Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: ?
Pro-Choice? 66 84.62%
Pro-Life 7 8.97%
Prefer Not To Choose 5 6.41%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-20-2013, 05:17 PM   #91 (permalink)
Acattin Sane
 
Fluff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 8,187
Default

Voted pro-choice, but the picture of the baby on the other page and the thought of it being aborted, makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Not something I'm that arsed about though.
__________________
Fluff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 03:14 AM   #92 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
I don't think that's the question. Clearly, any action which results in net positive amount of happiness is a morally good action according to utilitarianism. It already answers your question. The question for you should be whether or not you agree with that, if you could ever think killing for pleasure is morally right. And if there are scenarios where utilitarianism would allow for it to be, whether or not that completely invalidates utilitarianism in other situations, like abortion.

For me, it doesn't. I don't require utilitarianism to be flawless like you seem to do. I can apply it when it makes sense to do so and not when it doesn't. For example utilitarianism would have me break laws for good consquences, but when it comes to laws, I think a normative approach is better. I generally think that we should follow the laws in our society, even if happiness could be maximized by breaking them.

So whether or not it is possible to dream up a scenario where utilitarianism defends what you perceive as the wrong action is, to me, not really interesting. Your requirement for a morale theory to be flawless in regards to your own moral interests is, in my opinion, unrealistic. If you submit different moral theories to extreme testing, like you have with utilitarianism, none of them will satisfy you in every instance. Utilitarianism is not unique in that way
Here's why I think it's a problem. If you propose that abortion isn't wrong because it doesn't involve suffering, then it should follow that any killing without suffering isn't wrong. If that isn't true, then it undermines your whole premise.

There's no consistent standard being applied, in such a case. To apply the moral theory in such a way is to arbitrarily override the theory with gut morality whenever you feel the situation calls for it. The question then arises: why bother with the moral theory at all? I'm not really sure how you can not see this as a problem.
Quote:
Yes, utilitarianism will often protect animals over humans because it doesn't say that human suffering is more important than animal suffering. But what does that have to do with abortions?
The idea that people fundamentally value human life, thus possibly contradicting the utilitarian arguments for something like abortion.
John Wilkes Booth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 10:29 AM   #93 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth View Post
Here's why I think it's a problem. If you propose that abortion isn't wrong because it doesn't involve suffering, then it should follow that any killing without suffering isn't wrong. If that isn't true, then it undermines your whole premise.

There's no consistent standard being applied, in such a case. To apply the moral theory in such a way is to arbitrarily override the theory with gut morality whenever you feel the situation calls for it. The question then arises: why bother with the moral theory at all? I'm not really sure how you can not see this as a problem.
Actually, what I proposed is that when deciding whose interests you should protect, the fetus or the mothers, you should protect the interests of the mother because she is the one most capable of being affected by the decision (she is the one who potentially suffers the most for it). In other words, the mother should get to choose. I added that basing a decision on what the fetus could become is basing a decision on an assumption, something I think of as a weakness.

So, it's a utilitarian sort of idea, but it is also good for non-utilitarian reasons. It has good consequences which further validates it. I believe mothers, members of our society, will appreciate the freedom to make the decision and I believe it will lead to slightly happier, healthier families. It is good for society. So unlike you I actually do think it makes sense, even if utilitarianism isn't flawless in every instance. If you still disagree with that, then that's fine with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth View Post
The idea that people fundamentally value human life, thus possibly contradicting the utilitarian arguments for something like abortion.
Actually, if people fundamentally value a human life, they will suffer more when a human life is taken. Imagine a chicken getting killed and a human getting killed. Both suffer equally. But the death of the human likely causes more suffering in others and so the death of the human is worse. For the death of a chicken to be as bad as the death of a human, you have to get a little creative.

Either way, I still don't think it matters much
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 12:01 PM   #94 (permalink)
ComputerHabenHerzschmerz
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 6,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
I added that basing a decision on what the fetus could become is basing a decision on an assumption, something I think of as a weakness.
To say it is an "assumption" is a weakness in itself. It is not an "assumption" but a scientific fact that a human embryo will mature and develop as human being. Science provide us with knowledge to know what a human fetus "could" become ... a human.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhanteimi View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" - ʕººʔ
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” ― Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” – Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." - John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." — Keith Richards ☮ 💖 ♫ ∞ ἰχθύς

Last edited by Neapolitan; 07-21-2013 at 01:24 PM.
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 12:38 PM   #95 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
To say it is an "assumption" is a weakness in itself. It is not an "assumption" but a scientific fact that a human embryo will mature and develop as human being.
My point is the embryo might die naturally in the womb, or the person it becomes might be mentally retarded to the point where he or she won't ever have the rights of a healthy adult. Basically, a number of scenarios can play out and so the point is you shouldn't have to morally treat the fetus as if it is a healthy adult human being when you don't know if it ever will become one. Assuming the embryo will one day become, unless aborted, a healthy adult human being; that is the assumption I'm talking about.
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 05:21 PM   #96 (permalink)
Partying on the inside
 
Freebase Dali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
My point is the embryo might die naturally in the womb, or the person it becomes might be mentally retarded to the point where he or she won't ever have the rights of a healthy adult. Basically, a number of scenarios can play out and so the point is you shouldn't have to morally treat the fetus as if it is a healthy adult human being when you don't know if it ever will become one. Assuming the embryo will one day become, unless aborted, a healthy adult human being; that is the assumption I'm talking about.
Given the odds, the counter assumption to that seems to be of even less value...
__________________
Freebase Dali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2013, 06:02 PM   #97 (permalink)
I sleep in your hat
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Vic. Aus.
Posts: 1,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
Basically, a number of scenarios can play out and so the point is you shouldn't have to morally treat the fetus as if it is a healthy adult human being when you don't know if it ever will become one.
That doesn't just apply to a foetus. There are any number of things that can go wrong between birth and adulthood. It doesn't lessen the value of the young child's life does it? Why should this lessen the value of the foetus's life?
Stephen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 01:04 AM   #98 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
That doesn't just apply to a foetus. There are any number of things that can go wrong between birth and adulthood. It doesn't lessen the value of the young child's life does it? Why should this lessen the value of the foetus's life?
I'm not suggesting we lessen the value of anything. I am suggesting we treat things for what they are. Children are generally treated as children. They are not allowed to drive, they have to be home at certain times, they don't get to watch certain movies and so on. They are not treated like adults, not even from a moral point of view.

So, treat a fetus like a fetus and not f.ex as a healthy, young child - just like you don't treat a kid like a healthy adult.

Is this so confusing? All in all, this was a minor point, but I now feel it detracts from the major one because people seem to misunderstand.
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 11:56 AM   #99 (permalink)
ComputerHabenHerzschmerz
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 6,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
I'm not suggesting we lessen the value of anything. I am suggesting we treat things for what they are. Children are generally treated as children. They are not allowed to drive, they have to be home at certain times, they don't get to watch certain movies and so on. They are not treated like adults, not even from a moral point of view.

So, treat a fetus like a fetus and not f.ex as a healthy, young child - just like you don't treat a kid like a healthy adult.

Is this so confusing? All in all, this was a minor point, but I now feel it detracts from the major one because people seem to misunderstand.
There is a difference between "what some one does" and "who some one is." Driving a car is an action that some one does, child is a human being. A elderly person, a young adult, a teenage, a child, a toddler, a baby, fetus can divided into groups depending on age, gender, developmental skill, physical development etc... but one thing is always constant they are human beings.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhanteimi View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" - ʕººʔ
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” ― Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” – Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." - John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." — Keith Richards ☮ 💖 ♫ ∞ ἰχθύς
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2013, 12:01 PM   #100 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: freely swimmin thru the waters of glory much like a majestic bald eagle soars thru the skies
Posts: 1,385
Default

the argument i hear a lot is that an acorn isnt yet a tree, what do u feel about that
butthead aka 216 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.