Objective Morality with Sigfreid and Belthazor

[Sigfried]

Background

Belthazar and I were discussing abortion. I gave a list of criteria by which many people make a moral evaluation about abortion. Belthazar found these evaluations to be arbitrary and based on emotion.

I argued that they are subjective (based on individual viewpoints) but not arbitrary (random, unguided, or without reason). But they are very much based on human emotion. Indeed, I argued that all human morality is rooted in human emotion.

Note

I'd prefer to have this debate primarily with Belthazar, I may ignore other comments at first to avoid confusion.

Argument

Morality is rooted in human emotion. Morality is the rules of behavior in society for the good of society as a whole, which includes its members. Without society, such rules are meaningless anyway.

The goals of individuals and society stem from desires. Desires are inherently emotional. We want to live. We want to make babies. We want those babies to grow up. We want the people we love to be happy. We want to experience things that give us joy. We want to avoid things that give us sorrow and pain.

How can I demonstrate this?

I propose that Belthazar attempts to explain the objective reasons for a moral rule against abortion. I will then ask questions and make challenges. When we peel back the justifications, will we have an objective fact, or will we have a human emotion? Let's find out.

Belthazar: Why is abortion immoral?

[Squatch347]

I've restored this thread and moved it here for a 1v1 discussion between you two. Have fun.

[Sigfried]

Cool, Thanks Squatch. You can nuke the other one I made. I thought you'd deleted this one.

[Belthazor]

Background
Belthazar and I were discussing abortion. I gave a list of criteria by which many people make a moral evaluation about abortion. Belthazar found these evaluations to be arbitrary and based on emotion.

I argued that they are subjective (based on individual viewpoints) but not arbitrary (random, unguided, or without reason). But they are very much based on human emotion. Indeed, I argued that all human morality is rooted in human emotion.

Basing decisions on "emotion" is indeed:
"random, unguided, and without reason"

as such, those decisions will change as the emotions change...

Background
Note

I'd prefer to have this debate primarily with Belthazar, I may ignore other comments at first to avoid confusion.

Ok

Background
Argument

Morality is the rules of behavior in society for the good of society as a whole, which includes its members. Without society, such rules are meaningless anyway.

I'm pretty much down with this part

Background
How can I demonstrate this?

I propose that Belthazar attempts to explain the objective reasons for a moral rule against abortion....

Belthazar: Why is abortion immoral?

This here is two questions Gordy, but ok.

1. You want me to defend objective morals exist.
Where have I offered such a thought? To me, this would require a Deity exists, and I have never forwarded any such thing!
Defending my stance on abortion (a pregnant woman having hired some one to kill her unborn) does not in any way require a God to exist.

As I am basically gnostic regarding religion I can't defend objective morals
(though I would give it a shot using "a Deity does exist" as long as you understand it's just for conversation, not what I personally believe).


2. To your second question: "[B]Belthazar: Why is abortion immoral?"
As morals seem subjective, it may not be, but it still would need to be reasoned why in a coherent manner if one desires a growing, empathetic, inclusive, safe, etc society of laws.
After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human so there should be good reasoning why the mother killing it (for any reason) is not murder.


(Aside 1: if morals are subjective, there was nothing wrong with voting for the Donald!!!)

Aside 2 : I added that for a friend, I couldn't vote for the Donald nor Hillary EVER!!! god how did our country get to the point where those are some of our few choices for "leadership"! No wonder morals are such a big question/misunderstanding/effed up/etc)

[Sigfried]

Basing decisions on "emotion" is indeed:
"random, unguided, and without reason"

We can come back to that later.

1. You want me to defend objective morals exist.

No, that's not my intent, at least not directly. I just presume that if you think morality based on feelings is arbitrary, then you have some other standard for which morality is properly based on, I aim to find out what that is... or to show you you are wrong. I aim to do that via the morality of abortion as a case study.

2. To your second question: "[B]Belthazar: Why is abortion immoral?"
As morals seem subjective, it may not be, but it still would need to be reasoned why in a coherent manner if one desires a growing, empathetic, inclusive, safe, etc society of laws.
After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human so there should be good reasoning why the mother killing it (for any reason) is not murder.

I don't feel like this is a clear answer to the question. I'm going to try and parse what you said into something more elemental, please tell me if I am correct or not.

1. (supposition) A fetus is a human being.
2. (definitional) Abortion ends the life of a fetus, therefore it is "killing a human being"
2. (definitional) Killing a human being without a moral warrant is called Murder.
3. Murder is immoral.

Is this an accurate representation of your answer to "Why is abortion immoral?"

Aside 1: if morals are subjective, there was nothing wrong with voting for the Donald!!!))

I want to point out that subjective, does not mean an absence of judgment. I think there is a lot wrong with voting for Trump, but I can't objectively prove that to anyone. I can only make appeals to other people's sense of right and wrong. But lets please focus on the question above for the moment.

[Belthazor]

We can come back to that later.

Perhaps in the other thread may fit better, but ok, we can discuss it where/when ever.

No, that's not my intent, at least not directly. I just presume that if you think morality based on feelings is arbitrary,...

My original comment was more like the criteria you had provided was arbitrary.
I'm curious why (in this case specifically, not generally) you feel subjective is a much more defensible position than arbitrary?
Decisions based on either can change for any reason or no reason at all...

I don't feel like this is a clear answer to the question. I'm going to try and parse what you said into something more elemental, please tell me if I am correct or not.

Since you are asking me to defend my words/points specifically, I think I will just defend my own position for this thread.

I want to point out that subjective, does not mean an absence of judgment.

I don't think I have commented on the definition of subjective, however using ones feelings/emotions to make a decision doesn't necessarily mean logical reasoning has been utilized as well.


With your indulgence I would like to amend a comment of mine, from:
"After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human so there should be good reasoning why the mother killing it (for any reason) is not murder."

to:
After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human so there should be good reasoning why the mother can have it killed for any reason she so chooses.

(the former called for a subjective moral judgement of murder)

[Sigfried]

Side Notes/discussion

I'm curious why (in this case specifically, not generally) you feel subjective is a much more defensible position than arbitrary?
Decisions based on either can change for any reason or no reason at all...

I think subjective is a more accurate description.

Consider something like fear of foreigners. It is not arbitrary, it applies to people with some defined traits. It is motivated specifically by fear and distrust. These are common human emotions and they have some grounding in reality based on what appears to be instinctive tribalistic human behaviors. It is however subjective. Not everyone has the same fears of the same people for the exact same reason or to the same degree. And some of us have rationalized that such fears are not truly justified and may well be counterproductive to other goals we have.

So it's a subjective viewpoint, based on an emotional response, but, it's not arbitrary, it's not random. it is not without meaning, purpose, or reason. But it is also not objective (independent of human judgment)

Main Discussion

Since you are asking me to defend my words/points specifically, I think I will just defend my own position for this thread.

Amended statement: After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human so there should be good reasoning why the mother can have it killed for any reason she so chooses.

This is not at all an answer to my question: Why is abortion immoral?

It is instead a two-part statement where you...

1. Make an assertion about my belief: "After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human"
2. Ask me a question: "Why can the mother have it killed for any reason she so chooses?"

I'm just going to ask my question again, and hope to get a direct answer.

Belthezor: Why is abortion immoral?

[Belthazor]

... or to show you you are wrong. I aim to do that via the morality of abortion as a case study.....

I, like everyone, want to be right. However, I am quite sure that there are things I believe that are correct that are not. I actively search out these beliefs, so if you can, I would actually appreciate it.
Further
I believe that "no man is so lowly that I can not learn from him.
So the source of a intellectual revelation bothers me not at all.

Having said that, you need to use my words/ideas in this conversation if you want to do that it seems to me.
So far, you are hearing me but I don't sense you are listening to me.

Having said that, let us see if we can get a knot or two out of your panties and move this conversation on....

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 AM ----------

Side Notes/discussion



I think subjective is a more accurate description.

Consider something like fear of foreigners. It is not arbitrary, it applies to people with some defined traits. It is motivated specifically by fear and distrust. These are common human emotions and they have some grounding in reality based on what appears to be instinctive tribalistic human behaviors.

It is still decisions that will change with the wind (for this conversation).

So it's a subjective viewpoint, based on an emotional response, but, it's not arbitrary, it's not random. it is not without meaning, purpose, or reason.

An emotional response by definition will not be the same to a given stimuli over the course of someone's lifetime.
Not something I care to argue at the moment though, I don't want to tangent off Op (like is nearly a given when talking with me it seems....)

Main Discussion
This is not at all an answer to my question: Why is abortion immoral?

It is instead a two-part statement where you...

1. Make an assertion about my belief: "After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human"
2. Ask me a question: "Why can the mother have it killed for any reason she so chooses?"

I did answer directly in post #4 (my first post BTW), you just were not listening, my guess being you really, really would like to show me wrong and its clouding your responses....
You asked two questions, I answered two.

I'm just going to ask my question again, and hope to get a direct answer.

Belthezor: Why is abortion immoral?

Your curious (obvious) editing of my point makes it loose any meaning, so lets try again:

"2. To your second question: "[B]Belthazar: Why is abortion immoral?"
As morals seem subjective, it may not be, but it still would need to be reasoned why in a coherent manner if one desires a growing, empathetic, inclusive, safe, etc society of laws.
After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human so there should be good reasoning why the mother killing it (for any reason) is not murder.


So, in my first post (#4), I made it very clear I am not promoting "objective morals exist" and "abortion may be subjectively moral" (w/ caveat).
That is as direct as I can make it!

If you are going to only take pieces of my thoughts, you are of course going to get confused as you totally took the context out of my thoughts from post #4 to intentionally make it appear to say something it did not!

(minor housekeeping point: I am "Belthazor", not "Belthazar")

[Sigfried]

Side Notes/discussion

Having said that, let us see if we can get a knot or two out of your panties and move this conversation on...

Honestly, I don't know why you think I have a "Knot in my panties" or even what you mean by that.

Main Discussion
I did answer directly in post #4 (my first post BTW), you just were not listening, my guess is you really, really would like to show me wrong and its clouding your responses....
You asked two questions, I answered two.[/QUOTE]

"How can I demonstrate this?" was a rhetorical question, that is why I didn't address it to you specifically as I did the other one. It is also why I answered it for myself and why I ignored your response to it. I hope that clears up that.

"2. To your second question: "[B]Belthazar: Why is abortion immoral?"
As morals seem subjective, it may not be, but it still would need to be reasoned why in a coherent manner if one desires a growing, empathetic, inclusive, safe, etc society of laws.
After all, you have agreed the fetus/tissue blob/whatever has worth as a human so there should be good reasoning why the mother killing it (for any reason) is not murder.

You don't give any reasons here as to why abortion should be immoral. If you do, I clearly don't understand what they are. Can you please offer a more clear explanation?

So, in my first post (#4), I made it very clear I am not promoting "objective morals exist" and "abortion may be subjectively moral" (w/ caveat).
That is as direct as I can make it!

I get that. But I think it is largely irrelevant to the discussion. We both don't think there are objective morals. OK. But what reason do you have for thinking Abortion is Immoral? It seems pretty clear that is the position you hold.

I'll just ask for the record: Do you think abortion is immoral?

[Belthazor]

I get that. But I think it is largely irrelevant to the discussion. We both don't think there are objective morals. OK. But what reason do you have for thinking Abortion is Immoral? It seems pretty clear that is the position you hold.

I'll just ask for the record: Do you think abortion is immoral?

You say you "get that" but you obviously do not, so I will try again

I see no reason to accept objective morals exist currently, so it appears to me we are left with subjective morals. That being the case, there probably are scenarios/circumstances where abortion could be moral.

[Sigfried]

Main Discussion

You say you "get that" but you obviously do not, so I will try again

I see no reason to accept objective morals exist currently, so it appears to me we are left with subjective morals. That being the case, there probably are scenarios/circumstances where abortion could be moral.

This is a lot better. I can understand it and it is a direct statement that addresses the question at least a little. Thanks!

OK, so you think morality is subjective. Great, we agree on that.

You think abortion is probably not always immoral. That's good to know.

So, I have two more questions for you.

1. Do you think subjective morality is based on human emotion?


2. Given the following scenario, do you think the woman is making a moral, or immoral choice?

A woman, age 23 gets pregnant with her husband by accident.
Together, they decide they are not ready to have a child and she will abort the pregnancy.
She is in her fourth week of gestation and she decides on a chemical abortion. It is successful.

[Belthazor]

Main Discussion
This is a lot better. I can understand it and it is a direct statement that addresses the question at least a little. Thanks!

OK, so you think morality is subjective. Great, we agree on that.

Hmm, same things I been sayin....just sayin...

You think abortion is probably not always immoral. That's good to know.

If objective morals do not exist it would be hard to make a blanket statement like:
"X is necessarily immoral always"

So, I have two more questions for you.

Oh boy!

1. Do you think subjective morality is based on human emotion?

I think it's pretty common, but to use only emotion I think is pretty short sighted.
Why?
Because emotions change for any or no reason.
So after you kill your fetus, your emotions could easily change (and it's pretty common for that to happen BTW) and you may feel that you murdered your own child!


Tell me:
Do you think basing the decision to kill someone on emotions is
a. moral?
b intellectually defensible?
c. how do you personally define murder?

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------

2. Given the following scenario, do you think the woman is making a moral, or immoral choice?

A woman, age 23 gets pregnant with her husband by accident.
Together, they decide they are not ready to have a child and she will abort the pregnancy.
She is in her fourth week of gestation and she decides on a chemical abortion. It is successful.

At less than 4 weeks she doesn't know even she is pregnant!
But to the point I think you are trying to make, my idea of morality regarding human life:

I generally lean toward:
defenseless, innocent life should be protected when possible/feasible (a decidedly common belief).
I'm not for killing the aged, sick, deformed etc or most of the other criteria you have offered so far for abortion (like looks, the ability to interact with society, etc) as they apply to these and other groups as well.
You say your criteria should only apply to the unborn (and only up to a certain stage of life of the unborn), but you haven't given a good foundation why it would only apply to that one group.

Since in your example:
a. the mother has given consent to get pregnant by having sex
b. there are all kinds of birth control that would have prevented the pregnancy if she was that concerned about getting pregnant
c. there are other options available, like adoption, that don't kill the child and she would still not have to raise/care for the child
d. she only has to carry the child for some months
e. the father gets no say in the final decision and no recourse but to see his offspring killed if she so chooses

It doesn't sound like a moral action to me in this case, though there could be other things going on in her particular situation I am currently unaware of that could make it a moral action.

[Sigfried]

Side Notes

If objective morals do not exist it would be hard to make a blanket statement like:
"X is necessarily immoral always"

It's a good thing I didn't ask that question then.

I think it's pretty common, but to use only emotion I think is pretty short sighted.

I think you misunderstand. The basis of something is not to say that it is the only thing it is composed of. It is to say it is what starts a thing or is its foundation.
Basis: The underlying support or foundation for an idea, argument, or process.

Because emotions change for any or no reason.

I disagree. Emotions always have a cause of some kind. It is in our brain and it is a process that happens in there, it is not magical. They are usually caused by a combination of external stimulus and internal reaction. We don't always understand them, but that doesn't make them random or without cause.

So after you kill your fetus, your emotions could easily change (and it's pretty common for that to happen BTW) and you may feel that you murdered your own child!

But that is not happening without a reason. You probably have had experiences that have changed your viewpoint and your feelings. Or it could be hormonal changes. Come on, surely in your experience your emotions are connected to events and experience and your innate nature.


Main Discussion

Do you think basing the decision to kill someone on emotions is
a. moral?
b intellectually defensible?
c. how do you personally define murder?

A. No
B. No
C. No

But I do think the morality of not killing people is based on our desire not to be killed by other people and our instinctive empathy for other people. That is not at all the same as killing someone because of an emotion.

At less than 4 weeks she doesn't know even she is pregnant!

I looked this claim up. It is possible to know you are pregnant 4 weeks after conception. You can find out up to 8 days after conception in fact. It is not easy, but it is possible.

But to the point I think you are trying to make, my idea of morality regarding human life:

For now, I'm just trying to get you to make statements I can analyze, not to make a point of my own just yet. (though you know the ultimate aim of my argument already, you seem close to agreeing with it I think)

I generally lean toward:
defenseless, innocent life should be protected when possible/feasible (a decidedly common belief).
I'm not for killing the aged, sick, deformed etc or most of the other criteria you have offered so far for abortion (like looks, the ability to interact with society, etc) as they apply to these and other groups as well.

Good answer.

Next Question: Why do you think innocent life should be protected?

[Belthazor]

Side Notes
It's a good thing I didn't ask that question then.

For this conversation it amounts to the same thing.

I think you misunderstand. The basis of something is not to say that it is the only thing it is composed of. It is to say it is what starts a thing or is its foundation.
Basis: The underlying support or foundation for an idea, argument, or process.

I understood. Emotion is an unstable foundation for the many reasons already submitted. You have also agreed that it is not a basis for a decision to kill someone.

But lets say it is a good foundation. Then someone saying abortion is murder is as reasonable as saying it is not. This just leads us to majority opinion makes right. While this is not uncommon, it is not intellectually defensible, it just is.

But that is not happening without a reason. You probably have had experiences that have changed your viewpoint and your feelings. Or it could be hormonal changes. Come on, surely in your experience your emotions are connected to events and experience and your innate nature.

non-sequitur

Care to respond to the point?

C. No

Why so reluctant to tell me what murder means to you??

But I do think the morality of not killing people is based on our desire not to be killed by other people and our instinctive empathy for other people.

Probably part of it.

Next Question: Why do you think innocent life should be protected?

I see all humans having equal worth.

[Sigfried]

For this conversation it amounts to the same thing.
I understood. Emotion is an unstable foundation for the many reasons already submitted. You have also agreed that it is not a basis for a decision to kill someone.

No. Look, one problem I have with debating you is you are often rather imprecise with your language. Small differences can convey a lot of meaning.

Emotion is a basis for a decision to kill someone. AKA I'm angry, so I killed him. That is a basis.
Emotion is not a basis for a justification to kill someone. AKA I'm angry so it's moral for me to kill him.

These are two very different things.

But lets say it is a good foundation. Then someone saying abortion is murder is as reasonable as saying it is not. This just leads us to majority opinion makes right. While this is not uncommon, it is not intellectually defensible, it just is.

That's not how it works.

non-sequitur
Care to respond to the point?

It's not a non-sequitur at all. You said emotion changes for no reason. I said you were wrong and illustrated some reasons why emotions change. That is a direct response, not a non-sequitur.

Why so reluctant to tell me what murder means to you??

I'm not at all. But I created this thread to ask you questions so you could explain your viewpoint. We are exploring my viewpoint in the other thread.

Main Discussion

I see all humans having equal worth.

Good answer: Two More Questions

1. Does a serial rapist have the same worth as say, your mother (or anyone else you admire)?

2. Why does anyone have any worth?

[Belthazor]

No. Look, one problem I have with debating you is you are often rather imprecise with your language. Small differences can convey a lot of meaning.

This is why I commonly use more than one word when describing the idea I am trying to get across as I have no interest in semantic debate.

Emotion is a basis for a decision to kill someone. AKA I'm angry, so I killed him. That is a basis.
Emotion is not a basis for a justification to kill someone. AKA I'm angry so it's moral for me to kill him.

These are two very different things.

In a discussion about abortion common sense leans toward the latter.

That's not how it works.

Well, I must be incorrect then cause I cain't argue with that type of logic....

It's not a non-sequitur at all. You said emotion changes for no reason. I said you were wrong and illustrated some reasons why emotions change. That is a direct response, not a non-sequitur.

I believe I said can, not must.
Either way, emotions do change and not always for valid/intellectually defensible/reasonable reasons all the time and one should not base legal decisions about a human life's right to not be killed on them.

I'm not at all. But I created this thread to ask you questions so you could explain your viewpoint. We are exploring my viewpoint in the other thread.

I don't believe you have defined it there either and I'm still curious to know wherever you want to write it. PM me for god's sake, but out with it somewhere please.

Good answer: Two More Questions

Hmmm, I am growing weary of twenty questions.
If you have a point it's time to make it.

1. Does a serial rapist have the same worth as say, your mother (or anyone else you admire)?

Objectively, yes.

2. Why does anyone have any worth?

Define worth please, so we don't have one them "imprecise" moments.

[Sigfried]

In a discussion about abortion common sense leans toward the latter.

Well, this thread isn't about abortion, its about the nature of morality. I am using abortion as an example to illustrate an idea. The idea is that when you look at morality critically, you find that the principles have their basis in human emotion. Without emotion, there would be no morality.

It is very important to distinguish motivation from justification when you are talking about morality. I am discussing motivation. Why do we have the moral rules we have? What motivates the choices we have made? What purpose do these moral rules serve?

Justification doesn't exist until you have an established moral code. Justification is based on moral ideals.

Either way, emotions do change and not always for valid/intellectually defensible/reasonable reasons all the time and one should not base legal decisions about a human life's right to not be killed on them.

Emotions have been a constant of the human experience since there has been recorded history and likely much longer than that. Fear, sadness, anger, love, and so one are constant forces in the lives of human beings. They are volatile, but they don't occur for no reason at all.

I'm sure someone has at some point asked you "Why are you angry" and generally, there is a reason. Even if it is not a reason that makes sense to you, there is a reason. You may be hungry, you may be hurt, you may have slept poorly. These are reasons.

I don't believe you have defined it there either and I'm still curious to know wherever you want to write it. PM me for god's sake, but out with it somewhere please.

Read this post again for the details of my personal view.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post567861

From where I say "I have my own moral judgments about abortion."

Hmmm, I am growing weary of twenty questions.
If you have a point it's time to make it.

I'm using the Socratic Method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
"The Socratic method, (also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate), is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. "

The point of it is to try to make you examine your own views more closely and critically rather than focusing on me and my views. To examine your views, we have to know what they are. Then I have to get you to examine them and explain them. If you really don't want to answer questions about what you think, fine, we can abandon the discussion. Let me know.

1. Does a serial rapist have the same worth as say, your mother (or anyone else you admire)?
Objectively, yes.

1. Is the moral worth of life greater than the moral worth of liberty?

Define worth please, so we don't have one them "imprecise" moments.

Worth: A value property of some other idea/entity that indicates it is for the "good" and warrants protection/preservation through positive moral action. Example: All life has worth so we should seek to preserve it from harm.

2. Why does anyone have any worth?

[Belthazor]

Emotions have been a constant of the human experience since there has been recorded history and likely much longer than that. Fear, sadness, anger, love, and so one are constant forces in the lives of human beings. They are volatile, but they don't occur for no reason at all.

I'm sure someone has at some point asked you "Why are you angry" and generally, there is a reason. Even if it is not a reason that makes sense to you, there is a reason. You may be hungry, you may be hurt, you may have slept poorly. These are reasons.

Oh, well then, when you put it that way, we should base laws on life/death decisions on emotions...…...

Read this post again for the details of my personal view.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post567861

From where I say "I have my own moral judgments about abortion."

Um ya, 3/4 of the way down a long post starting in the middle of a paragraph.
Problem is Professor Precise Language:
you did NOT define "murder" which was my only question.

1. Is the moral worth of life greater than the moral worth of liberty?

Maybe, maybe not. Morals are subjective remember?

Worth: A value property of some other idea/entity that indicates it is for the "good" and warrants protection/preservation through positive moral action. Example: All life has worth so we should seek to preserve it from harm.

2. Why does anyone have any worth?

This is also a subjective value judgement.
"Anyone" has "worth" because someone deems it so.

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

Read this post again for the details of my personal view.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post567861

(BTW, you have not responded to the last post in that thread yet?....)

[Sigfried]

Oh, well then, when you put it that way, we should base laws on life/death decisions on emotions.

Is this your position? It's not mine. I'm simply arguing that the fact is, emotions have causes and are not random, contrary to your claim that they can change for no reason.

you did NOT define "murder" which was my only question.

Sorry, these quippy replies make it hard to follow the conversation. I thought you were asking about my abortion position.

Murder = An unlawful killing of another person.

Maybe, maybe not. Morals are subjective remember?

On what issues would the question rest for you? For instance, when is liberty worth more than life (in your view)?

This is also a subjective value judgement.
"Anyone" has "worth" because someone deems it so.

Of course, we are agreed in this. I am asking why you deem it so. I'll make that clearer for you.

In your view, why does anyone's life have worth?

(BTW, you have not responded to the last post in that thread yet?....)

I presume you are asking me why. I hadn't thought to do so. I'll give it a look.

[Belthazor]

Is this your position? It's not mine.

From the quote you were responding to, it indeed looked as if this was what your position boiled down to.

I'm simply arguing that the fact is, emotions have causes and are not random, contrary to your claim that they can change for no reason.

and again, to quote me:
I believe I said can, not must.
"Either way, emotions do change and not always for valid/intellectually defensible/reasonable reasons all the time and one should not base legal decisions about a human life's right to not be killed on them."

Sorry, these quippy replies make it hard to follow the conversation.

"Quippy"? I actually think I like that, though sorry, I thought I was being clear since we are already discussing your curious view of abortion elsewhere, but not your view of murder anywhere (till now).

Murder = An unlawful killing of another person.

I thought you said something like:
"killing is objective, murder is a moral judgement"

On what issues would the question rest for you? For instance, when is liberty worth more than life (in your view)?

If liberty is defined something like:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...nglish/liberty
"the freedom to live as you wish or go where you want"

I'm not sure I can think of a situation that one person's liberty is more important than another person's life.

In your view, why does anyone's life have worth?

The way you have defined worth I'm not sure they do.