|
@Delwack
I certainly think abortion has net negative consequences in more than just the moral arena, but for the sake of argument, let's say I'm purely coming from a moral standpoint. I still disagree that there is hypocrisy at play, because ethics recognize the concept of guilt or innocence, as well as the concept of defending the innocent against aggression (referring to war) just as much as laws do.
If you believe the unborn have some sort of moral significance beyond apendages of their mothers, then a question arises about whether they have enough significance to meaningfully attach the term "innocent". Skipping hundreds of years of political philosophy and blanketly assuming that people have the moral right to imbue a government with the power to remove rights based on "guilt" of understood laws, there seems to be reasonable expectation to differing treatment of innocent and guilty people.
Maybe this doesn't require all this abstraction. I don't see why it's an untenable position to say, "Killing the innocent is unjustified". I know there's a gutcheck to say "what the hell is innocent?" but pragmatically, we do operate under a legal definition of innocent that is informed by some level of collective morality.
Again, I know you know this, but I don't want anyone else to read this as their first glimpse of this blog and go after me as having no other leg to stand on with the abortion issue. It's just a strange concept to me the moral argument represents hypocrisy vis a vis abortion v. death penalty.
I'd also like to remind new readers that if I had my way, the death penalty would never be exercised in this country. I simply acknowledge its legality.
EDIT: I forgot the response to the societal costs aspect of your post. Earlier in the blog when I said I didn't think our society could survive without legalized abortion at this stage, I believe that because we are now about to complete our second generation which has grown up being told that abortion is a fundamental right of a US citizen. Women have organized their lives under the assumption that this is an option, and that is hugely significant to choosing whether to seek a marriage partner, choosing what sort of career, etc. I don't shy away from these facts, but I do suspect that it is not part of the human condition that we can't get along without abortion. It's just how the country has evolved.
|
On April 28 2012 07:58 SaintBadger wrote:
@IronMonocle
I disagree. And yes, I think I've read just about everything Richard Dawkins has published. He implicitly states that a multiverse theory is endorsed by the Razor over the concept of a prime mover. That to me is blatantly false. And furthermore, it smacks of the same sort of gimmick as Intelligent Design. He couches a completely unsubstantiated guess for how the universe is as it is in scientific terminology, and then feels free to use the Razor to endorse it. I honestly believe that the only reason his colleagues don't laugh him out of the building is the 70 or so years during which multiple dimensions has slowly worked its way into the pop culture nomenclature through science fiction. That group is somehow more comfortable endorsing that notion than a prime mover, but in terms of simplicity vs. complexity, I'd say the multiverse is far more complex.
And again, I hope people aren't assuming the most ignorant context of my arguments, because there is no progress to be made that way. The concept of a "prime mover" or "first cause" has zero to do with an Abrahamic God. As I said in the same post in which I mentioned the Razor, I'm skipping quite a few steps between that and how I came to the Catholic faith. So yes, I suppose I used the Razor to support my believe in God in much the same way integers are used to prove advanced calculus.
The reason I skipped the rest of my story is because this blog is not supposed to be a theological debate. I am well aware of the pride some TL members take in their rationalism, and how that has led them to disdain religious faith. I do not seek their affirmation. The only discussion of religion I have willingly begun is that which is necessary to explain how certain political issues are understood.
Many-worlds is the most likely theory at the moment for the way the world works. We don't have that much certainty, of course, but it is the most likely of everything we have.
How is many-worlds complex? It presupposes basically nothing. In fact I'd say it presupposes almost the bare minimum. It sounds like you don't seem to understand what Dawkins means by complex.
Please don't mix up "multiple dimensions" with many-worlds. It's just confusing when you have things like String Theory 11 dimensional spaces going around as well.
|
@DoubleReed
IronMonocle directed me to a site where Dawkins is quoted as offering the multiverse theory as the physics equivalent to biology's Darwinism in in terms of debunking the God concept.
|
On April 26 2012 16:32 SaintBadger wrote:
As to the Christian tenants, the EXTREMELY condensed version is that the passion story rings true in some preternatural part of my brain, and my gut reaction to things which Christianity holds as virtuous or evil generally validate the teachings.
<snip>
I chose to be a conservative at first because the people who identify themselves as conservative are generally more accepting of their existing a right and a wrong absent any relativism. Now, the failing of conservatives is that too often, they proclaim they know exactly what that right and wrong is in every circumstance. I don't pretend to be an arbiter of right and wrong, but the moral relativism argument upon which a lot of liberalism is based, in other words the "it's right for you but wrong for me" idea, is just an untenable logical fallicy to me.
On that note, how do you feel about genocide? Is it ever justifiable? And how should the United States respond when it happens elsewhere?
|
As a personal aside, my fiance' was attending the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa a year ago today. Some of you may recall a catastrophic wave of tornadoes that killed many people in that area, and this is the one year anniversary of that event. She was a bit disheartened that no mention of the event was forthcoming in the media, so I thought I'd mention it here. If anyone knows someone who was affected by that event, I would imagine it would make that person's day if you were to mention it to them and wish them well.
|
I recognize that argument. You are simply saying guilt or innocence is a line with which we use to justify a killing. I have no issue with that argument. You must acknowledge though you are recognizing an exception, or justification, for a killing here, through the concept of guilt or innocence in this case (which indeed you do). Those who have been judged guilty by whatever methodology, their killing is now justified.
Perhaps this argument (of innocence and guilt) is always implied, but every time someone asserts the wrongness of killing as absolute, my hypocrisy meter goes off, because it clearly is not if you are using differences in innocence and guilt to change stances.
Attaching a moral or ethnial value to a fetus/baby/whatever is probably the more relevent argument here, but in talking points it simply gets boiled down to 'killing is absolutely wrong!' and 'there are good reasons to allow this!', again a failure in general communication.
Relevant Edit on morality:
I also found this quote interesting:
I chose to be a conservative at first because the people who identify themselves as conservative are generally more accepting of their existing a right and a wrong absent any relativism. Now, the failing of conservatives is that too often, they proclaim they know exactly what that right and wrong is in every circumstance
I don't understand how you can be an moral absolutist if you don't proclaim to know exactly what is right or wrong in every circumstance? If you don't know what is right or wrong given a certain set of conditions, how is that moral absolutism? I thought the whole idea behind moral absolutism is that in each situation, regardless of context, there is a right and a wrong. If you consider circumstance, then you are talking about moral relativism. If you are unsure if some situation is right or wrong, then the morality concept is entirely useless in that situation, is it not? If you do not know the answer, then how the heck are we supposed to arrive at the correct conclusion? Someone has to provide that moral absolute answer, yes? And more importantly, we need to be able to apply that answer to a discussion so decisions can be debated and then made, so please don't tell me we are going to wait (till death) to find out if something is morally right or morally wrong. If we are, then the moral right or wrongness should have no bearing on the practical discussion at hand.
Perhaps my understanding of moral absolutism is incorrect. I think I need to do some reading in regards to the study of ethics in general.
|
@Mindcrime
Is genocide ever justifiable? Hmm, I don't think so. I mean, during most of history and probably today, there are populations small and constrained enough where any sort of military conflict would run the risk of completely destroying them, so if they happened to be the aggressor, I suppose one could come up with some sort of hypothetical.
I've never really come to terms with US obligation as humanitarian interventionist. I know Bush Sr. was heavily criticized for the Persian Gulf War and the justifiction of liberating Kuwait when so many other areas were also suffering under similar occupations. Then again, I don't have an issue with vital resources being something we actively protect, so that particular dichotomy never struck a chord with me. Similarly, there were some black leaders (many of whom are prominent Dems) who criticized Clinton for having a racial bias in getting involved with Serbia, but not engaging in certain parts of Africa where similar violence was taking place.
It's a hard question. I think the conservative answer is, we look to ourselves first. If we are in a situation where the nation is prosperous and we could engage in military effort without jeopardizing that prosperity, then it becomes a question of consent by the electorate. That's a political answer, not a moral one. Obviously, in this world there are a lot of options to attempt prior to military action, but I assumed by your question that the implication was whether military intervention is justified.
|
@Delwack
Ok, I see where you are now. I admire your dedication to assuming people say what they mean. It is a very rare trait, though to be fair, it is also rare to see someone who is careful and conscientious enough to earn that assumption.
|
On April 28 2012 08:20 SaintBadger wrote:
@DoubleReed
IronMonocle directed me to a site where Dawkins is quoted as offering the multiverse theory as the physics equivalent to biology's Darwinism in in terms of debunking the God concept.
Oh now I see.
Eh, Dawkins isn't a physicist. While I agree that the Razor would imply that a Multiverse explanation would be more likely than a Prime Mover, I don't know what Multiverse he's talking about. So there isn't evidence for either so skepticism throws them both out.
Still, many-worlds actually does have evidence for it, and is becoming increasingly likely. I don't think that works with a prime mover, but considering you can tack on God to any explanation I doubt that affects much.
|
@DoubleReed
Your last comment is something I always want to point out at these arguments. When someone says they've "debunked God", they haven't. They've just debunked what someone else claims as evidence for God. The thing that frustrates the Dawkinses of the world is that there really isn't a disproof to that concept.
Even if the many world concept is absolutely accurate, the effect on the argument is that the complexity of the universe can't be taken as evidence for God. I recognize that. It just makes me lol a bit when someone has that AHA! moment and comes out with, "I've proven there's no God!!!" All I have to say is, that would be quite an accomplishment.
|
On April 28 2012 08:46 SaintBadger wrote:
@DoubleReed
Your last comment is something I always want to point out at these arguments. When someone says they've "debunked God", they haven't. They've just debunked what someone else claims as evidence for God. The thing that frustrates the Dawkinses of the world is that there really isn't a disproof to that concept.
Even if the many world concept is absolutely accurate, the effect on the argument is that the complexity of the universe can't be taken as evidence for God. I recognize that. It just makes me lol a bit when someone has that AHA! moment and comes out with, "I've proven there's no God!!!" All I have to say is, that would be quite an accomplishment.
So true. Disproving the existence of a divine being is as much of a logical fallacy as proving it.
People tend to forget that.
|
@Delwack EDIT
I don't want to get caught in another blatant misuse of a term as with the Intelligent Design faux pas, but what I mean is that right and wrong can exist without an individual knowing what they are at any given point. Me saying, "I want to figure out what is right" is a far cry from the relativist saying, "Oh well, I'll decide what's right for me and you can decide what's right for you and we can both doublethink and accept each other's differing right".
The admission of not knowing what is right and wrong is an invitation for discussion and discovery.
The decision to recognize multiple "right"s is, at least in my understanding, an invitation for insanity.
|
To tie in what I just said about right and wrong to the God question:
It seems like Dawkins and I can agree that there is a factual state of the existence of God. God either exists or not. Now, I don't pretend to fully comprehend what "God exists" entails, but the folks who are content to say He exists for you and not for me just boggle my mind.
|
I don't understand how you can be an moral absolutist if you don't proclaim to know exactly what is right or wrong in every circumstance? If you don't know what is right or wrong given a certain set of conditions, how is that moral absolutism? I thought the whole idea behind moral absolutism is that in each situation, regardless of context, there is a right and a wrong. If you consider circumstance, then you are talking about moral relativism. If you are unsure if some situation is right or wrong, then the morality concept is entirely useless in that situation, is it not? If you do not know the answer, then how the heck are we supposed to arrive at the correct conclusion? Someone has to provide that moral absolute answer, yes? And more importantly, we need to be able to apply that answer to a discussions so decisions can be debated and then made, so please don't tell me we are going to wait (till death) to find out if something is morally right or morally wrong. If we are, then the moral right or wrongness should have no bearing on the practical discussion at hand.
Moral objectivity is a real thing. Look, we have a pretty good understanding of human well-being and human suffering. That's pretty much all Moral Objectivity is. I don't think women should be stoned for wearing certain clothing. Is this just a cultural thing? No! You're killing a human woman for something as trivial as clothing. That's not relative and you can't pretend that it is. Treating people as slaves, torture, beating people, this all can be quantified quite objectively in terms of suffering and human loss. There's no relativism.
Usually the answers are pretty obvious. Treat people nicely, don't steal, don't hurt others. But of course there are going to be situations that are grey or not at all clear. Are we going to magically know what's the best option to maximize human well-being all the time? No, we aren't. We're going to guess and estimate and do the best we can.
Moral relativism is insane. It basically assumes we know absolutely nothing about the way people should be treated. It acts as if all cultures are equal in terms of human dignity. No. Slavery is bad. Objectively. End of story.
On April 28 2012 08:46 SaintBadger wrote:
@DoubleReed
Your last comment is something I always want to point out at these arguments. When someone says they've "debunked God", they haven't. They've just debunked what someone else claims as evidence for God. The thing that frustrates the Dawkinses of the world is that there really isn't a disproof to that concept.
Even if the many world concept is absolutely accurate, the effect on the argument is that the complexity of the universe can't be taken as evidence for God. I recognize that. It just makes me lol a bit when someone has that AHA! moment and comes out with, "I've proven there's no God!!!" All I have to say is, that would be quite an accomplishment.
You can't disprove something like that. Everyone knows that. Remember, certainty is all about probability. You can still make the claim ridiculously improbable, like God is. We don't make any decisions in our life based on absolute certainty, so I don't need to disprove anything. It's improbable, therefore I don't believe in it. I don't really know how people can 'believe' in something that's absurdly improbable, but they do, and they will continue to do so.
|
Congratulations SaintBadger for being polite, clear and coherent. I respect what you are doing here. It's absolutely not the kind of world I would like to live in but it's certainly a vision that is clear from the beginning. I must confess you scare me. It's like reading the mind of someone you consider evil. It shows me I still have work to do on myself to improve my understanding of your opinion and find a way to make it work with mines - which I deeply believe are better  .
|
@Otoila
I shall meet you on the field of battle anyday. Too bad we aren't in 14th century Scotland. I always wanted a battle axe and face paint.
In all seriousness, thank you. Why is this such a bad world to live in?
|
@DoubleReed
Agree to disagree on relative probabilities, but at least we see eye to eye on the general concept of what constitutes proof. Some people really do think they can absolutely prove such things.
|
Hah! I just remembered a term I was looking for earlier. Long Day theory, or Old Earth Creationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism
Is this what you were wanting earlier, SaintBadger?
Sad it took me so long to remember this, considering I was subjected to a religious private school as a kid.
|
I'm going to step away from the comp to take my girl to dinner and go see the new John Cusack movie, "The Raven". Back sometime after 12:00 EST.
Hope all have a good weekend.
|
EDIT: Actually not quite sure, I'll read the article when I get back. Thank you though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
