Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 107
  1. #21
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, I don’t see that it’s all that tangential. If you’re asking about the moral value of a thing, it’s important to weigh its individual components if you want sensible output. But here you’ve created an incredibly tight set of parameters, then applied them to a wide range of considerations, while insisting that one size must fit all; it doesn’t make sense. If a person were to ask something like “Is it morally acceptable to have an abortion under some circumstances?” and someone says “Yes”, it is simply foolish to then say “Then you must be okay with dropping children off cliffs to save your wallet.”, because that’s not at all what the person’s answer says or even implies. It’s like assuming that a person who favors border security is a racist, or assuming that a person who doesn’t support Trump must love Hillary; one simply doesn’t follow from the other.
    You're asking about the moral value of a thing. I'm not.

    I'm pointing out a double standard.

  2. #22
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    You're asking about the moral value of a thing. I'm not.
    You're not? So when you ask "what is a morally/ethically sound reason to allow the child to fall to their death?" you're not asking about the moral value of allowing the child to fall to their death? When you say "I don't believe that to be a moral choice." or "And I hold that choice is not a moral one.", you're not saying that the act is immoral? Is your position that this is an amoral discussion?

    I'll put it differently then. If you’re making a claim about the moral value of a thing, it’s important to weigh its individual components if you want sensible output. But here you’ve created an incredibly tight set of parameters, then applied them to a wide range of considerations, while insisting that one size must fit all; it doesn’t make sense. If a person were claims something like “It is morally acceptable to have an abortion under some circumstances.” and someone else says “I agree”, it is simply foolish to then say “Then you must be okay with dropping children off cliffs to save your wallet.”, because that’s not at all what the person’s reply says or even implies. It’s like assuming that a person who favors border security is a racist, or assuming that a person who doesn’t support Trump must love Hillary; one simply doesn’t follow from the other.

  3. #23
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Pardon. that was poorly worded on my part. Should have read "I'm not asking about will".

  4. #24
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Pardon. that was poorly worded on my part. Should have read "I'm not asking about will".
    You're not asking about will? I know you're not asking about will. I'm asking about will. And what I'm asking about will is: In your view, does it matter at all whether or not the z/e/f is capable of conscious experience? And if it doesn’t matter at all, how do you square that with cases such as the Terri Schiavo case where she wasn’t capable of conscious experience? If the capacity for conscious experience plays no role in determining whether or not ending a human life can be justified, then it was morally wrong to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, yes?

  5. #25
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    You're not asking about will? I know you're not asking about will.
    Then why are you off-topic?

    The problem with your line of reasoning is that you're trying to draw a line to differentiate between "human" and "not human enough to care if we abort/throw off cliff". The problem with this reasoning is whatever line you draw it always includes people who aren't fetuses. I'll break my own rule here and change the context of the original op to help you get past this hangup: The kid dangling from the person's arm was born brain dead or very close it it. Just enough neurons to keep the lungs and heart and organs working, but no will at all. Does it therefor become acceptable to throw him off the cliff? "It's OKAY guys. I know he's a human being, but he doesn't have any thoughts so I can just kill him if I need to amirite?" Sorry, but that's ludicrous.

    There's a reason the point of the discussion is the woman's/person's choice.

  6. #26
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Then why are you off-topic?
    I'm not off-topic; I'm asking about your hypothetical and how it relates to abortion. Is the child brain dead or are they close to it? Are you saying there's no important difference between being actually incapable of conscious experience and being potentially capable of conscious experience?

  7. #27
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Is the child brain dead or are they close to it?
    To get to this question, you necessarily have to claim some wording of "brain dead/no brain activity is/could be a legitimate reason to drop a person off a cliff/abort a fetus". Can you copy/paste your wording and where you established it as true?

  8. #28
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    To get to this question, you necessarily have to claim some wording of "brain dead/no brain activity is/could be a legitimate reason to drop a person off a cliff/abort a fetus".
    Why should I have to do that? If the question was "Is it morally acceptable to drop a child off a cliff to save your wallet?", then you might have a point. But your claim is something like "Dropping a child off a cliff to save your wallet is morally wrong, therefore any form of abortion is just as wrong, for exactly the same reasons". This is nonsense.

  9. #29
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Why should I have to do that?
    Why should you have to support the claims your argument is built on? Because this is a debate site!
    (ask me something harder next time)

  10. #30
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Why should you have to support the claims your argument is built on?
    I'm not making an argument. I'm asking questions. Specifically, I'm asking: In your view, does it matter at all whether or not the z/e/f is capable of conscious experience? And if it doesn’t matter at all, how do you square that with cases such as the Terri Schiavo case where she wasn’t capable of conscious experience? If the capacity for conscious experience plays no role in determining whether or not ending a human life can be justified, then it was morally wrong to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, yes?

  11. #31
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Specifically, I'm asking: In your view, does it matter at all whether or not the z/e/f is capable of conscious experience?
    It's a logical non-starter. Schiavo isn't relevant. Because we're talking about a fetus that will, in all likelyhood, be capable of thought at a date in the future. Not so much for Schiavo. If we accept facts/reality and acknowledge that a fetus is something that doesn't have any thoughts but (likely) will in the not too distant future, a much better analogy to use would be some wording of, "Can we kill people while they're unconscious?" Or even "Can we kill people while they're sleeping?"

    We cannot.

    So we have explored the reasoning of "can we let the child fall if they're brain dead" and the answer is a resounding "no". It's not moral to do that. Nor does it anywhere in the op state the child is braindead.

    Funny... there is this part in the op about changing context...

  12. #32
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    So we have explored the reasoning of "can we let the child fall if they're brain dead" and the answer is a resounding "no". It's not moral to do that.
    Why? Terri Schiavo was brain dead. Was it immoral to remove her feeding tube?

  13. #33
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Why? Terri Schiavo was brain dead. Was it immoral to remove her feeding tube?
    Sounds like a great question to spark a debate in another thread where it's not off-topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by His Zhavliness
    I cannot stress enough that you may not change the context of the original scenario. If you wish to do that, start your own thread. Answers that begin with things like, "Well if the kid were evil" or "if there were two kids" or "I'd call for help and wait" or anything beyond the scenario presented will be ignored.
    I consider your line of reasoning to be akin to "Well if the kid were braindead/evil". Shame on me for giving it as much attention as I already have.

  14. #34
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Sounds like a great question to spark a debate in another thread where it's not off-topic.
    It's not off-topic. I'm simply asking questions about your hypothetical. Specifically, I'm asking: In your view, does it matter at all whether or not the z/e/f is capable of conscious experience? And if it doesn’t matter at all, how do you square that with cases such as the Terri Schiavo case where she wasn’t capable of conscious experience? If the capacity for conscious experience plays no role in determining whether or not ending a human life can be justified, then it was morally wrong to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, yes?

    And regarding your disclaimer: If the question was "Is it morally acceptable to drop a child off a cliff to save your wallet?", then you might have a point about context. But your claim is something like "Dropping a child off a cliff to save your wallet is morally wrong, therefore any form of abortion is just as wrong, for exactly the same reasons". Again; nonsense.

  15. #35
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    It's not off-topic.
    It is. I'll be ignoring further posts that don't switch gears and get back on-topic. If you want to start a thread exploring the morality of euthanizing the brain dead, by all means: go for it. As I stated, my stance is that there isn't a moral reason to throw the kid off the cliff. You're answering with precisely the context-changing nonsense I sought to avoid. "What if he's brain dead!?" He's not/won't be later. THAT is my final answer on this tangent and my final reply to this line or reasoning.

    Move on.

  16. #36
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    It is.
    No it isn't. You're claiming that dropping a child off of a cliff is - in moral terms - exactly the same as having any kind of abortion. So I'm asking questions so that you can support that claim. So far, you haven't.

  17. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by ZHAVRIC
    I'm looking for something very specific here. "Zhav, it's okay for that person to throw the child off the cliff and here's why. It's because of reasoning X with support Y."
    It is o.k. for the person to throw the child off and here is why. There is only one moral agent in the example, and that moral agent creates the definition of what is moral to do in that situation. That is what morality is.

    I inform you that I am answering from a "subjective" stance, so that you have a context from which to address any reply.
    Not to argue subjective vs objective reality.
    HOWEVER if you are going to say that my answer is not valid because of some OBJECTIVE decree of yours (like "I don't need to establish X as morally wrong") then you are going to have to deal with that and not run away, or act like I'm not answer in the context of the thread.
    To serve man.

  18. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,883
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is o.k. for the person to throw the child off and here is why. There is only one moral agent in the example, and that moral agent creates the definition of what is moral to do in that situation. That is what morality is.

    I inform you that I am answering from a "subjective" stance, so that you have a context from which to address any reply.
    I'm still not seeing a reasoning for thinking that it's okay, though. Just because the person considering it considers morality subjectively does not mean that the person will think that it's alright. In fact, if we assume that most people would be against throwing the child from the cliff, the subjective viewpoint will more likely be against doing that.

    And a morally subjective moral view on a particular topic will still have reasoning behind it. A person generally will be able to explain the root of his moral viewpoints, such as saying that they believe in the individual right to life when explaining why they oppose murder.

    So just saying that it's okay because the moral viewpoint is subjective is really not an explanation of why the person would think it's okay.

  19. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So just saying that it's okay because the moral viewpoint is subjective is really not an explanation of why the person would think it's okay.
    Though, I agree, subjective morality would probably still involve reasoning (hopefully...), I don't think MT is saying a given person WOULD throw the baby, nor is that the point (MT, forgive me if I misunderstand your where you are headed).

    However, since no source of objective morals exists, and only one source for subjective morals exists, that only leaves one moral agent to decide the morality of any action (in this scenario). So, pretty much any action CAN be moral if the only moral agent involved says so.
    After all, there are no other moral agents to disagree are there?

  20. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm still not seeing a reasoning for thinking that it's okay, though. Just because the person considering it considers morality subjectively does not mean that the person will think that it's alright. In fact, if we assume that most people would be against throwing the child from the cliff, the subjective viewpoint will more likely be against doing that.
    The point is that ANY reason is sufficient and valid given the fact of a single active moral agent. It is not a causative argument per say. I'm not arguing that because of a subjective POV thus they WILL think it is morally o.k. I'm saying that given a subjective POV it CAN be o.k. or that it would be o.k. if they deem it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And a morally subjective moral view on a particular topic will still have reasoning behind it. A person generally will be able to explain the root of his moral viewpoints, such as saying that they believe in the individual right to life when explaining why they oppose murder.
    The reasons themselves don't matter, as they are not objectively causative of a result. A person can come up with an illogical/emotional justification and it will be just as valid and true as any other.

    the person could say "I don't like babies" and punt it.
    And that would be just as valid as to say " I think it is better that as many people live as possible".
    Ultimately any reasoning is by definition arbitrary, and ALL are equally valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So just saying that it's okay because the moral viewpoint is subjective is really not an explanation of why the person would think it's okay.
    On naturalism the ultimate "why" is chemical, not reason. They just so happen to evolve that way. They just so happen to have the chemical reaction in their brain that results in X thought or action.
    And as there is no "better" or more valid chemical reaction than any other. The ultimate Why is not really in question. .. or even interesting.
    And I don't see how my answer doesn't before this post fails to explain or account for any why.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 83
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2015, 01:52 PM
  2. Free Will: a thought experiment
    By MyXenocide in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 4th, 2012, 04:48 PM
  3. Taxation: A Thought Experiment
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: February 12th, 2006, 08:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •