90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

[kamui]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote] is “you shall kill” compatible with other rules (any rules, even chessgame rules), yes or no ?
if “no” is the answer, then we KNOW that killing is immoral. [/quote]

By that definition war is always immoral.

Correct?

Even is war is inevetable and necessary to protect your country, the act of war in itself is immoral.

[/quote]

War itself is not an act. It’s a time.
During this time, we do many things. some are moral. some are amoral and a lot of them are immoral.

but strictly speaking, inevitable things are not immoral. They are amoral by definition.

[ephrem]

Thanks for your elaborate reply pat, I appreciate that.

I see the sacred institution of preserving human life further up the gestational chain because the human organism is the same through out it’s life at it’s core.

Altough I disagree with this at a fundamental level, it also assumes a level of control of female reproductive rights I find disturbing.

If a women chooses to abort a pregnancy the abortion has an emotional impact, that’s undeniable. But it’s her own decision and she has to live with that choice.

By taking away that choice you make her the victim of your opinion in favor of saving a fetus. Basically our position is the same just on opposite sides of the issue.

You see the woman as less of a victim, whereas I see the fetus as less of a victim.

Is it, external from things like persecution or negative perception, or is something about the lifestyle itself that precipitates a certain level of discomfort.

I think gay-issues are very much culturally influenced, and therefore the moral issues involved are classic relativism. Why are gay-issues so much less of a problem in other cultures than they are in the US or many islamic nations/cultures?

I’m going to try to find research on genetic conditioning influencing behaviour. There’s not a lot to do during my weekend shifts anyway, so why not make the best of it, eh?

You argue that it may be the least bad of bad options really.

I can only speak for myself ofcourse, but there are parallels with suicide and euthanasia. As sad and regretable as they may be, these decisions should be yours to make.

I think the suffering of others is really the best adjustment to a moral compass. That’s still a subjective measure in many ways and there is a lot of grey area, but overall you can get a pretty good idea based on that.

I think you’re right that we’re on the same page for the most of the time and I don’t want to keep beating a dead horse, but to me this is still dealing with relative morality.

There is some common ground, I guess. A baseline of behaviour that seems to be fixed in genetic conditioning that probably evolved over time to ensure survival, but much of the moral guidelines that are built upon that baseline are culturally influenced and subject to the mores of the time.

Our moral framework can perhaps best be seen as an inverted pyramid with the bottom tip as ‘absolute’ and all that flows from that as ‘relative’.

(…) but rarely, moral killing takes place.

This is odd. If human life is sacred and killing human life is always wrong, exceptions to that rule make the rule relative. So what is a moral killing?

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote] is “you shall kill” compatible with other rules (any rules, even chessgame rules), yes or no ?
if “no” is the answer, then we KNOW that killing is immoral. [/quote]

By that definition war is always immoral.

Correct?

Even is war is inevetable and necessary to protect your country, the act of war in itself is immoral.

[/quote]

War itself is not an act. It’s a time.
During this time, we do many things. some are moral. some are amoral and a lot of them are immoral.

but strictly speaking, inevitable things are not immoral. They are amoral by definition.
[/quote]

Redefining the meaning of words and acts like this kamui, so it fits your worldview, is your own peculiar brand of relativism.

[Sloth]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

If a women chooses to abort a pregnancy the abortion has an emotional impact, that’s undeniable. But it’s her own decision and she has to live with that choice.

By taking away that choice you make her the victim of your opinion in favor of saving a fetus. Basically our position is the same just on opposite sides of the issue.[/quote]

Not even close to the same. You, protected by the law, support the deliberate taking of innocent human lives. To try and compare 9 months–almost always resulting from the natural and consensual reproductive act–to the killing of a innocent human life…Give me a break.

[kamui]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote] is “you shall kill” compatible with other rules (any rules, even chessgame rules), yes or no ?
if “no” is the answer, then we KNOW that killing is immoral. [/quote]

By that definition war is always immoral.

Correct?

Even is war is inevetable and necessary to protect your country, the act of war in itself is immoral.

[/quote]

War itself is not an act. It’s a time.
During this time, we do many things. some are moral. some are amoral and a lot of them are immoral.

but strictly speaking, inevitable things are not immoral. They are amoral by definition.
[/quote]

Redefining the meaning of words and acts like this kamui, so it fits your worldview, is your own peculiar brand of relativism.
[/quote]

relativism is an attempt to solve the problem of evil by denying its existence.
I’m probably as biased as everyone else, and i’m probably guilty of many intellectual errors, but i’m definitely not a relativist.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Redefining the meaning of words and acts like this kamui, so it fits your worldview, is your own peculiar brand of relativism.
[/quote]

relativism is an attempt to solve the problem of evil by denying its existence.
I’m probably as biased as everyone else, and i’m probably guilty of many intellectual errors, but i’m definitely not a relativist. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s true. Moral relativism tries to explain evil, not solve it.

For a long time people believed evil was the doing of the devil, and evil people were possessed by demons or led astray by them.

Nowadays we aren’t much closer to an answer but research shows that psycho- and sociopaths simply lack empathy. The areas of the brain that normally give rise to empathy are not- or underdeveloped.

We know that brainwashing can result in evil acts, and even the simple fact of being ordered to do something by an authority figure can result in abhorrent behaviour [Milgram].

We can be overcome by emotion [crime passionel] and do something we’d normally wouldn’t even consider doing. Someone like Anders Breivik is not an evil person in the classic sense, altough his acts certainly were.

If you want to understand why people behave they way they do you can’t dismiss behaviour by just saying it’s either black or white. It’s rarely ever either black or white.

[kamui]

Nowadays we aren’t much closer to an answer but research shows that psycho- and sociopaths simply lack empathy. The areas of the brain that normally give rise to empathy are not- or underdeveloped.

Then, they got no choice. They are (naturally) bad, but not evil.

[quote]
We know that brainwashing can result in evil acts, and even the simple fact of being ordered to do something by an authority figure can result in abhorrent behaviour [Milgram].[/quote]

then, they got no real choice. The authority figure may be evil, but brainwashed people are not.

[quote]
We can be overcome by emotion [crime passionel] and do something we’d normally wouldn’t even consider doing. Someone like Anders Breivik is not an evil person in the classic sense, altough his acts certainly were.[/quote]

again “not an evil person”.

That’s what i was speaking about : systematic denial of evil.

Naturalistic explanations of evil are in no way better than supernatural explanations (the “devil”). Both try to attribute evil to external, outside causes, while evil can only be understood from within.

[ephrem]

Naturalistic explanations of evil are in no way better than supernatural explanations (the “devil”). Both try to attribute evil to external, outside causes, while evil can only be understood from within.

That’s not what I’m getting at, at all. In fact, all I’m trying to get through to you is that to understand evil you can’t just say, “oh, evil is evil because its evil”, you need to understand it from within.

And in my opinion, once you look within for the causes of evil behaviour you’ll conclude that there’s a natural cause.

Otherwise kamui, if there aren’t natural causes for evil behaviour how else are you going to understand it from within?

[kamui]

Natural causes explains natural events.
Events. Not acts.

The cause of a voluntary act is not “nature”, it’s you.

You may think than “voluntary acts” doesn’t exist, and that they are nothing more than not-yet-explained events.

If it’s true, then “you” is nothing more than a fiction or an illusion.

Maybe.

But you can’t escape from this illusion, and you have to keep the fiction alive.

Otherwise kamui, if there aren’t natural causes for evil behaviour how else are you going to understand it from within?

Gnôthi seauton. Know thyself.

[ephrem]

What is “you” but a natural event, kamui?

My body and mind are one. There is no other than this existence of being.

Body dies = I die.

So what do you know when you look within for the answer to evil?

[kamui]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What is “you” but a natural event, kamui?
[/quote]

Knowing that a book is made of natural paper will not give us its meaning. You have to read it.

[ephrem]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What is “you” but a natural event, kamui?
[/quote]

Knowing that a book is made of natural paper will not give us its meaning. You have to read it.

[/quote]

You don’t know, do you?

[kamui]

Know what ?

'You" is a naturel event. yes.
You can study it scientifically. yes.
You can explain it by natural causes and factors. yes.

but no amount of material/efficient causes will ever explain a moral or immoral act.
morality belong to the realm of final causes.

[ephrem]

You’re going to have to explain that better, kamui.

If you commit evil and you are a natural event, then evil is a natural event.

It’s that simple.

But if you say it isn’t that simple explain it to me like I’m one of your students.

Pretty please with sugar on top?

[kamui]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
You’re going to have to explain that better, kamui.

If you commit evil and you are a natural event, then evil is a natural event.

It’s that simple.

But if you say it isn’t that simple explain it to me like I’m one of your students.

Pretty please with sugar on top?[/quote]

Music is made of sonic vibrations. But sonic vibrations are not music.
studying the physics of a tune will neither reveal nor dilute its beauty.
You need to use your aesthetical sense.

studying the physics or the sociology of the killing of a child with down syndrome with neither reveal nor dilute the immorality of the act.
You need to use your ethical sense.

Ethic (like Aesthetic) is metaphysical.

[ephrem]

The enjoyment of anything is highly subjective.

You still fail to explain how your sense of moral aesthetics is absolute instead of relative to your sensitivities.

Is that even possible without resorting to untangible concepts?

[kamui]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
The enjoyment of anything is highly subjective.

You still fail to explain how your sense of moral aesthetics is absolute instead of relative to your sensitivities.
[/quote]

Aesthetic is a matter of subjectivity and sensitivity.
But ethics is NOT a matter of subjectivity and sensitivity.

it’s a matter of … morality.
I’m sorry but it exists on its own.

A rule is a rule or is not. This is not “relative”.
You follow a rule or you do not. This is not “relative”.

[quote]
Is that even possible without resorting to untangible concepts?[/quote]

Without resorting to untangible concepts, we can not discuss. At all.

[ephrem]

You follow a rule or you do not.

I can follow a rule one day and not follow that rule the next if the situation asks for a different respons.

In the end, whether you and the others in this thread want to admit it or not, we all choose an outcome that’s beneficial to us. What decides you follow the moral high road is the ease of use and the possible ramifications of following or not-following your rule.

Abortion is an easy position to take. As a male you’ll never have to make that decision, and in previous discussions on abortion it has been males who spoke out in favour of outlawing abortion, not women.

Without resorting to untangible concepts, we can not discuss. At all.

Okay, but since when are untangible concepts absolute? You can wish them to be, or believe them to be absolute but seeing as you struggle to explain yourself in a meaningful way on this subject, they’re actually something else.

[Tiribulus]

If there is no court with universally unassailable jurisdiction beyond which there is no appeal then absolutely everything is meaningless. Ephrem is meaningless, Kamui is meaningless, I’m meaningless, whether we kill downs syndrome babies (or anybody else) is meaningless, all the pornographic moral degeneration on this website illustrating the death of our families is meaningless, this discussion is meaningless and who the next one hundred presidents are is meaningless.

As long as self obsessed human beings with different favorite colors are allowed to determine right and wrong this world will languish in it’s own corruption.

Kamui you’re a sharp guy, but your explanation simply pushes Ephrem’s up one level with no more objective justification than his. He says "there are no absolutes and there is no metaphysical reality so there, (sticks out tongue). You say: Yes there are yes and yes there is so there (with a protruding tongue of your own).

Neither of you has any reason to believe or disbelieve each other or yourselves for that matter.

Here’s the part where somebody chimes in with “ok, but neither do you”.

[ephrem]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If there is no court with universally unassailable jurisdiction beyond which there is no appeal then absolutely everything is meaningless. Ephrem is meaningless, Kamui is meaningless, I’m meaningless, whether we kill downs syndrome babies (or anybody else) is meaningless, all the pornographic moral degeneration on this website illustrating the death of our families is meaningless, this discussion is meaningless and who the next one hundred presidents are is meaningless.

As long as self obsessed human beings with different favorite colors are allowed to determine right and wrong this world will languish in it’s own corruption.

Kamui you’re a sharp guy, but your explanation simply pushes Ephrem’s up one level with no more objective justification than his. He says "there are no absolutes and there is no metaphysical reality so there, (sticks out tongue). You say: Yes there are yes and yes there is so there (with a protruding tongue of your own).

Neither of you has any reason to believe or disbelieve each other or yourselves for that matter.

Here’s the part where somebody chimes in with “ok, but neither do you”.[/quote]

Yes T, that’s correct: life has no inherent meaning except for the meaning you give it yourself.

It means you value life based on the things that are important to you, and inspite of what you might think, there are still things that are important to me. The simple fact that there are things that are important to me is enough in itself to be valuable or meaningful.

I’m not denying you your experience but here you are, seemingly saddened by my way of life, whishing I’d come to your flock as if your set of values and beliefs are better and of higher standing.

And I don’t believe you’re meaningless, nor do I believe kamui or pat are meaningless. I value you based on the feedback I get from you and how that allows me to further my explorations of what it means to be human.

How can that ever be a bad thing?