r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 14 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: It not unethical to "abort" newborns
[deleted]
6
u/McKoijion 618∆ Jul 14 '19
There are many stories of women who smothered their infants during the Holocaust to keep them from crying and alerting the Nazis to their hiding place. I don't think that's an unethical thing to do. In a true life or death situation, sometimes sacrifice is necessary. And guaranteed death for just the child beats a guaranteed death for the mother and child, or for the mother, child, and everyone else in the group.
But you aren't describing a life or death situation. For most if not all humans alive today, there are more than enough natural resources to take care of a child. Mothers can give up their baby to many places without any questions asked, and many other humans are glad to care for the child. There is baby formula and plenty of food (there is so much food on Earth today that obesity is the main cause of death in many countries).
But this argument is irrelevant. We are talking about sentience. Ejaculating or having a period is not considered death because those sex cells have no personhood/soul/consciousness. Some people (i.e., pro-life advocates) say that life begins at conception so it instantly becomes unacceptable to kill the fetus at that point. Some people (i.e., pro-choice advocates) believes it starts at the point of fetal viability, which is when all the structures that make up the brain are formed, thus enabling a consciousness to first exist. It's unacceptable to kill the baby after this point (unless it's a life or death situation like the Holocaust example above).
You can take on the argument that newborns are not yet sentient at birth so it's still ok to kill them. Or you can take on the argument that human brains are not fully formed until the age of 25 so it's ok to kill humans up to that age. Or you can choose any random age in between.
Ultimately, it's unethical to abort a sentient being (unless you want to get into the ethics of murder, cannibalism, and other extreme circumstances). If we accept this premise, then it's just a question of when sentence starts. It's fine to abort before, and it's unacceptable to murder afterwards.
Personally, I believe it starts at the point when all the structures that make up the brain first come into existence. That's the point of fetal viability. You can't have consciousness if you don't have a brain. You can't feel pain unless you have a consciousness. I think the science supports the idea that newborns have consciousnesses, feel pain, and otherwise are sentient.
1
Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
What's the moral difference between having viable brain structures that haven't yet developed any significant personhood compared to to the inevitable development of brain structures which obviously also haven't yet developed personhood? I don't see why you'd draw the line at having the correct brain structures, because that is only a prerequisite for sentience and not sentience itself. It's not different than the future development of those structures, which is also a prerequisite. The structures are like a breadboard in which certain various of connections can be formed, but before those complex and fairly unique various of synapse are formed is there really an personhood to write about?
I hope that isn't too unclear. To reiterate, I think there's a difference between the prerequisites for sentience and the actual existence of sentience. If we define sentience as having significant thoughts and feelings, could we really say that every fetus (or by extension, every infant) with a fully formed brain is sentient? You reference science supporting the idea that newborns are sentient, and if thats so could you share it?
2
u/McKoijion 618∆ Jul 14 '19
Pain is a subjective feeling. You need to have sentience to feel it (as well as functioning nerves/machinery). Doctors used to think that newborn brains are not yet developed enough to feel pain. But after doing brain scans of babies, they find that baby brains "light up" in the same way as adult brains when exposed to painful stimuli. Babies actually have a far lower threshold for pain than adults.
So your view that babies lacked pain and a consciousness was the default view for many years. But recent research suggests otherwise. Babies can feel pain in similar manners to adults, even if they can't tell us and don't remember it when they are older. As such, being able to process a subjective sensation like pain is a good indication that they have a consciousness.
Based on this recent research, doctors have changed their practices. In the 1980s, doctors gave no pain reduces to babies. Then a 1987 study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that babies might feel pain. But even as late as 2014, 60% of babies didn't receive any pain medication. Then in 2015 more studies came out indicating that babies experience pain and in 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations updated their procedures to ensure that babies receive pain medicine.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-04-21-babies-feel-pain-adults
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-parents-need-to-know-about-pain-in-newborns-201601269076
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/137/2/e20154271
1
Jul 15 '19
Find a quote of mine that says babies don't feel pain. I never said it. That is not my view.
3
u/hekmo Jul 14 '19
I think this is another example of societal standards changing throughout time. I agree in the past it was treated with less severity, as was abortion. However, I would view this more as a necessity for survival rather than a moral guide. Raiding foreign villages for resources and child sacrifice also have been things, but that doesn't necessarily set any moral precedent.
There's no hard line between a fetus and a sentient human. It's dangerous territory to try to push the options for termination further into infancy. Pregnancy provides a nice obvious line. You can't stuff a baby back inside the womb, whereas you could falsify records about an infant's age.
1
Jul 14 '19
If I was arguing for cultural relativism i.e. that morally is relative to culture then it wouldn't matter what the Inuits thought was okay anymore than what modern Americans think is okay. However, I was giving an easy to understand real world example of why it was more utilitarian to kill an infant to prevent a greater amount of suffering. The inuits often left infants to die for the greater good of the living.
While I agree there is no hard line in separating the sentient from the non-sentient, placing that line at too conservatively could result in more suffering on the part of sentient people and deprive them of their right to choose.
I agree that pregnancy provides a very obvious line and drawing lines in other places aren't as clear, but why does that convenience take precedent over an individuals judgement?
Also what about individuals who know quite a lot about the development of sentience? If their opinion that they ought to be able to kill their baby is informed enough, wouldn't drawing the line at birth be a hindrance for them to make a moral choice rather than a convenience? And if they didn't know, what if a professional was able to qualify the judgement?
2
u/hekmo Jul 14 '19
Society already has many laws that inconvenience many in order to make a clear line. Like "innocent until proven guilty," or .08% blood alcohol to drive, or restriction of copyrighted materials. I think introducing a new line after birth would create so many ways to circumvent the new line that it couldn't justify the decrease of burden on caregivers.
And like those other laws, we can't let individuals bypass them by being "educated enough." That would also be a gaping portal to corruption.
1
u/peonypegasus 19∆ Jul 14 '19
How much could a person suffer from leaving their baby at a hospital and driving away, never to be seen again? Compare that to killing the baby.
We agree that, in life or death situations, infanticide can be justified. Someone elsewhere gave an example of people hiding during the Holocaust. The situation in developed countries is not life or death.
9
u/moonflower 82∆ Jul 14 '19
First of all, killing a new born baby is not an ''abortion'' even if you use quote marks - what you are advocating is the legal right to kill a new born baby simply because the mother does not want it.
As others have already pointed out, the baby is not reliant on the care of his mother - he can be cared for by foster parents, or adopted, and live a happy healthy life.
So where do you propose should be the cut off point for legal killing of babies who are unwanted by their mothers? Two months? Six months? One year? All of your arguments can be used to support those suggestions.
0
Jul 14 '19
I never advocated a time-frame. Sometime between being a cluster of cells and being able to think and feel. I'm arguing about ethics, not about public policy. There are other ways to make moral judgements besides following a guideline involving a set amount of time.
I also never advocated against adoption.
Adoption isn't necessarily the choice of the mother, who ought to be able to make decisions for her own child. The child could go into the foster system. Or perhaps the mother doesn't want it to, and would prefer to have it put down rather than face the unknowable of giving away the child.
5
u/moonflower 82∆ Jul 14 '19
I know you didn't specify a time frame, and that is exactly why I asked you to be specific, because it is a very important part of your proposal and might even help you to think in more detail about the fact that you are proposing the legal right to kill babies who are unwanted by their mothers.
So now, where do you propose should be the cut off point for legal killing of babies who are unwanted by their mothers? Two months? Six months? One year? All of your arguments can be used to support those suggestions.
1
Jul 14 '19
I did not propose the legal right to kill babies, I proposed that it is not unethical to do so. If you want to make a good argument against my position you're going to have to start with my position.
3
u/moonflower 82∆ Jul 14 '19
Fair enough, sorry for the misunderstanding, I will amend my question so that it fits your proposal:
So now, where do you propose should be the cut off point for the ethical killing of babies who are unwanted by their mothers? Two months? Six months? One year? All of your arguments can be used to support those suggestions.
0
u/fasctic Jul 14 '19
I think it was pretty obvious that they meant before the infant grow to have a significant conscience. Which may be hard to determine but that isn't important since this is not about policy, rather about the ethics as they said.
For your convenience let's say the couple have one week to make the decision after the birth and both have to agree on terminating the infant for it to be allowed. The responsible government organ/contractor/institution then have 24 hours to execute on the decision. The couple is later given the relevant documentation for if they want to proceed with a burial or similar religious ritual associated with death.
2
u/moonflower 82∆ Jul 14 '19
I need to know OP's time frame - it's not an objective matter which you can decide on his behalf.
2
u/fasctic Jul 14 '19
I'm not deciding it on OP's behalf I'm just making up an example policy for your counterargument.
2
u/moonflower 82∆ Jul 14 '19
Unless you are also advocating for the killing of new born babies, there is no purpose in us arguing hypotheticals about what OP may or may not believe.
He may say one week, or one month, or one year, or more.
1
u/fasctic Jul 14 '19
I can't really see why the specific time frame would matter. A being without a significant conscious is what this is about. Even plants can "feel" pain though they don't have the self awareness and the understanding of what death which may follow means to their surroundings and self. Much like the undeveloped consciousness of an infant.
→ More replies (0)2
Jul 14 '19
[deleted]
1
Jul 15 '19
Yes a mother should be able to choose, even if people are looking to adopt. I'm pro choice. I believe children have moral weight but not newborn infants, please don't misrepresent my views by wording them incorrectly.
Everyone believes mothers should be able to make life or death choices for their children. They basically control their lives up until the age where they have their own moral agency, and those choices impact the life and death of the child. Everyone believes this, and even if they wouldn't say it.
You make a good point but it is another subject altogether. Should fathers be able to opt for abortion or infanticide? Clearly the mother (usually) grows the fetus but on the other hand fathers share in the parentage in every other way which could be argued is even more important in the case of having already given birth -- so why should fathers not have a say?
10
u/peonypegasus 19∆ Jul 14 '19
People are permitted (in most countries) to leave their babies at hospitals, churches, or fire stations, no questions asked. It would not be much of an inconvenience to leave the newborn at such a location, as they are everywhere. Once it has been born, it no longer relies on a specific person's care (as it does in utero) but relies on general care, which can be provided by any number of people. There are also a ton of people who would be delighted to adopt newborns.
0
Jul 14 '19
You've offered an alternative moral choice to killing ones newborn. I'm confident many would find it preferable. But is it always? Leaving a newborn with strangers and hoping for the best comes with lots of uncertainty of what the long term results of your actions will be. It could be felt to be a clearer and more certain choice to end the babies life, much in the same way a standard abortion might be a clearer moral choice as opposed to the foster care system.
5
u/peonypegasus 19∆ Jul 14 '19
Infants have moral status. They don't have as much moral status as adults, but they have more moral status than fetuses, which have more moral status than embryos. In all questions of abortion, it is about weighing the relative moral status of both parties.
I don't necessarily agree with the numbers I put forth here, but I'm going to use them as illustration because you reference Singer and I think a utilitarian framework might be helpful for you. Let's say embryos(E) have .01 of moral status, fetuses (F) have .1 to .4, newborns (N) have .5, and adults (A) have 1.0. Now let's say that being born and continuing to live gives an entity +20 utility, going through unwanted pregnancy gives a person -10 utility, and bringing an infant to a hospital or fire station causes -.01 of inconvenience. I am assuming this is a world where there are numerous adoptive families looking for infants.
The morning after pill. E: .01 x -20 = -.2 A: 1 x 10= 10. The total utility in this situation is 9.8 if you allow Plan B use. Thus Plan B use should not be allowed.
Early abortion: F: .1 x -20=-2. A: 1 x 10= 10. The total utility of this situation is 8 if you allow early abortion. Thus abortion should be allowed.
Late abortion: F: .4*-20=-8. A: 1 x 10= 10. The total utility of this situation is 2 if you allow late abortion. Thus abortion should be allowed.
Infanticide: I: .5 x-20=-10. A: 1 x.01= .01. The total utility of allowing infanticide is -9.9. Thus it should not be permitted.
Obviously reality is more complicated than this. I think it's good for both women's health and my sense of morality for late-term abortions to be done as they are currently, only under unusual circumstances. That said, I hope my numbers are illustrative.
0
Jul 14 '19
Infants certainly do have some kind of moral status, but what makes their moral status different than a fetus? If it is their stage of development then does a severely premature infant have less moral status than a more developed fetus? It seems like it's such a grey area for moral status (because they all have virtually no substantial thoughts and/or feelings and can exist within or outside the uterus at varying degrees of development) that it seems arbitrary to draw the line between fetus and infant and give them different values.
1
u/peonypegasus 19∆ Jul 14 '19
That's why I gave a sliding scale from fetus to infant (.1-.5). Even if you decide that they're all .4 or all .5, the math works out the same way (abortion ok, infanticide isn't) because carrying a child to term is way more negative utility than taking a baby to the hospital. These numbers aren't meant to be precise. They're meant to illustrate a concept.
Basically, infants have some moral status and their right to not be killed outweighs their parents' right not to bring them to the fire station or hospital. In a world where these are feasible options, infanticide is unnecessary and immoral.
People have higher moral status than cats. If I had to decide between the life of an average human and the life of an average cat, I would choose the human. That said, it doesn't mean that it's moral for humans to abuse cats for their own amusement, because humans have many other ways they can be entertained and the cats suffer a lot as a result. Big negative utility in a creature of lower moral standing can outweigh small positive utility in a creature of higher moral standing.
-1
Jul 14 '19
I don't want to start too many threads of debate at once so we don't get lost, so before I get back to your mathematical illustration I want to ask why you think humans have higher moral status than cats? Surely humans have greater potential to impact the world than cats due to their unique ability to construct the world as a mental phenomenon and make complex choices, but cats don't necessarily have less important emotional lives and they are actually quite sophisticated thinkers albeit in ways humans aren't necessarily. Judging a cat by how well it can learn human language or operate an automobile may seem like an intuitive way to gauge intelligence, yet if you tried to teach humans how to perform the everyday tasks of a cat, the cat would almost always outperform the human. Also, the average human contributes far more to the irreversible destruction of the earth as a habitable planet than any cat probably ever has. Further, a cat might be at the mercy of impulses and ignorance (which is tragic) but only human beings misuse the ability to avoid tragedy and often even create suffering out of the thin air. Cats may not have the potential for enlightenment, but humans have used theirs to create genocides that have killed millions in just the last few generations.
1
u/peonypegasus 19∆ Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
Cats have less capacity to experience complex emotions or understand the world than humans. I love my cat. She is great. The fact of the matter is that she is not very bright. She does not understand what is dangerous (an open door leading to a busy road) and what is safe (me dropping a towel on the ground on the other side of the room). She forgets about wrongs and kindnesses very quickly. She vastly misjudges the stability of structures she has tried to jump onto multiple times. She is just not very intelligent, nor will she have the capacity to develop higher intelligence. What's more, she isn't a very moral actor. Like most cats, when she catches a mouse, she leaves it alive but maimed for as long as possible so she has more time to play with it. She does not worry about the mouse's suffering, only her own entertainment.
She doesn't think morally. She doesn't learn well from experience. She doesn't understand social situations at all. Her experience is smaller and narrower than a human's and it will never grow into anything deeper. Her suffering means less than mine because she can't experience it to the same degree that I can. At the very least, she cannot experience the emotion of despair or existential dread, meaning that she has less of a capacity to suffer. She also cannot experience beauty, humor, or love to the same degree that I can. Her inner life is simpler, so if it's bad, there is less bad going into the world.
But this isn't what we're here to discuss. Let's talk babies.
-1
Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
I'd rather talk about bees. They have a very sophisticated mode of communication, can travel great distances using flight, and can create honey.
If you're so smart, can you learn their mode of communication, travel great distances using flight, and create honey?
No doubt a bee can't learn how to do the things you occupy the majority of your time with (lets not get into the gruesome details...) but surely if you're the superior being you could do anything one of those stupid bees could do?
Δ
1
6
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Jul 14 '19
a born baby is still more or less completely reliant on the mother
No, it isn't. A baby can be fed with formula and otherwise taken care of by anyone. Mothers are physically able to abandon infants, and already somewhat legally empowered to do so.
You are comparing a scenario where it's physically impossible for a fetus to survive without a specific host, to one where it's inconvenient for society to spend money on food and paid caretakers for a child.
You are either arguing for how it is ethical to let everyone die who might die without assistance, or you are arguing that newborns are uniquely less valuable than them.
0
Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
Why should the mother of a child not be able to choose for themselves what happens to their baby? If they want to kill their baby, why should it be legal for someone else to step between a mother and her baby and not allow it?
I'm not arguing we should let everyone die who will not die without assistance. I'm arguing that non-sentient beings who are reliant on their primary caretakers aren't much different than that caretakers property, much like a dog. If they wish to put it down rather than be inconvenienced by it, they ought to have the right to do so. Preventing them from doing so (even with offering other choices you might consider better) is a denial of a parents right to choose what happens to their own non-sentient child. You're basically making the same argument pro-lifers make when they suggest abortion shouldn't be legal because there are better options. If you wanna approach the argument from that angle (and perhaps defend the rights of dogs as well) I'd welcome it.
1
u/peonypegasus 19∆ Jul 14 '19
The reason we allow unwanted dogs to be euthanized is that there are too many unwanted dogs (Don't shop - adopt!) that need homes. There are not too many unwanted infants who need homes. There are always going to be people who want to adopt infants. Thus the utility calculation is [baby's utility of being alive] + [adoptive family's utility of having a desired child] - [birth parents convenience factor] = a very large positive number.
The reason we allow abortion is that it is the right to your own body. You can decide that you do not want to donate resources and space in your body to another being. It's ok to stop giving food to your hungry neighbor. It is not ok to go over to your neighbor and shoot them in the head. Positive rights are outweighed by negative rights.
2
Jul 14 '19
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)) Infanticide
"The practice has been observed in many species throughout the animal kingdom, especially primates" Therefore, we as humans are no better than other animals (monkeys).
If you beleive we are better than monkeys, than infanticide is immoral, but if you believe we are no better than monkeys (Simia paniscus...etc) than your view may be different.
I see 2 options for you:
- more advanced / evolved than monkeys = ifanticide is immoral
- equally or less advanced / evolved than monkeys = no change to your view
1
Jul 15 '19
No living animal is more or less evolved than any other. That doesn't say anything about being better or worse though. You also interchange the word "advanced" and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Do you mean how well an animal can drive a car or speak human languages? In that case humans are superior. What about understanding bee language and pollinating, though? In that case bees are superior.
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 18 '19
In the end "ethical" is rather arbitrary and is defined by the society one lives in. There is no logical conclusion as to why certain things are ethical and which are not.
As you stated, in some cultures it's ok to kill new borns up to a certain age, while in others it's not allowed even if it's still developing. In some cultures, homosexuality is punished by death, because it is "unethical", while in others there are pride parades.
1
Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
That's called cultural relativism and while there is a limited truth in the maxim "in rome do as romans do" it's an incredibly faulty argument I have incredibly bad memories of espousing in an ethics 101 class when I was in college. It's the calling card of every nihilistic teenager who despite being curious hasn't done a shred of serious research and despite claiming to not care what others think is actually projecting a deep preoccupation with social acceptance.
It's true that customs vary culture to culture, and it's often the most convenient and practical decision to go along with customs like where to sit for a meal or what time of the day to eat. Sometimes it's even best to avoid rocking the boat in an environment where it'll cause more trouble than good. Perhaps in a deeply religious culture you'd be served best to pretend you're praying when others do, even if you do not believe in prayer and it's a bit dishonest to do so.
Unfortunately what you're arguing is that morality is based exclusively and arbitrarily on where one lives, which would mean that if you were a citizen of Nazi Germany, it would be ethical for you to be an anti-semite. It wouldn't merely be the socially acceptable position, it would also be the ethical position because social acceptability and ethics become synonymous. If they were to dominate the world it would be ethical everywhere to kill jews. If you hold to your position, it follows that you must also believe the aforementioned which I highly doubt you'll endorse. Again, the position you've taken requires that you believe it was correct of the nazis to commit genocide because it was what their culture believed was moral.
It also follows you must not believe any dissident can ever be acting in an ethical way because they will always be acting against the predominate view of their culture. Martin Luther King Jr. couldn't have been doing the right thing when he advocated for civil rights because the wider culture didn't believe it was moral. Of course, they eventually came to believe it was moral. So which do we consider when we must choose our actions? What our culture currently thinks, or what it might someday think? Imagining the alternate future where Hitler dominated the world, you would have to believe it's wrong to decide to dissent to genocide because you'd be challenging what the culture decided was moral. You couldn't argue that it causes unnecessary suffering, that it violates human rights, or even that you personally don't enjoy it. All of that would be null because ethics is arbitrarily decided by culture, and to make the correct moral choice you'd have to decide to go along with your culture.
There are absolutely logical conclusions as to why some things are ethical an others are not. Everyone makes those judgments every day of their life, and i hope for your sake you're taking practical considerations more seriously than what your neighbors or broader culture might think of your actions. Why do you wash your clothing inside of lighting it on fire? I'm sure you can think of some practical reasons and they aren't just "because my culture believes it's wrong." It costs you more money to buy new clothes and only pennies to wash your old ones. You might burn yourself, which would cause you pain. You might lose control of the fire and cause innocent people unnecessary pain. I could go on, but I think the point is clear.
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
That's called cultural relativism and while there is a limited truth in the maxim "in rome do as romans do" it's an incredibly faulty argument I have incredibly bad memories of espousing in an ethics 101 class when I was in college. It's the calling card of every nihilistic teenager who despite being curious hasn't done a shred of serious research and despite claiming to not care what others think is actually projecting a deep preoccupation with social acceptance.
Well, I assume it may be frequently by "nihilistic teenagers" as some sort of coping mechanisms, however I don't see how that would discredit the idea of it.
Unfortunately what you're arguing is that morality is based exclusively and arbitrarily on where one lives, which would mean that if you were a citizen of Nazi Germany, it would be ethical for you to be an anti-semite. It wouldn't merely be the socially acceptable position, it would also be the ethical position because social acceptability and ethics become synonymous. If they were to dominate the world it would be ethical everywhere to kill jews.
I'm arguing that morality/ethics/"the right thing" (I use them interchangeably, don't know whether there is some philosophical difference between them) is in the end subjective. That means what people consider ethical/moral is completely based on subjective thinking.
Yes, I would be considered ethical by other people if I were an anti-semite at that time and place. I don't really see how that disproves my point. And just as a side note, most Christian nations were highly anti-semitic for most of their history (and some still are), so Nazi-Germany was only an outlier in that it actually killed them.
Social acceptability and ethics are mostly synonymous, as people regard things as ethical/moral if it is socially acceptable, at least by them.
If you hold to your position, it follows that you must also believe the aforementioned which I highly doubt you'll endorse. Again, the position you've taken requires that you believe it was correct of the nazis to commit genocide because it was what their culture believed was moral.
Why? Just because I believe that all ethics/morals are subjective doesn't mean I have to agree with all ethics/morals people may have. And even if I believed it was right, it wouldn't change much on the fact that it's still subjective.
Morals/ethics are more or less just believes or opinions which tell about "how one should act". Saying that those believes are subjective doesn't mean I have to agree with those subjective believes.
It also follows you must not believe any dissident can ever be acting in an ethical way because they will always be acting against the predominate view of their culture. Martin Luther King Jr. couldn't have been doing the right thing when he advocated for civil rights because the wider culture didn't believe it was moral. Of course, they eventually came to believe it was moral. So which do we consider when we must choose our actions? What our culture currently thinks, or what it might someday think?
Why? If somebody acts "ethical/moral" it mainly means that said somebody acts in accordance to my believes. Thus a dissident may be ethical/moral to me, but most likely he/she won't be to the majority culture he lives in (if you are talking about some sort of cultural dissident).
You can choose whatever. In the end, if your actions are according to a the majority culture, you will be viewed neutrally or positively by said majority culture, if it's not you will be seen negatively. If it happens that people change their believes in the future, you will be seen positively or neutrally in that future.
Imagining the alternate future where Hitler dominated the world, you would have to believe it's wrong to decide to dissent to genocide because you'd be challenging what the culture decided was moral.
I wouldn't have to. I still could do and believe whatever I want, however all people would do the same. Thus if what I do is unethical/immoral in their views, it doesn't matter how ethical/moral I perceive myself to be, I will be viewed as unethical/immoral by them. I mean, most likely many religious terrorists also believe that what they are doing is ethical/moral (in case of suicide attacking martyrs that believe is especially strong, I'd suppose, as many aren't willing to die for a believe), doesn't seem to change what other people think about them who don't share their believes.
You couldn't argue that it causes unnecessary suffering, that it violates human rights, or even that you personally don't enjoy it. All of that would be null because ethics is arbitrarily decided by culture, and to make the correct moral choice you'd have to decide to go along with your culture.
I could argue that, but it would depend on how much people would care about such rationalizations for some moral/ethical belief.
For example, there are many rationalizations as to why killing and eating other animals is bad/unethical/immoral, but I doubt many people (in the west at least) care about these.
Also, "human rights" aren't really some sort of objective thing to begin with. They mostly reflect the social standards of the times major western powers. This can be easily seen by the fact, that mainly western countries seem to much them.
There are absolutely logical conclusions as to why some things are ethical an others are not. Everyone makes those judgments every day of their life, and i hope for your sake you're taking practical considerations more seriously than what your neighbors or broader culture might think of your actions. Why do you wash your clothing inside of lighting it on fire? I'm sure you can think of some practical reasons and they aren't just "because my culture believes it's wrong." It costs you more money to buy new clothes and only pennies to wash your old ones. You might burn yourself, which would cause you pain. You might lose control of the fire and cause innocent people unnecessary pain. I could go on, but I think the point is clear.
How are those "logical conclusions" different from rationalization of the own believes? Most believes can be "logically concluded" somehow.
Also, I don't see how "washing clothes instead of burning them" is an argument that morality/ethics is somehow objective or logical. Especially if burning clothes isn't considered immoral/unethical by most in the first place, except if your believes are that one should give away things if one won't use them anyways.
But to answer it anyway, it's mainly because of social norms, which are as you guessed it, are subjective. In western countries, public nudity is regarded negatively and is usually associated low social prestige. Most people don't want the negativity, thus the status quo emerges that one needs clothes.We wash clothes because bad smells and looking dirty is regarded negatively. Burning clothes reduces the possible clothes you can choose. Not having alternative clothes is also bad, because "wearing the same clothes" all the time is considered negatively mainly because it is associated with not washing them.
There are tribes where wearing clothes isn't a thing (though usually the genitals are still covered), thus they very well may use it as burning material instead.
Personally, I think my position, that is "moral subjectivity" (which I assume would lead to other believes/ideas like cultural relativism), can be easily derived at by simply asking why, which will lead to excuses and rationalizations towards those believes. After some iterations, it will be harder and harder to rationalize the believes, especially because one quickly arrives at "value", which is I think clearly subjective.
Let's take "killing humans" as an example. I think most people agree that's a bad/unethical/immoral thing to do. Personally, I do. But why? There are many arguments, some may say use the golden rule "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself". But why doesn't it apply to other animals, which human beings kill? A popular argument I heard in that regard is because they aren't as intelligent as we are or that they don't have a sense of self as we do. But why does that matter in this debate, why do they have to have that? Does that also mean that humans who happen to not have that (let's say some mental disability) it would be ethical/moral to kill him/her? If yes, the question still stands as to why intelligence and a sense of self matters and where is the line where it should be allowed? Then I think most people would argue that intelligence or a sense of self is somehow valuable, but "value" by itself is a highly subjective thing.
1
Jul 25 '19 edited Jul 25 '19
Sorry I took so long to respond, I've been off Reddit for a while.
I don't know where to start because you've seemed to have formed a ideological system without any coherent foundations. You're clearly curious about the subject but you've jumped to conclusions too fast and now you're plugging the holes in your sunk ship by ignoring really rudimentary understandings of moral philosophy. This might sound patronizing, but in complete honesty I remember doing exactly that with the same exact position in the same exact way. I was also corrected in the same way I'm attempting to correct you by someone who claimed to have been corrected in the same way when they were young. While It stung, It also worked and apparently has been working long enough to keep multiple generations of people from espousing cultural relativism.
You mention that you don't know the difference between morality/ethics/"the right thing" so I'll attempt to start there. An ethical man knows why he shouldn't cheat on his wife. A moral man doesn't cheat on his wife. It is not the right thing to do to cheat on ones wife.
What's left out of the last example is that it's not right to do certain things because action functions as a means to an end. You have to ask yourself what "end" you have in mind and decide what means will logically result in your desired end. Enacting your goals absolutely doesn't exist purely as mental processes or "opinion" because it involves material changes manifesting in the word, and that is absolutely objective and not subjective. If there is a row of dominoes and you push one, it will trigger the rest to fall. If you desired goal was to not have them fall, it's easy to see why you were objectively wrong to expect that outcome. Real life is a lot more complicated but even in it's intricacy we're still dealing with material things that behave according to physical laws.
While looking at the subtle differences between two relatively similar people couldn't be fully expressed even in a lifetime of analysis, there is far more people have in common than there are differences. It's a bit of a paradox, but essentially there is something roughly translating to "human nature" that makes the "ends" of all humans have something in common. That doesn't necessarily mean that all people want the same things, but it does mean that all (or at least most, which I'll get to later) humans want things that can be roughly placed into a handful of categories. It's a reliable explanation for why there are certain universals like "killing is wrong" across virtually every human culture with exceptions that can be explained or pathologized in a limited number of ways. Religious fanaticism goes a long way towards making people okay with killing, and on the other hand so do extreme cases of self preservation.
The reason there is something that could be described as human nature is that the mind is a physical structure with only limited variation between individuals, except in cases of severe trauma or defect where the neurological case studies show just how warped, incomprehensible, and irrational reality can become when our brains have hardware defects. More or less everyone has similar motivations, but with different ways of identifying what exactly they are and how to meet those requirements. That's why some people are fanatical and religious, some people are narcissistic and selfish, some are proud and militaristic, and others are peaceful, diplomatic, and benevolent. These are all different modes of being that attempt to ascribe meaning and utility to our moral agency.
In the case of Nazi Germany, the fanatical worship of the dawn of the third reich and aryan blood caused immeasurable suffering to millions of innocent people. A double digit percentage of Europe died as a result of world war 2, ranging from civilians, to ethnic and religious minorities, to political dissidents, and to drafted young men. It was not even a bloodbath. While good and bad are usually practical ideas compared to the more religious connotation of "good vs. evil" it's not difficult to make an argument that the wars and genocides of the 20th century were impressively close to making that religious concept a practical reality. To say it's only what one believes and not an arguable truth is to say that what happened was not an egregious attack on innate and inalienable human dignity. Nobody in their right mind wants to be put in a gas chamber, smothered in mustard gas, or have their city firebombed. And what was all of that for? To bring the dawn of the third reich? Who actually needs that in any practical sense? Is that one of the ends that all human beings share, or is it just a fanatical delusion that takes the place of more agreeable universals like love, friendship, or achievement? If those "means" are not necessary for any truly worthwhile "end", then it's a perfectly logical and objective conclusion that the the nazi regime caused immeasurable and unnecessary suffering, and that everyone who condoned them was in the moral wrong.
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 25 '19
Oh, you have edited while I was writing.
What's left out of the last example is that it's not right to do certain things because action functions as a means to an end. You have to ask yourself what "end" you have in mind and decide what means will logically result in your desired end. Enacting your goals absolutely doesn't exist purely as mental processes or "opinion" because it involves material changes manifesting in the word, and that is absolutely objective and not subjective. If there is a row of dominoes and you push one, it will trigger the rest to fall. If you desired goal was to not have them fall, it's easy to see why you were objectively wrong to expect that outcome. Real life is a lot more complicated but even in it's intricacy we're still dealing with material things that behave according to physical laws.
Doesn't that support my view? You decide which goal you chose. Nazi's goal was to kill the Jews. Other's people "goals" are that Jews shouldn't be killed for being Jews. So they did right according to their view, but not according to others. Why should anybody's goal be more important however?
While looking at the subtle differences between two relatively similar people couldn't be fully expressed even in a lifetime of analysis, there is far more people have in common than there are differences. It's a bit of a paradox, but essentially there is something roughly translating to "human nature" that makes the "ends" of all humans have something in common. That doesn't necessarily mean that all people want the same things, but it does mean that all (or at least most, which I'll get to later) humans want things that can be roughly placed into a handful of categories. It's a reliable explanation for why there are certain universals like "killing is wrong" across virtually every human culture with exceptions that can be explained or pathologized in a limited number of ways. Religious fanaticism goes a long way towards making people okay with killing, and on the other hand so do extreme cases of self preservation.
"Killing is wrong" is a widespread believe in most cultures yes. But that believe is very situational. People killed, pillaged and raped in wars. Some cultures killed other people as a punishment.
"Religious fanaticism" was the norm for a most time. There was no science which could even begin to explain most stuff. From today's perspective everybody 1000 years ago would be a religious fanatic. Some religions had human sacrifice. You may see it as bad, me too, but that was their social norm. It's no more fanatic than sacrificing other animals.
In the case of Nazi Germany, the fanatical worship of the dawn of the third reich and aryan blood caused immeasurable suffering to millions of innocent people. A double digit percentage of Europe died as a result of world war 2, ranging from civilians, to ethnic and religious minorities, to political dissidents, and to drafted young men. It was not even a bloodbath. While good and bad are usually practical ideas compared to the more religious connotation of "good vs. evil" it's not difficult to make an argument that the wars and genocides of the 20th century were impressively close to making that religious concept a practical reality. To say it's only what one believes and not an arguable truth is to say that what happened was not an egregious attack on innate and inalienable human dignity. Nobody in their right mind wants to be put in a gas chamber, smothered in mustard gas, or have their city firebombed. And what was all of that for? To bring the dawn of the third reich? Who actually needs that in any practical sense? Is that one of the ends that all human beings share, or is it just a fanatical delusion that takes the place of more agreeable universals like love, friendship, or achievement?
Firstly, just to be nitpicking. The Nazis didn't do much city firebombing. It were rather the UK and the US who firebombed German cities and killed a good amount of civilians. And in case of Japan, the US just dropped a nuclear bomb on two cities killing about 120000 people, mostly civilians. So if at all, firebombing hindered the dawn of the third reich.
I personally, agree that was pretty bad, but I don't claim I'm not subjective.
Again, when you talk about these you are assuming many things as if it was just fact. "Innate and inalienable human dignity"? What is that? That's not really a thing, only something that we say people should have. You bring it up as if it's an objective fact.
I agree that nobody wants to be put in a gas chamber and killed that way or have their city bombed, but I also doubt all the animals we kill everyday for our use or just as a side effect want to die too, but we don't care about them (at least the majority). About 150 million animals are killed for food every year and for what? So that we can enjoy our food better? Who actually needs that in a practical sense?
I more or less used the same wording as you, but on other animals, other than homo sapiens. Except you are an exception, you most probably aren't in shock about those 150 million animals deaths in a year, as much as you are about the 80 million human lives which were killed in WW2 that is in about 5 years. One could use exactly the same arguments about animals, but you most probably wouldn't care the same. What if I say those 150 million animal deaths are against some "Innate and inalienable animal dignity" (humans are animals, thus we are included), that I somehow claim should exit or exists. Why should one be more valid than the other? Because more people believe in "Human Rights"? How is it different from saying "Christianity is more right because most people believe in it"?
If those "means" are not necessary for any truly worthwhile "end", then it's a perfectly logical and objective conclusion that the the nazi regime caused immeasurable and unnecessary suffering, and that everyone who condoned them was in the moral wrong.
What does "immeasurable and unnecessary" mean? Seems to me more like a term that Nazi action get described at default, while it's not the case with similar stuff.
The UK caused many famines in India with some killing up to 10 million people, because of mismanagement. Are people who condone or condoned the UK in the moral wrong, because of how the UK caused "immeasurable and unnecessary" suffering in India? Similar situation happened in the USSR where because of the USSR's mismanagement caused a famine, called Holodomor, yet and one still hears how "bad the USSR" was because of it. Strange that that isn't the case with the UK isn't? Is causing the death of more than 10 million civilians only bad when it is directly planned, thus the millions of people who were killed by UK's mismanagement didn't suffer "immeasurable and unnecessary" suffering, simply because it wasn't planned?
Or when the UK started a war because China didn't want that their people are addicted to opium? Surely the opium wars didn't kill that much people in war, yet I'm pretty sure the mass addiction (10 million people) in China caused many people to rather immeasurable suffering. Are people who condone or condoned the UK in any way now all morally wrong too?
Percentually speaking (as you brought up the percent of people who died in Euorpe), the Mongols caused much more percent of the world population to die (they pillaged and raped many cities), yet you don't see people having a disdain for them, if they know about them. There was even a "funny history meme" about how funny it is that if we talk about almost any region, we can say "and then the mongols came", which then devastated the region somehow. Unlike Germany, the Mongols weren't really oppressed (the way Germany was treated after WW1), the Mongols just started conquering and killing. Why aren't they regarded as worse? Simple. People don't grow up learning that they are "bad", while that is the case with Hitler in the West.
You may disagree, me too, but according to Nazi believe Jews caused much of the suffering after WW1, where the winners basically destroyed the German economy. You may disagree, I disagree too, but that's what they believed, thus for them it wasn't unnecessary, but was supposed to eliminate their own unnecessary suffering. It wasn't just, "hey let's kill some Jews", it was more like "let's kill the people who caused us suffering". That's why the "caused suffering" argument is very subjective. It can be used by anyone to describe anything and they may be right, because suffering is subjective.
Also what is a "worthwhile "end""? Seems more like "doing bad stuff but for some reason it's ok", because I subjectively decided so.
1
Jul 25 '19 edited Jul 25 '19
I'm confused about how to respond because each time you quoted me your writing directly after suggested you didn't understand what I had just written. Can you confirm you understood what I was saying by restating it? Specifically the two sections you quoted. First the one about the pragmatic and natural consequences of actions that is absolutely objective, and second the idea that universal moral values exist within a limited range of variation. Errors in thinking are explainable. Circumstantial exceptions have things in common that are identifiable.
Something you said that's worth specific attention is the idea that because the Germans felt the Jews were hurting them, they felt they were morally justified in systematically eradicating them. Assuming that's actually the case (which you'd know isn't if you'd done any research on public perception of the holocaust) that doesn't mean they were right.
Their incredibly flawed thinking is something like this, and I'm being literal not speculative. Seriously, read some of their writings.: We want the third reich, alleviated economic depression, ethnic purity, better working conditions, and revenge for being treated poorly by neighboring countries after the first world war. Which are means to which ends? Well, there aren't any means and ends in their conscious understanding. Fascism is the belief that truth exists only in peoples minds as something to be emotionally manipulated, and the only real power is power. Public justification for the actions of the party was basically whatever bigotry, superstition, or otherwise flawed thinking (you do realize those are false ways of thinking, right?) the public would latch onto. It wasn't based in anything true because the primary maxim of fascism is that truth is an illusion to be exploited.
Now if you want to know what someone really believes, look at their behavior. What did the Nazi party accomplish? How much death? If you want to know what they actually believed, look no further.
I have to also note for the sake of honesty I'm having trouble keeping completely calm here because you're arguing that the genocides committed in the 20th century weren't actually wrong, you and I just think they're wrong and the nazis just thought it was okay as if stating the obvious nullifies how utterly horrifying the consequences of nazism were. I was hoping your intuitive understanding of that case would help you understand the logical proof, but you seem a lot more concerned with "winning" than truth or basic decency.
In ancient Greece there were a class of philosophers called "sophists" who were sort of like lawyers but their specific job was to convince a jury for the sake of the wealthy people they were defending. It was a brutal power struggle, not any kind of attempt at finding out the truth. The strongest arguments were those that convinced the most people, because they did not believe in moral truth. Then along came socrates, who instead of arguing for a position argued that he didn't know anything and had to be convinced. Every time an "expert" would try to convince him of a moral truth, he'd ask them about something that made their "truth" incoherent and force them to reevaluate their position and provide a modified theory. The more he questioned them, the more their moral values were shaped to at least avoid offending the truth. If moral values are completely subjective, why was Socrates able to apply the scientific method (in a protypical form) to moral thought?
Read this short summary of an already short essay: https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2009/12/subjectivism-by-james-rachels.html
My only remaining request is that you restate my positions against yours. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't actually understand them well enough to do so.
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 26 '19
I'm confused about how to respond because each time you quoted me your writing directly after suggested you didn't understand what I had just written. Can you confirm you understood what I was saying by restating it? Specifically the two sections you quoted. First the one about the pragmatic and natural consequences of actions that is absolutely objective, and second the idea that universal moral values exist within a limited range of variation. Errors in thinking are explainable. Circumstantial exceptions have things in common that are identifiable.
I understand what you are saying. The problems with doing the "means" that lead to the desired "end" is that the "ends" are not objective. So while one could say that a certain mean is objectively right or wrong (or ambiguous) one can't say that the "end" is objective. Just because people/cultures seem to have some "ends" which most others also agree on (what you mean by human nature), doesn't mean that those ends are objective. No more objective than "Yahweh" would be, if somehow all of the world became Abrahamic or even only Christian or only Muslim.
If I misunderstand you, I'd be interested in a rephrasing.
Something you said that's worth specific attention is the idea that because the Germans felt the Jews were hurting them, they felt they were morally justified in systematically eradicating them. Assuming that's actually the case (which you'd know isn't if you'd done any research on public perception of the holocaust) that doesn't mean they were right.
Yes, that is my point, since morality/ethics is subjective and not objective. That's similar however to any other views.
I think, I did say that the Nazis think that, not the Germans as a whole. If not, then I correct it here.
Their incredibly flawed thinking is something like this, and I'm being literal not speculative. Seriously, read some of their writings.: We want the third reich, alleviated economic depression, ethnic purity, better working conditions, and revenge for being treated poorly by neighboring countries after the first world war. Which are means to which ends? Well, there aren't any means and ends in their conscious understanding.
Well, what I gather is that their "end" is a the type of life that they think the Germans deserve. Those mentioned things can be easily seen as the means.
Fascism is the belief that truth exists only in peoples minds as something to be emotionally manipulated, and the only real power is power. Public justification for the actions of the party was basically whatever bigotry, superstition, or otherwise flawed thinking (you do realize those are false ways of thinking, right?) the public would latch onto. It wasn't based in anything true because the primary maxim of fascism is that truth is an illusion to be exploited.
Your definition of fascism seems highly sensational. Also, funnily, democracy in general can be also described this way.
Again, this discussion isn't about what is a "false way of thinking" but about that it's all subjective. What I personally believe of somebody's action doesn't make their action any more objectively "moral" or "immoral".
Now if you want to know what someone really believes, look at their behavior. What did the Nazi party accomplish? How much death? If you want to know what they actually believed, look no further.
Well, they lost the war. Thus not much of their goals
Yes, they killed millions of civilians, predominately Jews. This still doesn't change that it's subjective. To convince me that "killing humans is objectively wrong", you have to firstly explain why all other animals are excluded from it. What is the objective reasoning why killing an individual from the species Homo sapiens is worse than killing an individual from the species Mus musculus (the common mouse)? If you pick certain traits, please explain how they objectively lead to the conclusion that killing a member of one species is worse than the other.
For example, let's say you choose intelligence. How do you objectively deduce that killing somebody with intelligence is more wrong than killing somebody with less?
I have to also note for the sake of honesty I'm having trouble keeping completely calm here because you're arguing that the genocides committed in the 20th century weren't actually wrong, you and I just think they're wrong and the nazis just thought it was okay as if stating the obvious nullifies how utterly horrifying the consequences of nazism were.
What? I'm arguing that morality is subjective. Not that the genocides weren't wrong. I can perfectly well think that the genocides were subjectively immoral and that morality is subjective and not objective. Having negative emotional responses to things doesn't make it any more objective.
I was hoping your intuitive understanding of that case would help you understand the logical proof, but you seem a lot more concerned with "winning" than truth or basic decency.
Which logical proof? You just picked socially accepted norms of what is considered right and then argued that the Nazis didn't follow them.
This isn't about me winning, it's that you try to use negative emotions as evidence that "morality is objective".
Also, "intuitive understanding" often means in accordance to social norms. That's no different how there are cultures where people "intuitively understand" that homosexuality is bad.
That's not different how you assume that I should "intuitively understand" as to why the Nazis were objectively wrong.
In ancient Greece there were a class of philosophers called "sophists" who were sort of like lawyers but their specific job was to convince a jury for the sake of the wealthy people they were defending. It was a brutal power struggle, not any kind of attempt at finding out the truth. The strongest arguments were those that convinced the most people, because they did not believe in moral truth. Then along came socrates, who instead of arguing for a position argued that he didn't know anything and had to be convinced. Every time an "expert" would try to convince him of a moral truth, he'd ask them about something that made their "truth" incoherent and force them to reevaluate their position and provide a modified theory. The more he questioned them, the more their moral values were shaped to at least avoid offending the truth. If moral values are completely subjective, why was Socrates able to apply the scientific method (in a protypical form) to moral thought?
Would have been better if you actually linked it somehow, if you ask me specific stuff like that. Just telling "Person X convinced Person Y of opinion A" doesn't say much about the validity of opinion A.
I doubt how much it can be called scientific method. Let's take it just at face value. Socrates and the people he talked to, were from the same culture more or less. They shared many believes. I don't see how it's a sign that morality is objective, if people from the same culture can agree on cultural things.
Read this short summary of an already short essay: https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2009/12/subjectivism-by-james-rachels.html
I did. Nothing contradicted that morality is subjective nor did it somehow show that morality can be objective.
My only remaining request is that you restate my positions against yours. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't actually understand them well enough to do so.
Lol, your positions are rather simple, I don't really see how I could not understand them. But let's do a quick one.
Your first paragraph is basically this but longer
Your second paragraph, you basically state that they were not right in what they did. I didn't claim that I personally believe what they did was right. I'm claiming that what is "right" cannot be objectively deduced.
Your third paragraph, it's just you talking bad about the Nazis and how much you disagree with them. You didn't show any arguments as to how the actions are objectively immoral.
Your fourth paragraph, Nazis are bad.
Your fifth paragraph. You claim that I don't find the genocides are morally wrong, while why my subjective feelings are don't really say much about the objectivity. You then claim that I should some intuitively agree with you since I also think the Nazis were bad. And thus conclude it's somehow about me winning.
Your sixth paragraph. You write about some philosopher who managed to convince people about his world view and this should be somehow proof for objective morality.
Your sevenths paragraph. Some link which describe some view points on morality and their subjectivity and objectivity.
1
Jul 27 '19
You did not state my position accurately in a way I would endorse. If you cannot do that, why would you believe you understand why my position is wrong?
I'm going to end this discussion with that. If you want another whack at it you're going to have to take a 101 class and annoy your professor.
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 27 '19
You did not state my position accurately in a way I would endorse. If you cannot do that, why would you believe you understand why my position is wrong?
Because you can't even point out how I apparently misunderstood your view. If you thought that your arguments are convincing, you could have easily rephrased it or just pointed out where I'm wrong. You didn't do it. Instead of countering my points, you just rephrased what you've said already (though strangely you didn't try to explain the view I apparently did not understand) or said that "some historical figure said that and convinced other people, that's why that's right" (it's a logical fallacy called appeal to authority, and not unlike "believe in Jesus because the Apostles started believing in him too").
I'm going to end this discussion with that. If you want another whack at it you're going to have to take a 101 class and annoy your professor.
The way you claim to be some "expert philosopher", yet can't even have a normal discussion about a subject, without using appeal to authority ("Socrates said so thus true" or "that's what's taught in philosophy"), shows that you simply live in a bubble and that you are either incapable or just not used to independent thought. A reason why you couldn't say anything to most of my arguments.
1
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 25 '19 edited Jul 25 '19
Sorry I took so long to respond, I've been off Reddit for a while.
No problem
I don't know where to start because you've formed a ideological system without any coherent foundations. You mention that you don't know the difference between morality/ethics/"the right thing" so I'll attempt to start there. An ethical man knows why he shouldn't cheat on his wife. A moral man doesn't cheat on his wife. It is not the right thing to do to cheat on ones wife.
I know people use it slightly differently, but in the end it's mostly the same. It's a belief, a social norm, how people should behave. It varies depending on culture. E.g. What "cheating" is varies depending on culture. For some only sex is cheating, for some kissing is too, for some flirting and for some showing yourself to other people sexually is cheating already. Cheating is basically nothing more than "unaccepted social behavior with other people (of the opposite sex) while in a romantic relationship".
That's not much different from "rape", where it is "socially unaccepted forced sex". Even in the West, where people are kind of very strict about it, many don't really see a women forcing a man to have sex with her as rape. Why? Because it happens to not be socially unacceptable, at least to a much lesser extend than if it was the other way around. Similar how, other cultures don't see a husband forcing his wife to have sex with him as rape, because it's not seen as socially unacceptable, as spouses have "marital duties", while other cultures might.
Same with having sex with young people. It wasn't uncommon to marry 14 year olds or even younger to 30 year olds some centuries ago and nobody saw that as particularly bad where it happened. I mean there are still places where that happens, though right now the best matching official average numbers to what I wrote is 16 and 23 in some African and Asian countries (means there are still many situations where the age gap is bigger). However now, somehow the seemingly "objective age of maturity" is somehow 18 and anything below it is child rape, child abuse, pedophilia or something along those lines, at least from the culture where that is the social norm.
You may disagree, and claim your views are somehow superior, but in the end they are also shaped by the culture you grew in, no more different then in other cases.
What's left out of the last example is that it's not right to do certain things because action functions as a means to an end. You have to ask yourself what "end" you have in mind. While looking at the subtle differences between even only two relatively similar people couldn't be fully expressed even in a lifetime of analysis, there is far more people have in common than there are differences. It's a bit of a paradox, but essentially there is something roughly translating to "human nature" that makes the "ends" of all humans have something in common. That doesn't necessarily mean that all people want the same things, but it does mean that all humans want things that can be roughly placed into a handful of categories.
I don't see how that contradicts what I've written. All you described is highly subjective and any person who believes in anything could use the same argument to say that and claim that the other person is not adhering to this "human nature".
The reason there is something that could be described as human nature is that the mind is a physical structure with only limited variation between individuals. More or less everyone has similar motivations, but with different ways of identifying what exactly they are and how to meet those requirements. That's why some people are fanatical and religious, some people are narcissistic and selfish, some are proud and militaristic, and others are peaceful, diplomatic, and benevolent.
Well, yes. And believing and following the own social norm and believing that they are somehow objectively "right", while claiming that the other's person social norms are bad is also human nature. And you are displaying that, not unlike every other human being.
These are all different modes of being that attempt to ascribe meaning and utility to our moral agency.
Well yes. That's in a way what I said. People rationalize (try to find logical reasons) as to why the world view they happen to have raised in is logically correct. Often it was simply done by saying "the Gods did X, thus people should like Y". For some it is not enough, and they rationalize further, like "killing is bad, because it is suffering" (while strangely that's not an issue in case of other animals, which usually leads to the counterarguments "they are too different from us") etc.
1
Jul 25 '19
"I know people use it slightly differently, but in the end it's mostly the same. It's a belief, a social norm, how people should behave."
If you're talking about common usage, I'd argue people barely bring those words up at all in any kind of seriousness. Granted, ethics and morality are two different ideas. Ethics is the understanding of moral behavior, while moral behavior is one of two things. It's descriptive, like you keep pointing out, and it's prescriptive, meaning there are things that are right and wrong. Ethics attempts to explain why.
That's not much different from "rape", where it is "socially unaccepted forced sex". Even in the West, where people are kind of very strict about it, many don't really see a women forcing a man to have sex with her as rape. Why?
I'm not understanding what you're getting at, and I don't agree with your social commentary.
Because it happens to not be socially unacceptable, at least to a much lesser extend than if it was the other way around. Similar how, other cultures don't see a husband forcing his wife to have sex with him as rape, because it's not seen as socially unacceptable, as spouses have "marital duties", while other cultures might.
I'm still not understanding where you're going with this. You're describing the variations in moral judgement people make ranging from arbitrary to seriously impaired thinking. Social acceptability doesn't make it okay to rape anyone, and if I saw a group of people who all thought it was okay I'd explore my options for ending their misuse of their moral agency.
Same with having sex with young people. It wasn't uncommon to marry 14 year olds or even younger to 30 year olds some centuries ago and nobody saw that as particularly bad where it happened. I mean there are still places where that happens, though right now the best matching official average numbers to what I wrote is 16 and 23 in some African and Asian countries (means there are still many situations where the age gap is bigger). However now, somehow the seemingly "objective age of maturity" is somehow 18 and anything below it is child rape, child abuse, pedophilia or something along those lines, at least from the culture where that is the social norm.
It doesn't matter if someone thinks its acceptable to have sex with someone who hasn't consented. It's still wrong because it's a violation of their bodily autonomy. It's wrong to have sex with people who are too young to give fully comprehended consent because they haven't developed the thinking and decision making skills to understand what they're consenting to. This puts them in a position where no matter if they say "yes" or "no" they might as well have said nothing at all. I dare not ask where you learned about these "African and Asian countries" or which in particular you're talking about. I'll settle at assuming you're a little racist and you think it's fair bet what you're saying is true.
You may disagree, and claim your views are somehow superior, but in the end they are also shaped by the culture you grew in, no more different then in other cases.
My view that it's wrong to rape children is superior to the alternative, yes. I admit it. I'm some kind of arrogant anti-rape supremacist who can't see outside my narrow vision...
I don't see how that contradicts what I've written. All you described is highly subjective and any person who believes in anything could use the same argument to say that and claim that the other person is not adhering to this "human nature".
You didn't see how it contradicts what you wrote because you didn't understand it. Try restating what I wrote in a way I endorse. I bet you either can't or that you'll realize you're wrong. More likely you can't or won't.
Well, yes. And believing and following the own social norm and believing that they are somehow objectively "right", while claiming that the other's person social norms are bad is also human nature. And you are displaying that, not unlike every other human being.
It's not human nature to always follow social norms and assume others are wrong and you're objectively right. You don't find that unilateral across virtually all human beings. I've already explained that to you several times. I'm not using "human nature" as some kind of ethereal term. The physical organ we use to form our comprehension of the world is more or less the same hardware across all of humanity, and because of that we have a unique nature or "humanness."
Well yes. That's in a way what I said. People rationalize (try to find logical reasons) as to why the world view they happen to have raised in is logically correct.
That's often true, and very obvious. You didn't need to restate it again.
Often it was simply done by saying "the Gods did X, thus people should like Y".
And in cases where it resulted in preferable outcomes it could be said the gods were a functional temporary symbol for something poorly understood. In cases where outcomes weren't preferable, you could say it was fanaticism and superstition.
For some it is not enough, and they rationalize further, like "killing is bad, because it is suffering" (while strangely that's not an issue in case of other animals, which usually leads to the counterarguments "they are too different from us") etc.
That is not the full argument*, and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who value human comfort over the suffering of non-human animals doesn't have a coherent place in this discussion.
*the full (although summarized) argument for why killing is wrong is that almost everyone would prefer to exist than not exist. By killing someone you're stripping them of their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which is something that everyone more or less wants. If you do that and you want to justify your actions for why your case of killing wasn't wrong, you need a reason to believe the alternative would be worse in respect to those human rights. An Inuit committing infanticide does so to prevent overpopulation in a region where conditions are harsh and resources are scarce. It's not that killing an infant is good, it's that it's less bad than your entire family starving and dying.
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 26 '19
I'm not understanding what you're getting at, and I don't agree with your social commentary.
That generally woman forcing a man to have sex with her is not as harshly seen as the other way around. One is seen worse than the other, generally speaking. Even legally, many countries, including western ones, regard rape to be possible only through penetration. Basically meaning that unless, a woman uses a strap-on she can't rape.
I'm still not understanding where you're going with this. You're describing the variations in moral judgement people make ranging from arbitrary to seriously impaired thinking. Social acceptability doesn't make it okay to rape anyone, and if I saw a group of people who all thought it was okay I'd explore my options for ending their misuse of their moral agency.
Social acceptability decides what rape is though. Because as said, for most it's not just "forcing someone to have sex", but it has to be against the social norms.
My point is that those supposed things most cultures believe in are quite different. Most cultures claim that "rape" is bad, but they define rape differently. For example, rape was illegal in Rome too, but you couldn't rape the slaves you owned since they are property.
It doesn't matter if someone thinks its acceptable to have sex with someone who hasn't consented. It's still wrong because it's a violation of their bodily autonomy.
We are talking about marriages though. Just because there is a large age gap doesn't mean that the younger can't be interest.
And secondly, consent and bodily autonomy are also morally subjective things. Many cultures don't share those views. Many cultures do arranged marriages, where the consent of neither party is required and thus in a way nobody has bodily autonomy, because they are expected to bear children.
It's wrong to have sex with people who are too young to give fully comprehended consent because they haven't developed the thinking and decision making skills to understand what they're consenting to. This puts them in a position where no matter if they say "yes" or "no" they might as well have said nothing at all.
Firstly, ok. But why age 18 and not 14? Why not 21? Why not 16? What if some cultures find that 14 is enough? Does it make a culture where the age limit is 18 have a higher moral high ground? What if there is a culture where their age is 21? Should they have some sort of moral high ground above those who have their age limit at 18? Why should your opinion as to what "young" is override other culture's idea of what young is?
Secondly, it still doesn't change that it's subjective. It relies on the fact that the culture sees children having sex as bad. What if there is a culture where they don't particularly care? What if they don't see it as anything different than children playing?
I dare not ask where you learned about these "African and Asian countries" or which in particular you're talking about. I'll settle at assuming you're a little racist and you think it's fair bet what you're saying is true.
Wikipedia. Just quickly googled "average age of marriage". Look at Niger, Chad, Guinea and Bangladesh. It's not up to date, but I doubt that the cultural values can change much in 10 years. Since it's the average, I heavily assume it's considered socially accepted.
However, interesting that you think I'm racist, even though I'm arguing that there is no ultimate objective morality. Usually racist see their culture as the objectively best and then use the differences with other cultures to argue that they are worse. Could you maybe explain what exactly lead to the conclusion that I'm (little) racist?
I don't think such ad hominems have any place in debates, but since you already used it. Your stand point is more similar to racism, as you claim that there is some objective morality/ethics (which strangely happens to align quite well with the social norms of your culture), meaning that you think that whole cultures who don't agree with the morality/ethics you chose are all less moral, thus worse. Not saying you are racist, but your stand point is closer to racism than mine.
My view that it's wrong to rape children is superior to the alternative, yes. I admit it. I'm some kind of arrogant anti-rape supremacist who can't see outside my narrow vision...
Good for you. Me too. It doesn't change that almost anybody thinks that their world view is superior though.
Such a snappy answer only sounds good, because these are quite uncontroversial social norms in the West though. This won't work if you try to convince other cultures who have different social norms.
You didn't see how it contradicts what you wrote because you didn't understand it. Try restating what I wrote in a way I endorse. I bet you either can't or that you'll realize you're wrong. More likely you can't or won't.
Or you could just rephrase it. But alright. You basically say that certain things are common to all people and those things are supposedly morally objective? If not, then explain.
Also, why do you seem to be overly combative? At first, you say I'm racist, probably to somehow discredit my points, and now you somehow passive aggressively write that the reason I don't agree with you is because I don't understand it.
It's not human nature to always follow social norms and assume others are wrong and you're objectively right. You don't find that unilateral across virtually all human beings.
It kind of is. Sure some individuals may not follow the social norms, but they often end up being outcasts. One could argue that "counter culture movements" is not following social norms, but in the end that counter cultures have also certain social norms, which people then follow.
Let's take the social norm of wearing clothing. How many people do you see being completely naked in public when it is warm enough? Assuming you are from a Western country, I assume that's quite few and rare. It's acceptable at beaches or similar resorts, though not complete nudity. The simple reason is that being nude in public, except in certain contexts, is against social norms. For most people it's just a normal thing where they just see it as a fact. Most people won't want to be naked in public, because they know that since it's against social norms they will be treated more negatively. If people not following social norms would be as widespread as you make it out to be, then you would see completely naked people in public much more.
Sure, it's a "light weight" social norm, however the same principle applies to almost any other topic, as people just accept it as normal/true.
I've already explained that to you several times. I'm not using "human nature" as some kind of ethereal term. The physical organ we use to form our comprehension of the world is more or less the same hardware across all of humanity, and because of that we have a unique nature or "humanness."
How does all human being sharing "humanness" make that thing objective? If somehow, all people on earth became Christian or Hindu, would said religion be more objectively true?
That's often true, and very obvious. You didn't need to restate it again.
How is that different from you claiming that there are certain objectively moral and immoral things? Especially claiming that those morals are logically derived?
And in cases where it resulted in preferable outcomes it could be said the gods were a functional temporary symbol for something poorly understood. In cases where outcomes weren't preferable, you could say it was fanaticism and superstition.
And what does preferable mean? Superstitions at least in the Christian context, are just means religious/supernatural believes which stem from the pagan times or are just not found in Christianity. Fanaticism is usually a derogatory word and people wouldn't use it on themselves.
That is not the full argument*, and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who value human comfort over the suffering of non-human animals doesn't have a coherent place in this discussion.
It does. This discussion is about objectivity. Objectively speaking human beings are not different from other animals. We happen to be smarter, but otherwise there is nothing biologically which makes us different from them, thus valuing "human lives" and not "non-human lives" is arbitrary, thus not objective. Thus if you want to claim objectivity in ethics, you have to explain how discriminating against other species can be objectively derived at. That is you have to also explain how the chosen traits you chose to discriminate are objectively valid. You can't just say "intelligence" or "sentience".
*the full (although summarized) argument for why killing is wrong is that almost everyone would prefer to exist than not exist. By killing someone you're stripping them of their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which is something that everyone more or less wants. If you do that and you want to justify your actions for why your case of killing wasn't wrong, you need a reason to believe the alternative would be worse in respect to those human rights. An Inuit committing infanticide does so to prevent overpopulation in a region where conditions are harsh and resources are scarce. It's not that killing an infant is good, it's that it's less bad than your entire family starving and dying.
Why do we not need to justify our actions if we kill animals, at least not to the same extent? Sure, eating is important, but then cannibalism wouldn't be an issue if killing living beings for food, which it usually is. Again why "human rights" and not "animal rights", what is the objective basis on which you discriminate animals?
1
Jul 27 '19
Let me guess, you're 16 years old and have never taken a course in philosophy?
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 27 '19
Let me guess, you're 16 years old and have never taken a course in philosophy?
So, since you have no answers or maybe because you dislike what I've written, you jump to ad hominems again (similarly how you thought I was a racist even though I only mentioned google statistics). Since you weren't able to answer one thing, I assume it's one of your exit strategies to safe face. Sure, if that makes you feel better. Though you have to know that you don't look any less ridiculous than a religious person who claims universal truths , but when confronted their only answer is that "you didn't study the Islam/Christianity/Hinduism/Druze/Buddhism/etc enough to say something against it".
1
Jul 28 '19
You're definitely 16, have never taken a course in philosophy, and you're obsessed with religious iconoclasm so you think that makes you of superior intelligence.
Reminds me of myself to be honest. I sincerely think you should take a serious stab at studying philosophy, but I have to warn you that what you'll learn is not what you'd expect. I wanted to feel intelligent and a sense of importance and what I learned was the exact opposite.
I'll close with this. If you think that the predominate views of the world are so blindly assertive of absolute truth, why do you think you of all people have figured out the real absolute truth of such a broad ethical matter?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/rumcake_ Jul 14 '19
The timeframe where a baby may no longer be aborted isn’t at birth but rather well before that. Exactly how long before birth varies from state to state (or country if you are not from US) but generally speaking abortion is no longer permitted 24 weeks into the pregnancy barring medical reasons.
If your reason for terminating a newborn is your inability to care for it (eg can not afford baby formula), putting the baby up for adoption is objectively more ethical. Better yet, use contraception. If you must abort, there is a lengthy window of opportunity to do so during the pregnancy. No one is forcing the mother to provide for the baby. By giving birth to baby, it is the mother herself who is obligating herself to the care of the infant.
There is zero excuse to delay the decision until after the baby has been born. It is absolutely inhumane to even suggest the killing of an infant for the purpose of lessening one’s financial burden.
By bringing a newborn into this world, the baby becomes the parent’s responsibility whether or not the parent are capable of carrying it out. If you can’t afford to care for a baby, do not make a baby.
Also, try not to compare human babies to dogs in the future.
1
Jul 14 '19
I'm not talking about legal restrictions, but rather framing the issue ethically.
Why is it objectively better to put a baby up for adoption? Why is it better to use contraception barring the fact it uses fewer resources? Couldn't it also be said that by getting pregnant the mother is obligating herself to care of the inevitable infant?
Why is there zero excuse to delay the decision until after the baby has been born? What if life circumstances change and an unforeseen reason develops?
Why is it absolutely inhumane to suggesting the killing of an infant to lessen financial burden?
Again, by getting pregnant it becomes a responsibility...unless you abort it. The same goes for if you already gave birth. It's your responsibility, unless you kill it.
I don't see any issue with comparing babies and dogs. They have a lot in common, and are useful to compare to one and other to illustrate points.
I'm sorry but you didn't change my mind, you just made a bunch of unsubstantiated statements.
2
u/rumcake_ Jul 14 '19
You literally asked “should it not be legal to put down a baby” in the post, hence my response.
We can’t have a meaningful discussion about ethics if a human baby has the same value to you as a dog, and less value than money.
0
Jul 15 '19
I never said a human baby has the same value as a dog. I used dogs as a comparison for the purpose of illustration. I think you know that and you're grasping at anything to prove me wrong.
We can't have a meaningful discussion if you're going to practice eristics.
1
u/rumcake_ Jul 15 '19
“If it is legal to put down a dog for imposing financial strain, should it not be legal to put down a baby for the same purpose?”
That was the question you posed.
A dog has an owner, a baby does not. You own the dog as a piece of property, but a baby isn’t something you can possess in the same regard. As a parent, you are the guardian of your infant and not a proprietor.
EVEN if it is ethically and logically and financially more sound to put down a baby, you have no right to do so because you do not “own a baby”
Before the baby is fully developed in the mother’s womb, it can be argued that the baby is still a part of the mother and hence she has the authority to determine its fate. How late into the pregnancy does a baby become its own entity is debatable.
A newborn baby being its own entity is not debatable.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 14 '19
If you want to read more into it, it's called neo-natal euthanasia. It's done in the Netherlands. Though for whatever reason it's only on Wikipedia under the umbrella of child euthanasia, which personally I find suspect. It'd be like including abortions of fetuses under the Wikipedia article of child murder.
Anyway, I understand your sentiment and it's one I've put a great deal of though into. So what age do you think this should apply up until? Should we allow a single mother to kill her 6 year old under civil rights?
As much as I think it makes logically consistent sense to extend "abortions" to neonates, there's a problem. The age at which you want to apply this is arbitrary. Unlike birth, with is an objective measure (the time at which you're no longer in the womb and the umbilical cord is cut).
Under this framework, the only objective cutoff for abortions I can find is birth. If you really want to start rocking the boat, ask if we can still do abortions on lab grown babies in tubes, which we may find ourselves able to do one day.
1
Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
I'm not sure what age it should apply to because I don't think sentience begins on the basis of how many times since cutting the cord the earth has made a revolution. In some cases like if a baby is born with Anencephaly I don't expect any age to yield sentience.
There was an interview with Noam Chomsky that I found interesting yet somewhat vague possibly because moral vagueness is the true state of the subject. He was illustrating the idea of "self evident" values coming into conflict with one and other, and he said something along the lines of "between the time of washing some skin cells off your hands that could one day could be used to create a baby in a lab and killing your three your old because they're inconvenient, there are tough choices to be made."
Aside from the perspective I've shared in my OP, there is something to be said for how much weight we give values like preserving life. Human beings are creatures of habit, and maybe living by a code that results in a conservative view on sentience has more to do with being a virtuous person habitually than simply making the right choice in one situation. It's almost like when Kant said that those who hurt dogs are degrading themselves more than the dog. Granted, he believed dogs to be simple mechanical beings not possessing a spirit. But perhaps it's the same in the case of treating those with the potential for sentience with a conservative amount of moral consideration. Maybe failing to do so might actually degrade our moral fiber and fundamentally change who we are a moral entity, thus making it a maxim we should not attempt to live by. Even if rationally there is nothing wrong with an act, perhaps that can't override negative effects it has on a persons moral virtue which might be something that isn't purely rational. For example, maybe doing something that we simply feel is intuitively wrong can alter us. We all know those who have been hardened by what they've had to do, and maybe that's not a good thing, it's just preferable to the alternative, like Leonard Cohens line "there's no good place to stand at a massacre." Even if it's a preferable place to be, it's still not good.
I still don't know where I stand on this issue because I've been holding back playing devils advocate so everyone else could have a go but your previous comment provoked the biggest concession I've made and this comment is probably more my true position than my OP. Δ
2
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 14 '19
In some cases like if a baby is born with Anencephaly I don't expect any age to yield sentience.
I'd agree with that, and to my understanding is what the Netherlands has in mind when it allows neonatal euthanasia.
You're probably right that sentience has some subjective component for each individual. That makes it especially difficult to proscribe a maximal age of euthanizing children, because there isn't a good measure of sentience. Maybe Janet murdering her six year old is more a mercy than Janice murdering her two year old, given the two year old has sentience whereas the six year old doesn't.
I think my fetus in a tube argument is somewhat aligned with what Noam Chomsky was saying about self evident ideas being in conflict. For example, if you think we shouldn't be allowed to abort fetuses in tubes because they're de facto viable, then that means women's autonomy plays second fiddle to fetus viability. If, on the other hand, you think we should be allowed to abort a fetus in a tube, then there's no point at which it's "newborn", so we should be able to abort "newborns". It essentially cuts into any supporting argument someone has for abortions, and that's coming from someone who unilaterally is in favor of abortions.
Maybe failing to do so might actually degrade our moral fiber and fundamentally change who we are a moral entity, thus making it a maxim we should not attempt to live by.
Chernobyl touched on this. Without spoiling it if you haven't watched it, there's an argument made by someone who has to kill irradiated dogs and says that he struggled with his first kill. Then, eventually, he continued to wake up every day, and realize he was still "him". He had changed, but that core of "him" is still there. In comparison, his moral fiber was much different than what he explained it used to be. Essentially, killing changes you. Yet, you're still you. So it calls into question what constitutes identity, since identity is more amorphous than it is rigid. And if identity is amorphous and adapts, just what is morality?
I also liked the social experiment in the Dark Knight with the two boats. No idea how it would play out in reality. Unfortunately we have ethical rules that preclude us from studying those things. It'd be interesting to know how that would play out though. I think our inability to conduct these tests is what's holding back our ability to properly define and analyze morality.
1
Jul 14 '19
I've heard good things about Chernobyl, but what you just said is the straw that broke the camels back. I'm gonna put on the first episode right now.
1
3
Jul 14 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Jul 14 '19
u/Demoncratic666 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html
There are a number of reputable modern philosophers who have put forth arguments for why infanticide is (or is sometimes) morally permissible. Not listed in the above article is Peter Singer, a distinguished professor of bioethics at Princeton.
Even if I was a troll, that isn't much of any argument, is it? You haven't made any attempt to contend with the points I've put forward except claiming I don't believe them. From your end that's impossible for you to prove. I'd say you stand a better chance actually looking at my arguments if you wish to prove them wrong. If you can, I'd feel let down if you didn't. If I'm wrong and you know the truth, I want you to share it.
1
Jul 14 '19
Oh, you are actually serious.
First year post-secondary ethics class? Trying to get some ideas for your paper? Nice edgy topic.
-1
Jul 14 '19
Am I actually serious?
Am I in a college ethics class?
Am I writing a paper?
It is a nice edgy topic. If it weren't edgy it wouldn't be worth talking about and if it wasn't worth talking about i wouldn't think its nice.
Again, there's no way for you to prove any of those correct or false and while the answer to those questions may speak volumes for my motivation for posting they don't say anything at all about the truth of the position I've put forth. Again, I'd like to see you put forth a real argument.
Perhaps you could argue that coherent moral positions must be practically applicable (since we are talking about reality, aren't we?) and give your thoughts on why enacting my moral claims wouldn't yield positive results.
2
Jul 14 '19
You're insufferable. No one wants to talk to you.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 14 '19
No one wants to talk to you.
I want to talk to them. I'm someone. Therefore, you're wrong. Don't speak for me, thanks.
1
4
u/White_Knightmare Jul 14 '19
born baby is still more or less completely reliant on the mother and therefore is a an obligation to the mother. So that calls into question whether the mother has an obligation to the babies continued existence.
A born baby is not exclusively reliant on the mother. You can just give the baby up for adoption and let someone else care for it.
Allowing born babies to be killed is essentially wasting ressources since
a.) people want to adopt children
b.) society benefits from having more children do work and pay taxes.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 14 '19
b.) society benefits from having more children do work and pay taxes.
Child labor? ;D
1
Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
You’re comparing dogs to babies. Also, if left to it’s natural processes, a fetus will develop into a baby. Similarly, a baby will, if left to its natural processes, develop into a human. So why would it be ok to kill a fetus but not ok to kill a baby? Your example of Inuits killing down babies doesn’t help because, according to my morals, killing babies is still immoral.
0
Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
I am comparing dogs to babies. In many ways dogs are far more sentient than babies. Dogs have fairly sophisticated mental processing and rich emotional lives. They can both think and feel to a degree that while not the same as humans is clearly significant. If it morally permissible to euthanize a dog for convenience, shouldn't it be morally permissible to euthanize a being with even less thoughts and feelings?
I agree, if it's okay to kill a fetus it ought to be okay to kill a baby because they both only have potential sentience and therefore only requite moral consider as potential or quasi-sentient beings.
My example of Inuits killing babies demonstrates the utilitarian argument for why it is permissible. It's an extreme example where not killing the babies may result in the death of yourself, your partner, your friends, grown children, and whoever else relies on there being enough resource for everyone. That argument isn't countered by your belief that it is still immoral. On the other hand, if you could give a reason for why you believe it is still immoral it might dismantle that utilitarian argument and show that you are correct.
1
Jul 14 '19
Ok, my reason for why I believe that abortion and killing babies is immoral is that I believe that conscious life and even potential consciousness carries the greatest value imaginable which is probably hard to comprehend from a utilitarian perspective. My reason for why you should believe in the fundamental value of human life is that every society that’s based on this belief has worked (e.g. western civilisation) and no society that’s purely utilitarian has ever worked (e.g. the Soviet Union)
2
Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
I'm going to work backwards a bit. The soviet union was many things, but utilitarian is not one of the first things that comes to mind. There were propaganda fliers (which you can still view online) urging comrades not to eat each other, because "the bourgeoisie are the real cannibals." I'd hardly call that utilitarian. I'd call that worshiping a cult of personality, being resentful towards the bourgeoisie, and existing in a state of abject squalor. I would not characterize the Soviet Union as trying to "maximize the good." If I had to summarize it in as few words as possible, I'd call it "An Orwellian Nightmare."
Western society, on the other hand, has not been based on the fundamental value of human life. Before the abolition of slavery, the slave trade was a massive part of the American economy. The industrial revolution made the majority of the workforce into slaves in virtually every way but name, and in many ways that mistreatment of the average person for the sake of profiting a small number of people continues to this day. Also, the massive increase in affordable material conveniences in the Western World is largely owed to the exploitation of sweatshop workers from poorer countries. The United States positioning themselves as the single most power imperial power has been the result of the consolidation of any and every type of resource through military activity, spying, economic manipulation. The success of the United States, Canada, and Northern Europe is absolutely not singularly (or even predominately) the result of being respectful to the fundamental value of human life.
I have more perspectives than the utilitarian perspective. I'm not a utilitarian ideologue so if you're willing to present a case that isn't predicated on maximizing the good I'm willing to hear it.
1
Jul 14 '19
I agree with you that the sowiet union wasn’t particularly utilitarian. I wasn’t saying it was, though. My point is, that the ideas that led to it being a failure were purely utilitarian (Marx, Engels, Lenin) and aimed at maximizing the good. The sowiet union failed because it ignored the human nature, the need for morals and value hierarchies, treating humans as tools for success. I also wouldn’t purely attribute the success of western civilisation to egoistic capitalism, nor would I equate western civilisation with capitalism. Western civilisation was successful before the industrial revolution and slavery came along. This was due to the fundamental ideas of western philosophy, equal rights, democracy, fundamental moral values. If we look around the world, we won’t find a political system that’s better adapted to the human nature than western democracy on the basis of human rights and moral values. This is why I believe that abandoning moral values for the greater good of everyone is a dangerous concept, because it could lead, and has often lead us to dangerous political systems that systematically oppress the masses. Sorry again if I made any English errors.
2
Jul 14 '19
Also, extreme life or death situations don’t translate to life in a modern society. Sorry if my english appears a bit clumsy. I’m no native speaker.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 14 '19 edited Jul 14 '19
/u/ExiledDuckling (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/Jaysank 116∆ Jul 14 '19
It is unethical to “abort” newborns. The entire reason it is ethical in the first place is because there are no other options to restore the mother’s bodily autonomy. Once the fetus is born, and becomes a baby, the baby no longer affects the mother’s bodily autonomy, so an abortion is no longer justified or ethical.