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 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point is that ANY reason is sufficient and valid given the fact of a single active moral agent.
    But with subjective morality, there is no single moral agent (unless only one person exists). There are as many moral agents as there are people. So if someone asks a subjectivist his reasoning for his moral choice, the person still has to explain it why it's okay. Or else they are refusing to do as the OP asks.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.
    For them, yes. But that does not absolve them from explaining why their view is okay if asked. If you are subjective moralist who says that the mother should let go of the child, the OP still applies to you and you must explain your reasoning. You can't say that there really is no reason why it's okay unless you personally think that is the case.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.
    Actually no. If you ask me my reasoning and I'm to actually abide by your request, I cannot come up with something illogical/emotional. I would have to tell you my actual reasoning (which is not random/illogical/emotional) to abide by your request to tell you my reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    the person could say "I don't like babies" and punt it.
    But then so can a moral objectivist. Of course the moral objectivist would be lying when he said that but then so would the moral subjectivist. But it NEITHER of them are going to lie (and the reason is not actually "I don't like babies") neither can give that answer.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.
    Not from a subjectivist perspective (it looks like you are viewing subjective morality from the objectivist viewpoint). As a subjective moralist, I would judge others answers against my own moral viewpoint and therefore I would judge that some answers are good and others are bad. So from my subjectivist prospective, they are not all equally valid.

    It's when you remove the subjective perspective and hold that all subjective viewpoints are equal (which one cannot do if they hold their own subjectivist viewpoint), that ALL subjective moral viewpoints are equally valid. From a subjectivist viewpoint the answers that more closely match with his viewpoints are the better ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.
    But we are discussing subjectivism, not naturalism. They are not the same thing and the notion that that viewpoint is typical for subjectivists is not supported and on the face of it, sounds very incorrect to me.

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But with subjective morality, there is no single moral agent (unless only one person exists). There are as many moral agents as there are people.
    True in everyday experience, but in this scenario, there are only two humans and one is to young to be a moral agent. So we are left with mother being the sole moral agent. Hence, she will subjectively decide what is moral for the two of them.

  3. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  4. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But with subjective morality, there is no single moral agent (unless only one person exists). There are as many moral agents as there are people. So if someone asks a subjectivist his reasoning for his moral choice, the person still has to explain it why it's okay. Or else they are refusing to do as the OP asks.
    In the OP there is only one moral agent. So this point doesn't invalidate my answer.
    I think it is a fair point to say that this limits the OP's usefulness to everyday application.. and I noted that in my first post.
    So your just repeating a point that I made already. It just doesn't apply like you seem to think it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    For them, yes. But that does not absolve them from explaining why their view is okay if asked.
    Obolved? Like there is some obligation to answer to someone else? That is hardly established.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you are subjective moralist who says that the mother should let go of the child, the OP still applies to you and you must explain your reasoning. You can't say that there really is no reason why it's okay unless you personally think that is the case.
    I gave the reason why. Nothin you have said on this point is relevant to that.
    An illogical answer IS still a reason. It may not be a "good" reason. But given moral subjectivism, there is no need for a "good" reason... only a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually no. If you ask me my reasoning and I'm to actually abide by your request, I cannot come up with something illogical/emotional. I would have to tell you my actual reasoning (which is not random/illogical/emotional) to abide by your request to tell you my reasoning.
    That isn't true at all.
    "I was upset, so I thought it moral to drop the child" is an example of an emotional reason.
    It is just as valid as a logical
    "I considered ALL possible positive and negative aspects, and decided that it followed it was best to drop the child".

    You personally may prefer the later, but for context of the OP (which you are not included in) iether is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then so can a moral objectivist. Of course the moral objectivist would be lying when he said that but then so would the moral subjectivist. But it NEITHER of them are going to lie (and the reason is not actually "I don't like babies") neither can give that answer.
    I don't see the relevance of this to what I have said.
    I'm arguing from a subjecitve POV, what does the objective POV have to do with it?

    from an objective POV, the person can say whatever they want, but it must line up with some external moral law that is not effected by the persons words.
    IE
    I don't like babies is a sufficient moral reason. Must line up with objective moral low, or else it is a false statement.

    the subjectivist is not capable of making such a false statement.
    Reason X, will necissarily be a valid cause to take action Y.
    That is how subjectivty works.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Not from a subjectivist perspective (it looks like you are viewing subjective morality from the objectivist viewpoint). As a subjective moralist, I would judge others answers against my own moral viewpoint and therefore I would judge that some answers are good and others are bad. So from my subjectivist prospective, they are not all equally valid.
    Sure, but your not in the example and your changing the context.
    The question is what is a morally sound reason.

    Per subjectivism, they are all morally sound. Any answer is morally sound.
    That you disagree, doesn't actually change that fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's when you remove the subjective perspective and hold that all subjective viewpoints are equal (which one cannot do if they hold their own subjectivist viewpoint), that ALL subjective moral viewpoints are equally valid. From a subjectivist viewpoint the answers that more closely match with his viewpoints are the better ones.
    The OP didn't ask what is the "best" answer.
    The OP askes for VALID answers. Specifically a morally valid answer to drop the chid.

    I think I have given that. Unless you think your view point invalidates others in some objective sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But we are discussing subjectivism, not naturalism. They are not the same thing and the notion that that viewpoint is typical for subjectivists is not supported and on the face of it, sounds very incorrect to me.
    What? so your supposing that God exists, but that morality is subjective?
    Subjective naturalism seems to go hand and hand. It is out of naturalism that Subjectivism is born.

    Still, even if it isn't typical, it is the answer I am giving here.
    You are free to object to it and argue against it.
    To serve man.

  5. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In the OP there is only one moral agent. So this point doesn't invalidate my answer.
    I think it is a fair point to say that this limits the OP's usefulness to everyday application.. and I noted that in my first post.
    Indeed, this limits the "usefulness" of this Op to an academic exercise as apposed to applying to the world around us in general.

  6. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Indeed, this limits the "usefulness" of this Op to an academic exercise as apposed to applying to the world around us in general.
    Well, only given a subjective approach, and even then it still has some value IMO. As it exemplifies the inherent problem with the subjective approach, as mican evidences, people who ascribe to it, have a hard time accepting it's consequences. Because it affirms something we disagree with as true. That is hard to deal with. How do we accept a claim that X is true, but we disagree with it? That is why people will inject themselves into examples they are not a part of. Such as this one.

    Also, It could be useful given an objective approach.
    To serve man.

  7. #46
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    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.
    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.
    Changing the context. Ignored.

    ---------- Post added at 08:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 AM ----------

    Any chance a moderator could help delete the off-topic posts here? This is a debate about abortion not subjective vs objective morality.

    I mean seriously, guys, this is ridiculous. You can curb stomp ANY thread into an incoherent back & forth about morality just by deliberately muddying the waters about morality. "You want to have a debate about gun laws? Well whose morality are we using to judge!?" Now it's a morality debate. "You want to have a debate about Trump's policy? Well whose morality are we using to judge!?" Now it's a morality debate. And on and on and on. It doesn't matter that a page and half ago, whoever worded their derailment as the sort of answer I'm looking for. Again, you can do that with ANY thread. "I think the answer to gun laws has to do with the fact that a fetus is a person." The sentence is grammatically correct, but it might as well be gibberish.

    I know you 2006's are newcomers here and all, but take it from a 2004 joiner: I shouldn't have to post this. You should know better. I want to get at the heart of the abortion debate and you guys are over her like "Aaa aaa aaaaa! you didn't specify that these two people aren't the only two people in the world! Neener neener neener! That means I get to derail your thread, right?"

    Wrong.

    Do better, guys. You're letting me down.

  8. #47
    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
    I want to get at the heart of the abortion debate and you guys are over her like "Aaa aaa aaaaa! you didn't specify that these two people aren't the only two people in the world! Neener neener neener! That means I get to derail your thread, right?"
    This is an excellent point. So what is the heart of the abortion debate, Zhav? Is your claim that any and every instance of choosing to have an abortion is the exact moral equivalent of throwing a child off a cliff in order to save one's wallet?

  9. #48
    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
    This is an excellent point. So what is the heart of the abortion debate, Zhav? Is your claim that any and every instance of choosing to have an abortion is the exact moral equivalent of throwing a child off a cliff in order to save one's wallet?
    It's certainly not quibbling over which morality to use based on the wording of the op.

    "YOU DIDN'T SPECIFY THERE WASN'T AN ALIEN INVASION GOING ON SO IT'S COOL THROW THE KID OFF THE ALIENS WERE GONNA EAT HIM ANYWAY."

    Please.

  10. #49
    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's certainly not quibbling over which morality to use based on the wording of the op.
    I'm not quibbling over any kind of morality. I'm asking if your claim is that any and every instance of choosing to have an abortion is the exact moral equivalent of throwing a child off a cliff in order to save one's wallet. You said this is an abortion debate, and you provided an analogy to illustrate your position on the matter. So is your position that any and every instance of choosing to have an abortion is the exact moral equivalent of throwing a child off a cliff in order to save one's wallet?

  11. #50
    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
    I'm not quibbling over any kind of morality.
    That wasn't directed at you.

    As for the analogy, no metaphor is ever perfect. But in as much as an abortion absolutely 100% stops a fetus from becoming a human being / throwing a kid off a cliff 100% stops from from living, yes. The wallet bit is meant to represent the financial hardship that having a child can entail. Like any metaphor, it's an implied comparison between unlike things so you'll never have a full parallel.

    At the same time, this is a debate site not an armchair lawyer site. The point is to engage in debate which, let's not kid ourselves, really hasn't happened yet. There's really only two ways to come at this thread that are acceptable: "I agree that there isn't a moral reason to throw the kid off the cliff" or "I have a reason it would be acceptable to throw the kid off the cliff that doesn't change the original context." No one has done that. Everyone has put their own little change to the context.

    Remember that context is super important because when you change context you change the question entirely. So when people say (to paraphrase) "I want to change morality" or "I want to go on and on about the kid being brain dead" or the like, you're not actually answering the op. You're saying (again, to paraphrase), "I want to have a separate debate on a different question and pretend like it answers the op". That's unacceptable. I don't know what debate standards you've slackened to in my absence, but if you think that now three pages of fighting to get you guys to not change the context when the op specifically said "don't"... I don't even know what to say? Don't you care? Why do you think behaving in this way is all right?

  12. #51
    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
    That wasn't directed at you.

    As for the analogy, no metaphor is ever perfect. But in as much as an abortion absolutely 100% stops a fetus from becoming a human being / throwing a kid off a cliff 100% stops from from living, yes. The wallet bit is meant to represent the financial hardship that having a child can entail. Like any metaphor, it's an implied comparison between unlike things so you'll never have a full parallel.

    At the same time, this is a debate site not an armchair lawyer site. The point is to engage in debate which, let's not kid ourselves, really hasn't happened yet. There's really only two ways to come at this thread that are acceptable: "I agree that there isn't a moral reason to throw the kid off the cliff" or "I have a reason it would be acceptable to throw the kid off the cliff that doesn't change the original context." No one has done that. Everyone has put their own little change to the context.

    Remember that context is super important because when you change context you change the question entirely. So when people say (to paraphrase) "I want to change morality" or "I want to go on and on about the kid being brain dead" or the like, you're not actually answering the op. You're saying (again, to paraphrase), "I want to have a separate debate on a different question and pretend like it answers the op". That's unacceptable. I don't know what debate standards you've slackened to in my absence, but if you think that now three pages of fighting to get you guys to not change the context when the op specifically said "don't"... I don't even know what to say? Don't you care? Why do you think behaving in this way is all right?
    Awesome. So, anyway:

    Is your position that any and every instance of choosing to have an abortion is the exact moral equivalent of throwing a child off a cliff in order to save one's wallet?

  13. #52
    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
    Awesome. So, anyway:

    Is your position that any and every instance of choosing to have an abortion is the exact moral equivalent of throwing a child off a cliff in order to save one's wallet?
    Asked and answered.

  14. #53
    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
    Asked and answered.
    It's been asked (by me; several times), but not once answered by you. Here's a hint: The answer to the question I've asked is either "yes" or "no".

  15. #54
    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 been asked (by me; several times), but not once answered by you. Here's a hint: The answer to the question I've asked is either "yes" or "no".
    Oh, I'm sorry: are you getting a little frustrated when you lay out a clear and concise question and the other person doesn't answer it? Since everyone has made it crystal clear that here, at the new ODN, you don't have to pay attention to things like context or the original op what incentive do I have to answer your question? The irony being that I already answered it, of course.

    Maybe if you actually ANSWERED the op honestly, I'd be a bit more forthcoming.

  16. #55
    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
    Oh, I'm sorry: are you getting a little frustrated when you lay out a clear and concise question and the other person doesn't answer it? Since everyone has made it crystal clear that here, at the new ODN, you don't have to pay attention to things like context or the original op what incentive do I have to answer your question? The irony being that I already answered it, of course.

    Maybe if you actually ANSWERED the op honestly, I'd be a bit more forthcoming.
    I'm not able to answer the OP without the clarification I'm asking for. For clarity: Is your position that any and every instance of choosing to have an abortion is the exact moral equivalent of throwing a child off a cliff in order to save one's wallet? Yes or no?

  17. #56
    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
    I'm not able to answer the OP without the clarification I'm asking for.
    Of course you are. For one, you don't need my stance to give yours. Second, I've already given it.

    Quote Originally Posted by the part of the op you skipped
    "Question for debate: without changing the context of the scenario, what is a morally/ethically sound reason to allow the child to fall to their death?

    My argument is there isn't one."
    [emphasis mine]

  18. #57
    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
    Of course you are.
    No, I'm not. That's why I said so.

    Anyway, so your position is that there isn't a moral argument to be made for terminating a pregnancy, because terminating a pregnancy is, in moral terms, exactly the same as throwing a conscious, self-aware person off a cliff in favor of losing one's wallet, yes?

  19. #58
    Banned Indefinitely

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

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    *sigh* I would be so much happier if you actually gave your stance rather than tried to find silly ways to abuse the metaphor.

    I will break my own rules and engage in your off-topic answers. Congrats. You win. Your horrific nagging and utter lack of anything remotely close to offering up a debate has worn me down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Anyway, so your position is that there isn't a moral argument to be made for terminating a pregnancy, because terminating a pregnancy is, in moral terms, exactly the same as throwing a conscious, self-aware person off a cliff in favor of losing one's wallet, yes?
    Potentially, yes. It depends on the reasoning behind it. If a person says, "Well, I can't afford a child so I better have an abortion" then that scenario would be equivalent to "If I pull this kid back up I'll lose my wallet. Better let them drop." But it's not necessarily always that way. It depends on the reasoning. The "why" is very important. I am 100% open to the idea there are other reasons to have an abortion... hence... *clears throat*


    That's why I've been asking for a reasoning as to why it would be acceptable for the person to drop the kid.



    Would you care to offer one or are you going to keep ruining my thread?

  20. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    First off, to help keep things focused and less confusing, I'm going to pretend to be a subjective morality who thinks that the Mother is justified in letting go of the baby under the moral premise "One should never have to risk their own life to save another"). So I will argue as it that's my position and likewise when addressing what a moral subjectivist would do, you can tell me what I would do.

    And let me make a brief summary argument. The OP clearly says "Please be as thorough with your reasoning as possible. Present me a case as to why it should be acceptable to let the child go and explain." so for me to engage in the OP as requested by the creator of it I am obligated to explain why I think the Mother should let go and make my case". Your argument seems to be that as a subjective moralist, I cannot make such a case because I wouldn't actually think that either position (to let go vs not letting go) is essentially the same so I would have no moral position to defend. And I disagree with that assessment. I DO have a moral preference which I can state and still be a subjective moralist and therefore would have to engage with OPs request to participate in the thread as the creator of the thread demands.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In the OP there is only one moral agent. So this point doesn't invalidate my answer.
    Okay. But the one moral agent still needs to explain his position to the thread's creator and unless he's going to lie about the moral position he actually holds, he can't give ANY answer. The number of answers he can give are very limited.

    And if we allow people to give false answers, then both the subjective and objective moralist can give ANY answer because an objective moralist can likewise say whatever he wants just so long as he claims that his moral viewpoint is objectively correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Obolved? Like there is some obligation to answer to someone else? That is hardly established.
    It is established. The OP directly asks for one's moral reasoning and so one is likely spamming and therefore violating ODN rules if they don't give their moral viewpoint in this thread. Sounds like an obligation to me.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I gave the reason why. Nothin you have said on this point is relevant to that.
    An illogical answer IS still a reason. It may not be a "good" reason. But given moral subjectivism, there is no need for a "good" reason... only a reason.
    Wrong. I (again, arguing as a moral subjectivist) think my reason is a good reason (otherwise I wouldn't have it). And since from my perspective, my reason is good, it is a good reason. In fact, from my perspective there is no better reason (or else I would adopt that better reason).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That isn't true at all.
    "I was upset, so I thought it moral to drop the child" is an example of an emotional reason.
    It is just as valid as a logical
    Nope. It fails to address the OP because it doesn't explain what the moral position regarding dropping the child actually is.

    I mean if one states "It is moral to kill a child if the child's presence is upsetting", then they have stated their reasoning for why being upset makes dropping the child alright but regardless, the OP requires an explanation. But then an objective moralist can say the exact same thing - they just have to make it clear that they think the reason that it's moral is because some external moral dictated as much. And that really doesn't seem any more logical than the person himself forwarding that moral position.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    from an objective POV, the person can say whatever they want, but it must line up with some external moral law that is not effected by the persons words.
    IE
    I don't like babies is a sufficient moral reason. Must line up with objective moral low, or else it is a false statement.
    And a subjective moral viewpoint must line up with a subjective moral law. "I don't like babies" is not an objective or subjective moral law as its not a moral law at all. "Killing babies if they upset a person is fine" is a moral law and it can be forwarded by both objective and subjective sources as long as they sincerely believe that the objective moral source or they themselves, respectively, hold that to be true.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sure, but your not in the example and your changing the context.
    The question is what is a morally sound reason.

    Per subjectivism, they are all morally sound. Any answer is morally sound.
    That you disagree, doesn't actually change that fact.
    Morally sound to who? From the subjective point of view the ONLY morally sound moral laws are the ones that I agree with. If you state a law that is not morally sound, then from my perspective, it is not morally sound. So from the subjective perspective, I disagree with that and will not accept that position until you support why I must agree that a certain moral position that I find morally unsound is, in effect, morally sound.

    I'm not going to "lean on the challenge button" regarding this but I am saying that you do need to support that position if you are going to continue stating it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The OP didn't ask what is the "best" answer.
    The OP askes for VALID answers. Specifically a morally valid answer to drop the chid.
    And I can provide one. I think my viewpoint is valid so I, as a moral subjectivist, can provide a valid answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think I have given that. Unless you think your view point invalidates others in some objective sense.
    Why would I think that? Since I don't think that objective morals exist, I certainly don't think that any moral viewpoint is OBJECTIVELY better than any other. But I do subjectively think mine is better than all others.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What? so your supposing that God exists, but that morality is subjective?
    Subjective naturalism seems to go hand and hand.
    Well, you said a lot more than that in the statement that I'm referring to and my point still stands.

    You have not demonstrated that subjectivists have/must subscribe to the specific viewpoint you presented.

    Not to mention engaging in such an argument seems pretty off-topic to this thread.

  21. #60
    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
    Potentially, yes. It depends on the reasoning behind it.
    Ok, so it appears that your answer is actually 'no', since your 'yes' appears to be contingent on the abortion being considered taking place within the confines of a very narrow set of conditions where the abortion is exactly equivalent to dropping a child from a cliff in order to save one's wallet. Let's say an entitled teenager whose daddy gives her an allowance gets pregnant because YOLO and in the ninth month decides to suck that thing outta there because she doesn't want her daddy to stop giving her an allowance and OMG stretch marks. In such a case, I would freely admit that I find her decision to be immoral.

    However, your claim seems to be (since you've not made it clear) that ANY abortion is the moral equivalent dropping a child from a cliff to save one's wallet. But now you say that "It depends on the reasoning behind it". It could be the case that a parent's reason is based on a prenatal screening which reveals that the baby has severe brain defects (let's say anencephaly), that he/she would be bedridden his/her entire life, and it would add enormous emotional and financial burden to the parents him/her brought to term, so they decide to abort. Would you say that this scenario is the moral equivalent of dropping a conscious, self-aware child from a cliff to save one's wallet?

 

 
Page 3 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
  •