just became a label, hence losing all meaning.
I might not know much about objectivism, but just the possibilities i saw when i start reading about it horrified me. I think i should be forgiven for not dwelling in a phylosophy that says that a mother sacrificing her well being for her daughter is behaving morally bad.
Btw, since we are at it, and you obviously know more about Kant than me, i would like you to point out where Kant is totalitarian. Or how his moral system can be seen as collectivist.
Because i am afraid that, by applying "collectivist" to so many different ideas, it just became a label, hence losing all meaning.
- hive_king
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
- Title: has been eaten by a bear
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
Your problem is that you're falling into the trap of another old philosopher, namely Descartes. You are falling into the cartesian-newtonian paradigm of dichotomy that there are only two choices, two polarities, so to speak. You are acting like there are exactly two options, and something is either in one camp, or in the other. Something is either capitalist or collectivist. However, in the real world, many things fall somewhere in the middle.
Morever, there are serious flaws in Objectivist philosophy. Who is to care for the elderly, the crippled, the mentally retarded? In pure Randian philosophy, as I have read it from her essays, there are no real safeguards to take care of those who for some reason are unable to freely compete in the marketplace. It is those people who most desperately need society's help, and might need "altruism" to keep from dying, or at least living in abject misery. However, I fail to see what safeguards exist for them in your objectivist utopia.
Morever, there are serious flaws in Objectivist philosophy. Who is to care for the elderly, the crippled, the mentally retarded? In pure Randian philosophy, as I have read it from her essays, there are no real safeguards to take care of those who for some reason are unable to freely compete in the marketplace. It is those people who most desperately need society's help, and might need "altruism" to keep from dying, or at least living in abject misery. However, I fail to see what safeguards exist for them in your objectivist utopia.
That is what the philosophy claims, but is it true? In the Gilded age, America was largely run as a plutocracy, with large Trusts having immense power in government, and often effectively being able to buy their way in the government. Morever, it is the large businesses (the capitalists), who often fund political canidates who support the thrusting of the government into private, personal life. The capital can be just as big of a threat to the common weal as a government. Who screwed Enron employees out of their hard-earned pensions? I also remind you that it was for the interests of the capital that the armed forces were used to break apart peaceful strikes during the gilded age.Statism and all totalitarianism stem from collectivism, which is the antithesis of objectivism, making your statement not just incorrect, but exactly backwards.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
The attitude of dictators is twofold; power and control. In an objectivist system (unlikely in the state of human affairs), the volition of one man is wholly outside the power of volition for any other man. Force is reserved solely for criminal action, and criminal action is narrowly defined as the violation of one person's rights by another person. In objectivist society, it is not possible for dictatorship to rule; if a tyrant seizes control of a government, that government is then totalitarian, not objectivist. What is "morally" good for a person is to provide for themselves and their loved ones the things and values they choose; neither of which requires nor encourages someone to try and control all the other people in their community or nation. This brings us back to the old maxim mentioned before, "change what you can, accept what you cannot."A moral system that promotes the good of an individual over more altruistic behaviours, maybe doesn't justify dictatorship as a form of government, but justify the attitude of dictators: they are just looking for their own good, what is, under the objectivist system, morally good.
You are again assuming that her unborn daughter is another person, with the same individual rights as all other people (and who's rights are inviolate and outside the powers of others in an objectivist system). This is scientifically not valid (according to what we currently know), and since, in an objectivist system, the morality set is the simplest of all (and most closely related to LaVey Satanism) - "an it harm none, do what thou wilt."I might not know much about objectivism, but just the possibilities i saw when i start reading about it horrified me. I think i should be forgiven for not dwelling in a phylosophy that says that a mother sacrificing her well being for her daughter is behaving morally bad.
Immanuel Kant, "All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only (God, Soul, Freedom). These themselves, however, have a still further object, namely, to know what ought to be done, if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. As this concerns our actions with reference to the highest aims of life, we see that the ultimate intention of nature in her wise provision was really, in the constitution of our reason, directed to moral interests only. " Critique of Pure Reason,Btw, since we are at it, and you obviously know more about Kant than me, i would like you to point out where Kant is totalitarian. Or how his moral system can be seen as collectivist.
Kant's meaning is that, regardless of whether we are able to know if god exists or not, and whether there is an afterlife or not, we should believe in them anyways. Which is not just strange (to not simply pick one or the other) but a cowardly compromise.
"...we must act on the supposition of its being real." The Science of Right. "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world," Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant again speaks to the presupposition of non-human morality. He believes that there must be a ruler over men, that they are not capable of ruling themselves. Kant used altruism to cover this ideal, saying that agood will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal moral law that the autonomous human being freely gives itself.
It IS a label. A label for one of the two most basic philosophies. When it comes down to the root of it, there are two ways to view mankind: as an individual, or as a group (defined in any way chosen, by race, gender, creed, etc.). Individualism for the former, and collectivism for the latter.Because i am afraid that, by applying "collectivist" to so many different ideas, it just became a label, hence losing all meaning.
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yandex [Bot] and 61 guests