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 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 107
  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    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.
    Ahhh, I think maybe I see...

    You want to discuss morals under the presumption that they can be neither subjective nor objective, and there is some third option?

    If that is correct, it seems like talking about a 24hr earth day but not being able to mention, the sun only shines part of the day.

    But I will give it a try:
    since sacrificing humans (including babies) has been around in many, many societies over thousands of years (and to this day), though I don't think she should drop the baby, clearly others disagree.

    Not much else can be said unless I misunderstand what you mean by "morals"???

  2. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  3. #62
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,540
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by ZHAVRIC
    Changing the context. Ignored.
    In what way does it change the context?
    As far as I can tell, I stuck very narrowly to the context of the OP. I didn't insert people that were not there.
    That is contextually relevant to the answer. Maybe you should amend it instead of having people guess?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    Is this directed at me?
    I assume not because It isn't my position does not suggest that people don't have a preferance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    I think you took my comment of "any answer" the wrong way. My position doesn't require them to lie, and it isn't a referance to a personons ability to say anything at all irrespective of their own preferance.

    It is to say, that WHATEVER their preferance, it is valid. Preferances are not necissrily dictated, and the OP doesn't give the context of what the persons preferances are.
    But whatever they are, they are valid is my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    Lying is not an issue as you can see above. so your headed down the wrong trail with this line of reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    It is one thing to ask what are the possible valid answers or reasons.
    and another to say that you MUST give a reason to someone in order for you position to be valid.

    We are engaging in the former. You seemed to be implying that if a person asks then you have an obligation to answer.
    I don't see that to excist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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).
    Read what I wrote again.
    I said I gave a valid reasoning. You were taking a line that at best would show that you think it is a "bad" reason.
    I was arguing that even if granting that, it doesn't apply or negate what I said.

    Your calling me "wrong" but don't have the context right.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Nope. It fails to address the OP because it doesn't explain what the moral position regarding dropping the child actually is.
    Right, so that would be that if it upsets me then I can drop the kid.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    I don't know why you keep bringing in objective morality here. It isn't relevant to anything I said in regards to the OP.

    You may consider such referances ignored in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    Your making it out to be more complex than it really is.
    you ask someone why they did X, and if they think that is o.k.
    and they tell you why, and say yea. That is the end of it for the subjective moral test.
    An explination of why is just a restating fo the first part. It doesn't add any information, or have to add any information.

    I punted the baby because it upset me.
    That isn't a moral explination.
    sorry..
    it is o.k. to punt babies if they upset me.

    come on, not really hard to get.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Morally sound to who?
    The person in the example.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    It is morally sound because it shares the same basis as your judgment. If your basic assumptions are what makes something sound, then applied consistently so is all the others.
    Because the basis is precisly "whatever I think". Well the person in the OP thinks something and they are the only moral agent.
    You may agree, you may not. But your not in the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    Thanks. I think I have answered it above.
    So
    1) If the basic assumptions are the same
    2) Then the end result is equally valid.
    3) the basic assumption is "the the individual determins for themsevles what right and wrong is."
    4) It is the same for the OP
    5) Thus it is valid.

    As long as the a person fulfills #3, whatever it is, it is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I can provide one. I think my viewpoint is valid so I, as a moral subjectivist, can provide a valid answer.
    Of course you can. I gave one as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    O.k. thanks.
    And that relates to my answer how?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    I was just giving the reasons that I was asked for.
    They are valid reasons, and nothing anyone has said here has shown them to be untrue or invalid.
    To serve man.

  4. #63
    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 after I had answered "yes"
    Ok, so it appears that your answer is actually 'no',
    I give up.

    You guys are hopeless.

    ---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

    I would seriously delete the entire thread if I could.

  5. #64
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,000
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you took my comment of "any answer" the wrong way. My position doesn't require them to lie, and it isn't a referance to a personons ability to say anything at all irrespective of their own preferance.

    It is to say, that WHATEVER their preferance, it is valid. Preferances are not necissrily dictated, and the OP doesn't give the context of what the persons preferances are.
    But whatever they are, they are valid is my point.
    Not from the subjective moralist perspective. If I think that someone else' moral viewpoint is invalid, then it's invalid (from my perspective).

    Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "valid".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is one thing to ask what are the possible valid answers or reasons.
    and another to say that you MUST give a reason to someone in order for you position to be valid.
    And didn't say that. I'm saying one MUST give a reason to abide by this thread's OP. The OP specifically asks for one to give their reason.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Read what I wrote again.
    I said I gave a valid reasoning. You were taking a line that at best would show that you think it is a "bad" reason.
    I was arguing that even if granting that, it doesn't apply or negate what I said.

    Your calling me "wrong" but don't have the context right.
    Then you need to state your argument more clearly. I can only respond to the words you state and you said "But given moral subjectivism, there is no need for a "good" reason... only a reason."

    And I disagree with that and I stated why.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right, so that would be that if it upsets me then I can drop the kid.
    But you still need to explain the moral law you are using to justify dropping the kid. "I did it because it upsets me" is not a moral law.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't know why you keep bringing in objective morality here. It isn't relevant to anything I said in regards to the OP.

    You may consider such referances ignored in the future.
    Well, my entire comment was not primarily about objective morality (that part was kind of an additional comment) so I will consider my statement as unchallenged and repeat it without the part about objective morality.

    "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."



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your making it out to be more complex than it really is.
    you ask someone why they did X, and if they think that is o.k.
    and they tell you why, and say yea. That is the end of it for the subjective moral test.
    Not at all. The OP asks "what is a morally/ethically sound reason to allow the child to fall to their death?" which means that one must justify their reasoning for allowing the baby to fall. Saying "I don't like babies" does not fulfill the request or give one adequate information to know why the person thinks it's okay or even IF he thinks it's okay. Just because one acts on their immediate desires does not necessarily mean that they do think it's okay to do it.

    Saying "I don't like babies so I decided to drop the baby and I think it's an immoral action on my part but then I don't really care. I just do what I want." contains no contradictions and is one of the potential outcomes after "I don't like babies".

    So it's really not even close. "I don't like babies" does not explain what moral law one uses to justify them dropping the baby or even if they are attempting to justify dropping the baby at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is morally sound because it shares the same basis as your judgment. If your basic assumptions are what makes something sound, then applied consistently so is all the others.
    Because the basis is precisly "whatever I think".
    Whatever I (me, mican) thinks is not the same as whatever someone else thinks. So from MY subjective perspective, the soundness of others moral viewpoints is relative to my own.

    It's only when you leave my subjective perspective and hold that one opinion is as good as another is when you can say that all subjective viewpoints are equally sound but then again, you have left the subjective moral viewpoint.
    What I am is the ONLY moral judge in the OP. The OP asks for MY assessment of the person's actions.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Thanks. I think I have answered it above.
    So
    1) If the basic assumptions are the same
    2) Then the end result is equally valid.
    3) the basic assumption is "the the individual determins for themsevles what right and wrong is."
    4) It is the same for the OP
    5) Thus it is valid.
    And you leave the subjective perspective in point 1 and therefore you are not examining subjective morality from the subjective perspective (from the subjective perspective, my assumptions are better than anyone else') It looks like you are examining subjective morality from the objective perspective.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Of course you can. I gave one as well.
    How valid your answer is it contingent on how closely it resembles my answer (from my subjective viewpoint).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I was just giving the reasons that I was asked for.
    They are valid reasons, and nothing anyone has said here has shown them to be untrue or invalid.
    You have not supported that the philisophical implications that you attribute naturalism is commonly shared by subjectivists. So in short, you made an unsupported assertion about what they think.
    Last edited by mican333; May 7th, 2018 at 01:05 PM.

  6. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,540
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Not from the subjective moralist perspective. If I think that someone else' moral viewpoint is invalid, then it's invalid (from my perspective).

    Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "valid".
    Maybe I misunderstood subjective morality.
    Does your opinion actually invalidate another one?
    Or do we apply the logic chain I pointed out earlier?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And didn't say that. I'm saying one MUST give a reason to abide by this thread's OP. The OP specifically asks for one to give their reason.
    O.k. cool. I gave one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then you need to state your argument more clearly. I can only respond to the words you state and you said "But given moral subjectivism, there is no need for a "good" reason... only a reason."

    And I disagree with that and I stated why.
    Yea sure.
    What I mean is that as long as they have a reason. It doesn't have to be ruled as "good" by anyone else in order to be valid.
    As you said, I assume the reason they give is "good" in their own eyes... hence why they give it and think it moral.
    So your line confused me a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But you still need to explain the moral law you are using to justify dropping the kid. "I did it because it upsets me" is not a moral law.
    Sure, and any will be valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    "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."
    Sure, yea.
    And any way they formulate the law is valid.
    My emotions rule morality, I had an emotional desire to punt the child, thus it is moral.
    is as valid as
    I reasoned XYZ and weighted good and preferable outcomes to all possible bad outcomes and figured it was moral to do Z.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Not at all. The OP asks "what is a morally/ethically sound reason to allow the child to fall to their death?" which means that one must justify their reasoning for allowing the baby to fall. Saying "I don't like babies" does not fulfill the request or give one adequate information to know why the person thinks it's okay or even IF he thinks it's okay. Just because one acts on their immediate desires does not necessarily mean that they do think it's okay to do it.

    Saying "I don't like babies so I decided to drop the baby and I think it's an immoral action on my part but then I don't really care. I just do what I want." contains no contradictions and is one of the potential outcomes after "I don't like babies".

    So it's really not even close. "I don't like babies" does not explain what moral law one uses to justify them dropping the baby or even if they are attempting to justify dropping the baby at all.
    Desire is a morally/ethically sound reason given subjective morality.
    IE I do what I want, and that is o.k.
    That is a justification, and a valid one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Whatever I (me, mican) thinks is not the same as whatever someone else thinks. So from MY subjective perspective, the soundness of others moral viewpoints is relative to my own.

    It's only when you leave my subjective perspective and hold that one opinion is as good as another is when you can say that all subjective viewpoints are equally sound but then again, you have left the subjective moral viewpoint.
    What I am is the ONLY moral judge in the OP. The OP asks for MY assessment of the person's actions.
    Cool
    and I gave my version.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you leave the subjective perspective in point 1 and therefore you are not examining subjective morality from the subjective perspective (from the subjective perspective, my assumptions are better than anyone else') It looks like you are examining subjective morality from the objective perspective.
    That is what happens when you ask for "are" and "is" questions.

    What IS a morally valid reason? What ARE those reasons and explain?
    Those are objective questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    How valid your answer is it contingent on how closely it resembles my answer (from my subjective viewpoint).
    not from mine

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You have not supported that the philisophical implications that you attribute naturalism is commonly shared by subjectivists. So in short, you made an unsupported assertion about what they think.
    I am not attributing naturalism to subjectivity. I am using naturalism as an answer to one of the questions addressed to me about subjectivism.
    Specifically the "why would they think that" or "act that".
    I am not appealing to it as a typical position, though I do think that. So you can consider that attribution as retracted.
    It is part of my answer as described... and that I maintain is valid.

    p.s.
    Mican, to be a bit more clear. I am answering so as to be understood as "from the person on the cliffs pov". That is what I mean by subjective pov.
    That is why as the op is stated you or I pov isn't really relevant.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; May 7th, 2018 at 02:09 PM.
    To serve man.

  7. #66
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Maybe I misunderstood subjective morality.
    This is likely true, but it's certainly not because you've missed some simple or easy thing. The issue is neither simple nor easy. It can very difficult to make the case for non-theistic, objective morality, not because it lacks objectivity, but rather, because theistic morality makes claims (though epistemologically unsubstantiated and thus effectively empty claims) that the non-theist simply cannot appeal to. For example, the theist believes that all things will eventually be judged; justice WILL be served in the end because there is a FINAL arbiter of justice who will make all things whole. The non-theist is in no place to make such a appeal, because they see people get away with evils every day; justice is NOT served. So it is very easy to see at least one reason why the theist would find a system of morality that makes no appeal to God to be quite vacuous. I don't blame them one bit.

    Ultimately, it comes down to how the person defines "objective". To the theist, for morality to be objective, it must transcend the whole of humanity itself, and they believe that is accomplished by appeals to a third party i.e. God. To the non-theist, for morality to be objective, it must transcend the individual, and this is accomplished by appeals to social contracts, acceptable norms, what "harm" and "help" actually means, etc.

    Interestingly enough, there are good examples of relativism in both forms. For example, a moral "ought" might be something like "Don't kill children in their sleep in order to further one's own self-interests", but in the Old Testament we see God himself do that very thing to every first born in Egypt, because relative to that time and those circumstances, God killing children was the most moral thing that could be done. Another moral "ought" might be something like "Don't kill 400,000 non-combatants with two bombs in a time of war", but indeed, our own, secular government saw that as the very best course of action relative to that time and those circumstances.

    It's almost a semantics problem. Non-theistic moralists typically don't think that morality is whatever the individual happens to feel like in any given moment. They hold that things like "harm" and the capacity for conscious experience actually matter in determining right or wrong actions, and they also hold that these things matter even if some individual somewhere happens to disagree with it, since reasons to behave morally transcend the individual.

    Anyway, respectfully, I do think you misunderstand "subjective" morality as it being "not the kind of objectivity Mindtrap personally believes in". There are non-theistic moral structures that are as objective as metaphysical, social constructs can be; they just make different appeals than those of theistic moral systems.

    (One does have to wonder, though, if there was only one living person on earth, and they were accompanied only by living things that are incapable of conscious experiences - plants and so forth - could that person commit an objectively morally wrong act? I don't think they could. )

    ---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    I give up.

    You guys are hopeless.

    ---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

    I would seriously delete the entire thread if I could.
    Man, I don't blame you. It really was a terrible analogy. Congratulations on not behaving like a petulant child over having that pointed out, though. Well done.

  8. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,000
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Maybe I misunderstood subjective morality.
    Does your opinion actually invalidate another one?
    From a subjective perspective, yes. If the standard of judging moral positions is from a person's subjective viewpoint then arguments are as valid or invalid as the person (who in this case is me) holds it to be. Again, what I subjectively accept or reject is based on nothing more than what I think should be accepted or rejected. So yes, from a subjective perspective, my opinion does invalidate any and all contrary opinions.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What I mean is that as long as they have a reason. It doesn't have to be ruled as "good" by anyone else in order to be valid.
    Then what makes the argument "valid". I honestly don't know what criteria you think makes an moral viewpoint "valid". I suggest finishing this sentence

    "A moral position is valid if...."


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And any way they formulate the law is valid.
    My emotions rule morality, I had an emotional desire to punt the child, thus it is moral.
    is as valid as
    I reasoned XYZ and weighted good and preferable outcomes to all possible bad outcomes and figured it was moral to do Z.
    Again, define "valid". It really sounds like your criteria for "valid" is an objective criteria. If it's subjective what is "valid" then no law is necessarily equally valid to another for just the opinion that one law is more valid than the next means that it actually is.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Desire is a morally/ethically sound reason given subjective morality.
    IE I do what I want, and that is o.k.
    That is a justification, and a valid one.
    What if I subjectively disagree that it's a valid justification? Am I wrong? Is there some standard that overrules my subjective opinion on whether a law is valid?




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    not from mine
    Okay. But that does not rebut what I said so I will say it again. I will assume that another non-rebuttal means that you do not disagree with what I'm saying.

    How valid your answer is it contingent on how closely it resembles my answer (from my subjective viewpoint).

    -------------------------

    But really, I think the main takeaway here is that I need to know how you define "Valid" (kinda repeated myself on that point). Provide a definition, please. A dictionary definition is fine. If you want to supply your own that's fine but I'd appreciate it if it resembles a dictionary definition.
    Last edited by mican333; May 7th, 2018 at 04:15 PM.

  9. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    I give up.

    You guys are hopeless.

    ---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

    I would seriously delete the entire thread if I could.
    Did you actually expect someone to give a good, valid, moral reason to kill the child?

    ---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    [/COLOR]Man, I don't blame you. It really was a terrible analogy. Congratulations on not behaving like a petulant child over having that pointed out, though. Well done.
    Agreed. Good analogy's for abortion are in short supply...

  10. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    I'm sorry, Zhav, but the arguments pointing out why your analogy fails are not lousy. There's just so much lacking from your analogy that it completely misses the mark on accurately representing the entire situation of getting pregnant, deciding to not continue to be pregnant (for a myriad possible reasons), and deciding to terminate the pregnancy.

    You're basically just getting your gitch in a twist that "nobody gets my OP and it's everyone else's fault", while people have been politely pointing out why your OP doesn't work the way you may have intended. It's kinda bad form, dude.

  11. #70
    Banned Indefinitely

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

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm sorry, Zhav, but the arguments pointing out why your analogy fails are not lousy. There's just so much lacking from your analogy that it completely misses the mark on accurately representing the entire situation of getting pregnant, deciding to not continue to be pregnant (for a myriad possible reasons), and deciding to terminate the pregnancy.
    Except that it doesn't. That's the thing. The analogy is apt in the way that matters most: the choice the woman has to make. You can quibble about body autonomy, the effects of poverty, rape, incest, a fetus being a ball of cells versus a baby, abusive biological fathers, and a thousand more factors. They're out there and I freely admit it. But it all comes down to the same thing: a woman making a choice. An informed one. The analogy works fine and can be quite discomforting to the pro-choice crowd because it disarms them of their arsenal of rationalizations and excuses. It's like I said earlier: never in the history of ever has any women ever said, "You mean that little ball of cells in my uterus could become a person!?" Every woman who ever had an abortion knows what it entails. That's the debate: the choice. A thing that is going to become a person that a woman is stopping from becoming a person. That's the question.
    Last edited by mican333; May 8th, 2018 at 05:51 AM.

  12. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Except that it doesn't ...
    The analogy is apt in the way that matters most
    These two statements are a bit contradictory. First you say that the analogy doesn't miss any details, but then point out and defend its focus on one single aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    It's like I said earlier: never in the history of ever has any women ever said, "You mean that little ball of cells in my uterus could become a person!?" Every woman who ever had an abortion knows what it entails. That's the debate: the choice. A thing that is going to become a person that a woman is stopping from becoming a person. That's the question.
    And part of that choice is the consideration of many other aspects. Seriously, if you're going to focus just on the final choice made by a woman, then it's incredibly narrow-minded. I'd suggest going out and talking to some real life women who've had abortions about the choice they made, and the things they considered before making it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Quibbling that you don't think the analogy works is just another way of evading the issue of discussing that choice honestly.
    And one might just as easily say that your insistence on the analogy is simply your evasion of discussing the choice honestly, by framing it the way you have. Unfortunately, it appears that nobody here agrees with the way you've framed the argument, and have found other valid areas of interest to debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Frankly the showing here has been beyond sad. It's like you guys have forgotten how to address a specific question without demanding it be changed. It's lazy and this need to justify the laziness tells me you're in denial about your inability to argue honestly. What a terrible state of affairs?
    While we might find some areas of agreement about the state of ODN lately, this is just more, "it's not me it's all of you" nonsense. I'm sorry man, but when you accuse everyone else of "screaming in lousy argumentation", while you're the only one who has been using bold, underline, all-caps, and crazy-big font sizes on the thread, it's kinda lame. Bad form, dude.

  13. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  14. #72
    Banned Indefinitely

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

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Accusing me of being narrow minded is the sort of ad hom I'm not surprised to see here these days. It's a ridiculous accusation because It's simply another in a long line of many excuses to try to change the context. To paraphrase, "You won't let me answer the easier question/dodge your much harder question so it couldn't possibly be my fault: you're narrow minded."

    Please.

    As for "it's not me it's you", you're forgetting something: I'm the guy who can address an issue without changing the context or going on a whiny ad hom rant about how close minded my opposition is.

    You must be the other guy...

  15. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Accusing me of being narrow minded is the sort of ad hom I'm not surprised to see here these days. It's a ridiculous accusation because It's simply another in a long line of many excuses to try to change the context. To paraphrase, "You won't let me answer the easier question/dodge your much harder question so it couldn't possibly be my fault: you're narrow minded."
    I clearly explained the reasoning behind why I consider your position to be narrow-minded. This is nothing more than another complaint that people have roundly found your analogy lacking. Seriously, dude, when you get so many responses pointing out that something's missing or unclear in your analogy, you kinda have to start realizing that something's rotten in Denver.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    As for "it's not me it's you", you're forgetting something: I'm the guy who can address an issue without changing the context
    You mean address the issue without changing the context of a flawed analogy? Of course, it's not you, it's all of us - my bad! Again, if anyone's ranting here, it's you. Others have already found something worthwhile to discuss - why even bother responding? Do you honestly think that you'll be able to sway anyone at this point considering the responses you've gotten thus far and the reaction to your shouting complaints?

  16. #74
    Banned Indefinitely

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

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    I appreciate that you clearly expressed your position. A clearly expressed wrong politely worded ad him is still wrong. To be sure, the "complaint" you're referring to is the same one I predicted in the op: "Zhav you won't let me change the context and answer an easier question!". That's literally every reply here. Do you not care about evidence? You can look at it all: it's there in black and white.
    Dio changed the context by bringing in whether or not the child should be braindead.
    Mican and Mindrap changed the context by turning an abortion debate into a subjective/objective morality debate.
    This was after Mindtrap changed the context by changing morality (which is a derail for ANY debate).

    The number of people who took up the original challenge is literally zero. Ignorance of how context functions is your problem, not mine. If only that had been expressly stated in the op with examples given...

    ... oh wait.

    ---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You mean address the issue without changing the context of a flawed analogy?
    Does the person have an abortion CHOOSE to have an abortion?
    Does the person on the cliff CHOOSE to throw the child to their doom?
    Yes?
    Then the analogy works.

    I've stated over and over and over that the debate is about choice. It not a debate about circumstances. That was clear from the beginning. For the analogy not to work you'd have to (somehow) prove that either the cliff hanging person or a woman having an abortion aren't making an informed choice...Challenge to support a claim.... which you will do in your next post or concede that the analogy works just fine.

  17. #75
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    The number of people who took up the original challenge is literally zero.
    And the reason why has been clearly explained to you.

    Does the person have an abortion CHOOSE to have an abortion?
    Does the person with a mosquito on their arm CHOOSE to swat the mosquito off?
    Yes?
    Then the analogy works.

    You see, when you set up such limited criteria for an analogy, completely disregarding the nuances of what you're actually trying discuss, you can set up literally any analogy to support literally any position.

  18. #76
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Dio changed the context by bringing in whether or not the child should be braindead
    I did no such thing. I asked questions in order to examine whether or not the context you provided was suitable for characterizing for ANY kind of abortion, which is both consistent with your claim: that abortion is just like the stupid context you provided, and with the challenge of the thread, which is to examine whether or not you’re right. But instead of simply answering those questions, you cried like a little b**** about changing the context (which, again, I never did) and eventually admitted that it’s possible that there could be certain circumstances where your dumbass, myopic analogy doesn’t quite represent abortion.

    I mean, what did you expect? Did you expect people to just agree that any abortion is just like dropping a kid off a cliff and everyone saying “Dur hur, you’re right Zhav! Gosh! You’re so smart!” Get the hell over yourself.

  19. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  20. #77
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,540
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    This is likely true, but it's certainly not because you've missed some simple or easy thing. The issue is neither simple nor easy. It can very difficult to make the case for non-theistic, objective morality,
    I think we have some crossed wires here, because in this thread I am aiming at a subjective POV not an objective one.
    I think there are still some objective facts involved. Like Mican objectively does believe X.
    In that he isn't lying, and X is in fact his belief.

    Other than that, totally subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    From a subjective perspective, yes. If the standard of judging moral positions is from a person's subjective viewpoint then arguments are as valid or invalid as the person (who in this case is me) holds it to be. Again, what I subjectively accept or reject is based on nothing more than what I think should be accepted or rejected. So yes, from a subjective perspective, my opinion does invalidate any and all contrary opinions
    Awsom, because your opinion is invalid from the context of the OP.
    As such it isn't relevant as far as I can tell.

    Now, I may have the context of the OP wrong, in which case your opinion is valid.
    So the lady on the cliff has her position which is valid for her, and you have yours which is valid for you.

    So am I to take it that the proper interpretation of the correct(valid) answer to the OP is whatever you say it is?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then what makes the argument "valid". I honestly don't know what criteria you think makes an moral viewpoint "valid". I suggest finishing this sentence

    "A moral position is valid if...."
    Great question. Just to be clear, your answer to this has been to say..."... if it corresponds with my opinion".

    The way I see it the sentence is finished like this.

    "A moral position is valid if, the person holds it to be so".

    So you hold that your opinion invalidates contrary opinions, and that is valid from your POV. Just as it is valid that the opinion of another invalidates your opinino from their POV.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, define "valid". It really sounds like your criteria for "valid" is an objective criteria. If it's subjective what is "valid" then no law is necessarily equally valid to another for just the opinion that one law is more valid than the next means that it actually is.
    I hope I have done so above. I think it is the definition of what it means to have a valid moral position from a subjective POV.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What if I subjectively disagree that it's a valid justification? Am I wrong? Is there some standard that overrules my subjective opinion on whether a law is valid?
    I would say that the only thing you can't actually invalidate is the "from their POV" part.
    So as to say "I (mt) think X is valid."
    You can't by force of your opinion change the context of that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Okay. But that does not rebut what I said so I will say it again. I will assume that another non-rebuttal means that you do not disagree with what I'm saying. How valid your answer is it contingent on how closely it resembles my answer (from my subjective viewpoint).
    No, I completly agree. I was giving the only rebuttal necissary to that.
    Namely, an opposing subjective POV. IE not from mine.

    [QUOTE=MICAN]
    But really, I think the main takeaway here is that I need to know how you define "Valid" (kinda repeated myself on that point). Provide a definition, please. A dictionary definition is fine. If you want to supply your own that's fine but I'd appreciate it if it resembles a dictionary definition. [/QUOTE
    I am fine with the dictionary use of the term, though it sounds a bit objective, i think it still fits into the context I have used.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    1) If the basic assumptions are the same
    2) Then the end result is equally valid.
    3) the basic assumption is "the the individual determins for themsevles what right and wrong is."
    4) It is the same for the OP
    5) Thus it is valid.
    To revisit your response.. to that, in a way that may be more in line with what we are discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN POST 64
    And you leave the subjective perspective in point 1 and therefore you are not examining subjective morality from the subjective perspective (from the subjective perspective, my assumptions are better than anyone else') It looks like you are examining subjective morality from the objective perspective.
    The point of the above is only so that we can compare subjective moralitis of different people.
    It doesn't list any necissary assumptions of the morals being held.
    so, #1 may be an objective fact, but the fact itself is a subjective one.
    Like, I like ice cream, is a fact about my subjective opinion.

    So as it applies here. You say your opinion invalidates others.
    so
    #1) if your assumptions is that your opinion invalidates others, and the cliff chick has the same assumption
    then
    2) The end result is equally valid.

    that is just logic, and the idea of valid.
    Maybe you have a different idea, and I would love to engage you using an understanding that you have. Especially if it is a dictionary one.
    To serve man.

  21. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  22. #78
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,000
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think we have some crossed wires here, because in this thread I am aiming at a subjective POV not an objective one.
    I think there are still some objective facts involved. Like Mican objectively does believe X.
    In that he isn't lying, and X is in fact his belief.

    Other than that, totally subjective.
    Okay. And also the issue is whose subjective opinion is the relevant one in the debate. Well, the OP makes it clear.

    "Please be as thorough with your reasoning as possible"

    So the ONLY moral judge who's relevant to this discussion is ME and likewise whether something is moral or valid is my own.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Awsom, because your opinion is invalid from the context of the OP.
    As such it isn't relevant as far as I can tell.

    Now, I may have the context of the OP wrong, in which case your opinion is valid.
    So the lady on the cliff has her position which is valid for her, and you have yours which is valid for you.
    But the OP asked for MY position so it's the only relevant one. So it's the only valid one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So am I to take it that the proper interpretation of the correct(valid) answer to the OP is whatever you say it is?
    From my subjective perspective there is no alternative.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    "A moral position is valid if, the person holds it to be so".

    So you hold that your opinion invalidates contrary opinions, and that is valid from your POV. Just as it is valid that the opinion of another invalidates your opinino from their POV.
    Okay. But right now we are using my POV exclusively.

    And if you are looking at subjective morality from a subjective perspective, you can only entertain one opinion at a time. You have to leave your own subjective view of matters in order to consider the another viewpoint might invalidate your own.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point of the above is only so that we can compare subjective moralitis of different people.
    It doesn't list any necissary assumptions of the morals being held.
    so, #1 may be an objective fact, but the fact itself is a subjective one.
    Like, I like ice cream, is a fact about my subjective opinion.

    So as it applies here. You say your opinion invalidates others.
    so
    #1) if your assumptions is that your opinion invalidates others, and the cliff chick has the same assumption
    then
    2) The end result is equally valid.
    Not from the subjective perspective. No matter who does the judging, they will have an opinion on who is right and who is wrong. I think she should not drop the baby. She thinks she should drop the baby. If someone else is the judge of which opinion is valid and subjectively thinks she should not drop the baby, then my view is valid and hers is invalid.

    It's only from the objective view that both opinions are equally valid (they objectively contradict each other and if the judge does not offer his own subjective opinion on the matter, then they cancel each other out). But subjectively (where the judge does use his own subjective criteria), one is superior to the other.
    Last edited by mican333; May 8th, 2018 at 05:12 PM.

  23. #79
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I did no such thing. I asked questions in order to examine whether or not the context you provided was suitable for characterizing for ANY kind of abortion, which is both consistent with your claim (the abortion is just like the stupid context your provided, and the challenge of the thread, which is to examine whether or not youíre right). But instead of simply answering those questions, you cried like a little b**** about changing the context (which, again, I never did) and eventually admitted that itís possible that there could be certain circumstances where your dumbass, myopic analogy doesnít quite represent abortion.
    Totally fair. Thanks for the clarifications and sorry for the confusion.

  24. #80
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Cliff: a thought experiment on abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Totally fair. Thanks for the clarifications and sorry for the confusion.
    Very funny

    May I ask:

    how did you come by the title of ?:
    "ODN's Crotchety Old Man"

    I mean, were you awarded it, or was it your idea?

    Please take no offense, I usually enjoy reading your posts and I am genuinely curious.

    Sorry for such an off topic comment, but I don't think I am the only one reading that might wonder

 

 
Page 4 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
  •