I have no clear idea how this point is related to my point in regard to the morality of abortion as an example of what I construe to be conflicting goods.
Note to others:
You tell me how his point here is related to the point I make above it. He merely asserts that if people approach ethics as a “discipline” it will teach them to “stand up for what is right”. And, in regard to conscription, he did the right thing because it was in sync with his own disciplined ethics. How is that not tautological?
I’m not at all certain that you agree with yourself here. From my frame of mind, you don’t seem to be arguing that “people learn ethics more often by example”, but rather through a disciplined understanding of ethics itself garnered from the books you read.
Whereas I focus more on “I” here as an existential contraption out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view derived circumstantially from dasein.
Thus it depends on who someone comes to respect and love and copy in a particular historical, cultural and experiential context. Accepting that in a world of contingency, chance and change, new experiences, relationships and access to ideas can change their minds about any number of things.
That’s why, in regard to abortion, my interest in ethics revolves around the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
You will either go there yourself in regard to your own value judgments here or attempt further to explain to me how only a disciplined understanding of ethics led you to what I construe to be the political prejudices you take in regard to abortion here and now.