I judge morality by how our actions affect the experiences, suffering and well-being of humans and animals. What's wrong with this?
We can't determine that there are things that makes us happy, joyous and satisfied and things that make us miserable and cause pain? Of course it varies from being to being and we can't do it with great accuracy, but the only thing preventing accuracy seems to be our lack of skill and resources.

So do I. But you it is false to equivocate this with someone not caring.

I agree; but happiness is an ambiguous concept. It could relate to the ecstasy of sex, or the fulfillment of family. These are very different area's both possible to include in happiness, though unbelievably different.
Until you can clarify what well-being means; which we can't yet, and I doubt we ever will (this is just me though), we can't measure it

If someone never really existed in the first place, they never cared about living in the first place. I dont see any problems with this.

Certainly we can make estimations and reasoned out guessess and thoughts. It's not that hard to determine that stabbing someone in the chest or beating a 6-year old are not very good things. Trial and error in more ambiguous areas.

I think you're allowed to say it's hypocritical to claim that all people should be treated equally whilst also declaring that some people should be treated preferentially. However, you're not supposed to say that someone is a hypocrite if they make that claim.

After all, maybe you've misunderstood their position. Maybe they're just blind to the contradiction. Maybe a whole host of things beyond them being hypocritical. Pointing out logical flaws in someone's position isn't frowned on - making statements about their supposed motivations/character/morals which underpin those positions is.

so even if what the person is doing is hypocrisy I am not allowed to actually state that he is being a hypocrite? It makes no sense.. it's like someone making a racist comment and I cannot call him out and say he is being racist? I can only call the act racist but not the person?

Let's face it. Being pro-choice (which I myself am) is fraught with problems. There is just no good way of drawing the line at when it's NOT okay to terminate the life of the unborn (or even the born). Is there really a marked difference between an 8 month old fetus and an 8 month old who is born prematurely? What about a 9 month old fetus and a post natal 1 day old? There is just no good way of getting around this. Perhaps my following view is riddled with inconsistencies. I'd appreciate them being pointed out. But here's how I look at abortion and life in general...


In my view no one has the "right" to live. It is by the greatest of chances that any of us are born or even conceived in the first place. Do we really have a "right" to live on past today?

If you are contemplating killing me, it is not my right to live you should be thinking about, but the cost of killing me to others. Maybe I have children, family, or other loved ones who will suffer. Maybe you yourself will suffer penalties for my death. If the costs of your killing me are deemed too severe, it may be said you were morally wrong, or are a bad person for doing so. But it is not my right to live that should bring any bearing upon such judgment.

So in my view, no one has the "right" to live on. If we are to take it upon ourselves to terminate a life or would-be life, it should be about the ultimate costs to others, not the individual life itself. You can argue that a 2 day old blastocyst is not yet a human, but eventually you will run into the problem of determining just when this can no longer be said. Is a 120 day old fetus a human? What about a 294 day old fetus, etc.

If you want to argue that consciousness or self awareness is what makes the difference, you run into similar problems. Does a 2 day old post natal baby fit the criteria? If so, can you differentiate the 2 day old post natal baby and the the baby 2 days from being born? I say this is far too problematic and easily shot down by pro-lifers and good philosophy. So I have developed my view above. I'd be genuinely interested to hear the problems and inconsistencies contained within it. Thanks.

I think Peter Singer has pretty consistent and well formed view on the issue.

I would like to take this moment to thank my mother for not aborting me, allowing me to grow up and have a daughter and a wife and be blessed with love and family.

Thank you, mom.

I think this sort of retroactive thinking is utterly meaningless. Maybe if you had been aborted your mom would had another son that would be writing the exact same post here. Should we blame your mother for not having that hypothetical son?

Really? Its dry and tastes like paste. Also your going to the special hell.

There is a passage in the Bible that deals specifically with the act of causing a woman to abort a pregnancy. It is an opportunity for God to tell us that it is murder but instead it implies that abortion is only minor civil offense:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

So it is not at all clear that anti-abortionism is supported by the Bible. Surely abortions were occurring among both Christians and non-christians in early times. If it was the same as murder one would think it would be explicitly condemned somewhere in the Bible. But it is not. Apparently the idea was developed in later times soley by the church clerics.

If stu really believes what he's saying, I'd expect him to live a live of giving to the maximum amount possible in order to save as many lives as possible. Thousands of children die of starvation every day. If stu decides to go see a movie instead of donating that money to those children, he is saying his entertainment is more important than those children continuing to live.

I understand the whole gotta-have-money-to-make-money line of thought, but that doesn't apply to any sort of entertainment activity.

Yeah but that's a man doing it. Totally different. The bible doesn't need to heed to these silly notions about egalitarianism. I think we can safely assume if there had been line about woman causing miscarriage that the penalty would probably have been stoning to death.

Yeah and I think if a man causes a woman have miscarriage against her will the punishment should be more severe than a fine. Justice in the bible is really ****ed up.

I like how it's the husband that can demand the fine. Equality, huh, Splendour?

Or maybe his daughter will grow up to be the next Hitler? Is Doggg's mother choosing not to abort him worth the deaths of millions of people?

You get to wash it down with Jewish blood, though.

Well to be fair, under their rules I am technically allowed to take the eucharist.

And yes, I don't know what it is, but Ive always been a big fan of the taste since childhood.

exactly.

You can discuss those beliefs all you want. You can say "those beliefs seem contradictory." Or even, "those beliefs are contradictory." No attacks on the poster, direct or indirect ("those beliefs are ******ed" for instance).

Start a thread in ATF or the random **** thread if you want to discuss it.

In my reply I was quit clear that I would save my own child for "selfish" reasons. But your analogy is flawed because it doesn't really matter which human being I save.

Perhaps you can explain why you and glaskow think it is necessary to conflate the idea of saving a human being with destroying a human being. The decision process behind who you save isn't necessarily applicable to who you destroy. Make a case that they are the same and you might get me to change my position. As it stands now I read your point above and find it utterly meaningless to the discussion.

So in your mind when we use the word 'value' to discuss the worth of a specific human being you are just considering it to be some subjective feeling or sensation instead of the traditional meaning of it being a quantity of worth. I think you are opening yourself up to making numerous inconsistencies in your thinking by doing this.

If you have the time these articles might help you (they can be quite dull; but are very good at showing why you can value some people more than others)-
The meaning, value, and duties of friendship by David Annis

role morality by Andre

About the trolley problem

A bit from the stan enc

Humans objectively are the same, but subjectively should and do carry different moral value

Also; would you mind responding to my objections? Its on the last page to do with your arbitrary decision that morally valuable human life begins at conception being baseless

I think it was worth keeping this thread open just for Lestats post. While I don't agree with him it was a perspective I had never even considered.