Morality in Abortion

[promethean75]

Alright let's go...

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1qbaka4QHzX

[Arcturus Descending]

Ecmandu,

Most people are innately, existentially, frustreted that they never could have been born.

Did you mean to say that most wish that they had never been born?
It is possible, perhaps even probable, that at some time or another many uttered those words but they were only said in frustration or when they were feeling powerless - they were not really meant. Despite that, they continued to struggle and live.
Stop trying to find the rabbit in the hat ~ it just is not there. Instead, show me your statistics on this? Show me the evidence for this. Real evidence which I can read. There is none!

These are the people that we don't want to populate the earth.

Oh really now! Speak for yourself. What a miserable, inhumane thing to say, Ecmandu.
You are sounding like Josef Mengele here.
So what are you saying here? That you would annihilate those people who are feeling powerless,who are so far down? You would not try to show them another side to life, to lift them up, to give them hope?

Yes there is 5th dimensional space and time where these decisions can be made

Unfortunately, your so-called decisions were made in our dimensions and what happened there, Ecmandu? Humanity fought back and eventually we won over one of the most evil times in our history. Men and women gave their lives so that Nazi Pigs could not eradicate people who they thought ought not to exist.
Today, there are other so-called Pigs of different names and humanity continues to struggle and fight these.

Life does hold a whole lot more value and meaning than you and others feel. If that were not the case, people would not be courageous enough struggling to find their way in the world and to live.

[Magnus Anderson]

Seriously though, if they are all the same person, what do you suppose the point is? Are they characters he plays here?

Yes, very curious. Perhaps he's trying to make it look as if more than one person is interested in VO?

I'm kinda sad the Trio Fantastico gave up on their enthusiasm. I was looking forward to the deeply intellectual discussion.

I [do not] agree that philosophy tries to pin down what humans should be doing with their lives.
Ive never read any philosopher who tried to do that, have you? If so, who?

We clearly have a different take on philosophy here. If philosophy, as many construe it, is the search for wisdom, what constitutes wise behavior when confronting moral conflicts? What can we know here? And how can what we think we know be expressed to others logically, rationally, objectively?

Very funny. He thought the case is closed. Are you telling us it is not?

Dave Chapelle isn't subjectivizing the issue, he's merely relativizing it. The guy is merely laughing at the idea of a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to abortion (and probably many other things in life.) What he's saying is "What is objectively right for one person in one situation is not necessarily what is objectively right for another person in another situation". He's definitively not claiming there are no objective oughts i.e. that you can't use reason (or science or philosophy or whatever) to discover objective good/bad and right/wrong.

I think that's Jakob's train of thought just as well it's just that he's not communicating clearly. German philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc) are prone to that sort of stuff. He's definitively not telling us that there are no objective oughts. That's crazy. Here's one: "You should eat if you want to remain live". That's an objective ought. Don't eat and you die. See it for yourself if in doubt. Jakob is merely saying that if you're morbidly obese you shouldn't eat the way you should eat when you're fit.

So how does this relate to your own problem of dasein? I have no idea. I don't think it does. I think the core of your problem is your need for consensus -- the utter inability to think independently from what everyone else thinks. The trio didn't even come close to it.

[Magnus Anderson]

Here's an important passage, Jakob:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121&start=275#p2737013

[T]his moral relativist [me] does not deny the existence of objective morality, only that no one has been able to demonstrate [of late] that their own rendition of it is applicable to all rational and virtuous men and women.

I interpret this to mean "I do not deny the existence of objective morality, I am only saying that no one has been able to convince everyone (or at least the great maority of people) that what they think to be objective morality is indeed what objective morality is."

He's asking you, Jakob, to pick any moral statement you hold to be true or false and then convince a relatively high percentage of human population that it is indeed true or false.

If you can't do it then I think he's going to tell you that your philosophy is of no practical value.

It looks like an either/or fallacy to me.

Either your philosophy can be used to make everyone agree with your philosophical beliefs or it is of no practical value.

[iambiguous]

I [do not] agree that philosophy tries to pin down what humans should be doing with their lives.
Ive never read any philosopher who tried to do that, have you? If so, who?

We clearly have a different take on philosophy here. If philosophy, as many construe it, is the search for wisdom, what constitutes wise behavior when confronting moral conflicts? What can we know here? And how can what we think we know be expressed to others logically, rationally, objectively?

Dave Chapelle isn't subjectivizing the issue, he's merely relativizing it. The guy is merely laughing at the idea of a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to abortion (and probably many other things in life.) What he's saying is "What is objectively right for one person in one situation is not necessarily what is objectively right for another person in another situation". He's definitively not claiming there are no objective oughts i.e. that you can't use reason (or science or philosophy or whatever) to discover objective good/bad and right/wrong.

Okay, Jane is convinced that it is objectively right for her to have this particular abortion regarding this particular fetus in this particular context.

Jim however is equally convinced that he is objectively right that this abortion is immoral. And that it should therefore be illegal. And that Jane ought to be punished -- after being convicted of first degree murder? -- if she aborts the unborn baby.

So, using reason and science and philosophy what is the objective good/bad, right/wrong thing to do here?

To me this is same old argument about there being no universal morality in regard to abortion but that we can go from one individual context to the next and determine the objective truth each and every time.

He's definitively not telling us that there are no objective oughts. That's crazy. Here's one: "You should eat if you want to remain live". That's an objective ought. Don't eat and you die. See it for yourself if in doubt. Jakob is merely saying that if you're morbidly obese you shouldn't eat the way you should eat when you're fit.

You and I have gone down this road before. There is [in my view] a distinction to be made between what you ought to do if you don't want to be faced with the choice of aborting or not aborting a baby/clump of cells.

But if you do all that you ought to do to avoid a pregnancy and become pregnant anyway -- a defective contraception, rape etc. -- then the ought question can shift to others in turn. Jane believes she ought to have the right to terminate the pregnancy while Jim believes the state has the right [under the law] to arrest her and try her for murder if she chooses that.

Then back again to using reason and philosophy and science to pin this down definitively.

So how does this relate to your own problem of dasein? I have no idea. I don't think it does. I think the core of your problem is your need for consensus -- the utter inability to think independently from what everyone else thinks. The trio didn't even come close to it.

Dasein as I understand it revolves around particular facts that can be demonstrated as true objectively in regard to Jane and her unwanted pregnancy. But, far more crucially, it revolves around our reaction to those demonstrable facts when we use them in an attempt argue for objective moral conclusions in regard to Jane choosing to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells.

[Magnus Anderson]

If you're asking me to make everyone accept my moral beliefs then I am afraid I have to disappoint you for I have no such super-powers.

If you're asking me to prove to you that my moral beliefs cannot possibly be wrong then once again I have to disappoint you.

What I can do, and only up to a point, is explain to you why I think what I think. Another thing I can do is explain to you how beliefs are formed and what makes one belief more valuable than another and how. But, it appears to me, these sorts of explanations are of no interest to you.

[iambiguous]

If you're asking me to make everyone accept my moral beliefs then I am afraid I have to disappoint you for I have no such super-powers.

If you're asking me to prove to you that my moral beliefs cannot possibly be wrong then once again I have to disappoint you.

No, what I am suggesting is that philosophers, using the tools at their disposal, do not appear able to provide us either with a universal morality applicable to all abortions or an objective account pertaining to each particular abortion in its own unique set of circumstances.

Further, I am suggesting that, here and now, you own moral beliefs are more the embodiment of the manner in which I construe dasein in my signature threads. "I" as an existential contraption derived from the actual sequence of experiences in your life. And, that, given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas, you may well change your mind about many of the things that you believe about the morality of abortion here and now.

What I can do, and only up to a point, is explain to you why I think what I think. Another thing I can do is explain to you how beliefs are formed and what makes one belief more valuable than another and how. But, it appears to me, these sorts of explanations are of no interest to you.

Okay, in regard to your current belief about the morality of abortion, gives us your own rendition of the sequence I noted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

In other words, the part where the tools of philosophy meet the actual experiences in your life intertwined from the cradle to the grave.

[Silhouette]

iambiguous, I think something instrumental in contemporary politics that resists your philosophy is the "First Past The Post" voting system.

The Nash Equilibrium of this voting system is a binary polarisation. This encourages thinking in opposing absolutes from the top down, which is in stark contrast to your philosophy, which embraces circumstance in a spectrum as wide as the number of unique people in society.

This will be why the abortion debate in politics is an either/or pendulum swinging from one extreme to another - whereas what you're suggesting, put into practice, would individualise each case specifically to each individual.

The advantage of the current political climate is that it's as simple and crude as any system of absolutes, making practical application as uncomplicated as possible.
The obvious downside is that the lack of nuance smashes through the issue with all the delicacy of a sledgehammer.

So whilst your philosophy would benefit from being maximally appropriate, the practical implications of tailoring the legality of every instance of abortion or lack thereof to each person specifically sounds like an administrative nightmare, that inherently defies oversight and accountability, because with all cases unique - there are no cases deemed equivalent to test outcomes against. How do you know unprecedented outcomes are optimal? There is no standard.

A compromise then - perhaps. Current politics are clearly going nowhere (perhaps that is the point? - such debates are often seen as mere distractions or conveniences for political branding), where an array of case categories could be laid down, to which specific cases are matched. Dasein is thereby approached as far as pragmatically possible under the conditions that limited legal resources and principles of accountability allow.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, I think something instrumental in contemporary politics that resists your philosophy is the "First Past The Post" voting system.

The Nash Equilibrium of this voting system is a binary polarisation. This encourages thinking in opposing absolutes from the top down, which is in stark contrast to your philosophy, which embraces circumstance in a spectrum as wide as the number of unique people in society.

This will be why the abortion debate in politics is an either/or pendulum swinging from one extreme to another - whereas what you're suggesting, put into practice, would individualise each case specifically to each individual.

On the contrary, even in regard to the moral judgments that pertain to each individual abortion, "I" is deemed by me to be no less an existential contraption. "I" is thus seen to be no less fractured and fragmented; and no more able to resolve the conflicting goods at the very heart of the abortion wars.

The advantage of the current political climate is that it's as simple and crude as any system of absolutes, making practical application as uncomplicated as possible.
The obvious downside is that the lack of nuance smashes through the issue with all the delicacy of a sledgehammer.

I'm not at all sure what your point is here. But mine is that sans God or a secular argument able to be demonstrated as in fact establishing an objective morality [universally or on a case by case basis] the best of all possible worlds is still moderation, negotiation and compromise. Re for example roe v. wade here in America. Democracy and the rule of law. But even here the components of my own moral philosopnhy don't go away. "I" am no less down in my hole fractured and fragmented.

So whilst your philosophy would benefit from being maximally appropriate, the practical implications of tailoring the legality of every instance of abortion or lack thereof to each person specifically sounds like an administrative nightmare, that inherently defies oversight and accountability, because with all cases unique - there are no cases deemed equivalent to test outcomes against. How do you know unprecedented outcomes are optimal? There is no standard.

Actually, this is my point in regards to those who reject a universal morality but insist that conflicting goods here can be resolved on a case by case basis. For all practical purposes the sheer number of variables alone would collapse each and every effort.

A compromise then - perhaps. Current politics are clearly going nowhere (perhaps that is the point? - such debates are often seen as mere distractions or conveniences for political branding), where an array of case categories could be laid down, to which specific cases are matched. Dasein is thereby approached as far as pragmatically possible under the conditions that limited legal resources and principles of accountability allow.

Yes, there are pragmatists such as Karpel Tunnel who configure their pragmatism in such a way that they see their own particular "I" as less fractured and fragmented; and not nearly as far down in the hole as "I" am.

But then they don't construe "I" here in the manner in which I do in my signature threads. They don't react to the fact that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas "I" [in the is/ought world] is always subject to change at any time. Not as I do.