Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Instructor
#101 Old 6th May 2010 at 5:03 AM
Basically, it is the fact that abortion kills a living being. A potential human, I would say, should be allowed to live as long as it doesn't harm its mother (the host someone would say). Is it not a crime for a woman to give birth to the rapist's child if she is forced to?

China would basically force women to abort as well although it's for their own good that they shouldn't have more than a couple of children max. Read the One child policy and you will see once you have a second child, you're fixed as a woman.

I agree population control is all we need to cut down on 7 billion people. But what about incentives to have less children as well as child limits based on income? What about people being allowed to adopt more and have less babies?

We need ways to cut down on abortions as well but not by banning it.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Advertisement
Scholar
#102 Old 6th May 2010 at 7:52 AM
Quote: Originally posted by kattenijin
You need to have a part about maximising your pleasure/happiness not being at the expense of other's happiness and pleasure.

Well, that's a bit of a contentious issue within utilitarianism. Do we act in a way that maximises the average happiness of everyone (average utilitarianism)? Or ensures society as a whole has the highest maximum happiness (total utilitarianism)? Or do we minimise suffering instead of maximising happiness (abolitionism)? Or do we do things that, if everyone did them, would maximise happiness (act/ utilitarianism)?

I guess I'm actually closer to an act utilitarian, in that respect. And I'm a preference utilitarian, in that while I think happiness is the end goal, maximising the satisfaction of preferences is, I think, the best way to attain that.
Lab Assistant
#103 Old 6th May 2010 at 9:43 AM
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
ivan17, why are you hitting women in the face and holding them captive? Because they don't agree with you?

You scare me, you know that?


Maybe she was a pregnant lesbian!

No. I am cavalier. This was just example, I would never do such thing.

Quote: Originally posted by Purity4
I just assumed ivan was a troll who uses lots of and and when I see 'ivan' pop up on the screen, I see troll and don't take anything they type seriously.



Abandoned account...
Scholar
#104 Old 6th May 2010 at 9:50 AM
ALRIGHT! Stop with the freaking smilies or I swear I will start cracking heads open like Thor on a giant's skull!

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Instructor
#105 Old 6th May 2010 at 9:52 AM
Cut it out already.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#106 Old 6th May 2010 at 9:59 AM
ivan17 - Your behavior is starting to be really disruptive in these debates. You can make your point but please be nice about it - the snark and the sarcastic smiley abuse needs to stop. You are hereby allowed one emoticon/smiley per post - including those in quotes.
I aim to misbehave
retired moderator
#107 Old 6th May 2010 at 3:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!


Ermmm... when I read that I was like.. no way! I have to have read that wrong.. but no, I didn't. I'm starting to think that that's not just an example due to everything you say in every single post you have.

Are you really comparing the fact of being gay with killing someone?? Killing someone with your hands is not natural, as you are changing the course of nature and life. Being gay is as natural as being straight. You're too extremist with your ideas and you're starting to look like Hitler to me...

Whatever, a girl has her rights of deciding to abort if she wants. If she risks of dying for having the baby, would you make her have him/her anyway??

Check out my tutorials: For TS4: Eyelashes and for TS2: Eyes and Eyes 2
-My Insta-

Please, call me Nina (:
Lab Assistant
#108 Old 6th May 2010 at 3:54 PM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.
Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.
Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.
When cat kill mouse, it's legal!





Oh no ... I can't believe that there were people in the world who say that after nazis!!!How you can compare killing somebody with being gay!!??

Gays don't hurt anybody only because being gay, but if you kill somebody you are hurting!!Anybody CAN'T tell you who you can kiss or love. Gays don't take out freedom of anybody, but if you kill somebody, you are taking out the freedom of the person you kill ...

Saying that animals are like humans and using it to say what is natural and what is not natural, you are "agreeing" with natural selection ... and if you are agree with this I can give you an advice: look for shaved people with adjusted trousers, military boots and swastikas and they will understand your ideas ... they could be your best friends ...

And please, stop writing this:

**If I sit the same way as other people my reasoning ability is decreased by forty percent**
Test Subject
#109 Old 6th May 2010 at 4:45 PM
Hello, I am new in this web site, but I have just read this post and I am surprised
I am absolutely infuriated on having read this comparison... The homosexual relations and killing someone. It is possible that I have felt specially angry because I am GAY.
I think that both things are not sufficiently tied in order that they could be compared.
I dont want to discuss, but I would like to know the arguments that Ivan17 contributes to do the comparison.
Lab Assistant
#110 Old 6th May 2010 at 4:49 PM
Quote: Originally posted by mythx1991
Hello, I am new in this web site, but I have just read this post and I am surprised
I am absolutely infuriated on having read this comparison... The homosexual relations and killing someone. It is possible that I have felt specially angry because I am GAY.
I think that both things are not sufficiently tied in order that they could be compared.
I dont want to discuss, but I would like to know the arguments that Ivan17 contributes to do the comparison.


Yeahh!!!!!I wolud like to know them also!!!

**If I sit the same way as other people my reasoning ability is decreased by forty percent**
Lab Assistant
#111 Old 6th May 2010 at 4:54 PM
*shares to david* I like soooooo much your avi!

**If I sit the same way as other people my reasoning ability is decreased by forty percent**
Scholar
#112 Old 6th May 2010 at 4:57 PM
Okay, okay. Look, if you want, there's some topics about homosexuality somewhere in the debate room; you could look at Ivan's comments there or in the Christianity thread.

Or, at the very least, he can post a response in one of those topics. But, as for this one, let's try to get back on track.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Test Subject
#113 Old 6th May 2010 at 4:59 PM
Sorry!!!
Scholar
#114 Old 6th May 2010 at 5:36 PM
No worries.

So, to get back on topic; Ivan, as stated, your argument is incredibly poor. Look, medical abortions may not be natural, but neither are eyeglasses, pace makers, defibrillators, shunts, etc. And while the act of killing is natural, we, as a species, have evolved intellectually enough to the point to realize the disadvantages of murder within society. This is not a matter of natural v. human; this is a matter of human intellect v. other species. We, as a species, have evolved, psychologically and sociologically, beyond any other animal in the world. We have learned that "natural" does not always mean "beneficial," or rather, beneficial as defined by ourselves as a species, which historically has placed us above everything else. Only recently has this idea started to actually come into question, with new ideas and concepts being birthed, e.g. environmentalism.

That is both why we are often considered as "special," and why you completely screwed up the argument of naturality.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Instructor
#115 Old 6th May 2010 at 6:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by mythx1991
but I would like to know the arguments that Ivan17 contributes to do the comparison.


Ahh! You're asking for another post riddled with rofl smileys and incoherent sentences *facepalm*
Test Subject
#116 Old 6th May 2010 at 6:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by jooxis
Ahh! You're asking for another post riddled with rofl smileys and incoherent sentences *facepalm*

Yes yes, I read it, hehehe
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#117 Old 6th May 2010 at 6:57 PM
Guys, let's stop discussing the other debaters and try to just focus on the debate for now, please. HP has already alerted Ivan17 to the fact that his behavior is unacceptable, and your side commentary is doing nothing to correct the problem.

There's always money in the banana stand.
Scholar
#118 Old 6th May 2010 at 8:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
What is "good" and what is "bad" for life, while in some aspects are objective, are subjective in others; by saying morality is objective, and only objective, you are disregarding the subjective aspects. You are posing a situation in black-and-white, either it is entirely objective or entirely subjective, when you state that morality is permanent, unchanging, objective, and universal. We can say slavery is "bad" because it abuses human life; but on the other hand, slavery could also pose to be beneficial to a society. THAT is subjectivity! We could argue it's wrong, yes, but as soon as you start using "life" as a basis of argument, you are delving into subjectivity. Because "life," in itself, is subjective. Not even the concept that we are "alive" is objective!


I am saying that slavery is bad because it is detrimental to the individual. While it is unlikely to ever be the case, it is possible that there are circumstances under which slavery is the lesser evil, but it still remains morally wrong. I made an argument for this very concept when I was talking about killing in self-defense above. Killing is wrong, but sometimes it is the lesser wrong. I'm not saying that every screw up or no-win situation is deserving of years in prison. I'm saying that these are things that are wrong and should not be performed lightly, but, under thorough consideration, may in some cases be the better option. This is not relativity, but contextuality. Relativity posits that the moral value of something can vary, allowing something to be good in some circumstances and bad in others. Contextuality means that the moral value does not change, but that the options may sometimes make a particular course of action the best course of action, even if it is morally wrong. It is a fine line, but it makes all the difference. Relativity means that you can rightfully feel good about killing someone if there is no better option, contextuality means that you realize the weight of the actions but are left with no better option. It doesn't mean that you have to carry guilt around with you for the action, but it means that you can't just shrug it off without consideration.

Quote:
Right and wrong are subjective in just about every way! When you say, "this action is wrong, regardless, and that is universal," you are not being objective, you are being subjective! Because you are believing that that action is wrong, that is your personal opinion and you are projecting it into a dogmatic status!


Merely stating that I am "being subjective" is not proof that I am being subjective. First off, I cannot be subjective, but my moral views have the potential for it, which is what I assume you meant. My views may be subjective, if by that you mean they may be only my personal views and not actually hold any weight or truth value, but that is only if you can prove that reality is subjective. If reality is subjective then everything is subjective. If reality is objective, some things are objectively right and others are objectively wrong. You are, once again, starting from the premise that reality is subjective.

Quote:
You speak of benefit v. detriment, but and while the actions already performed cannot be changed, the consequences, indeed, can be changed! If someone kills another, the fact the victim is dead may not be changeable, but the consequences can be changed! Just an aspect of the consequences is objective. That he did something the resulted in the death of a person. Everything after that is subjective; his punishment is subjective, his attitude is subjective, how society judges this case is subjective. What if it was in self-defense? Well now some people will argue, no, it was wrong to kill the other person, while yet others will disagree and say, it was justified. This is subjectivity! This is morality!


You misunderstand the meaning of consequences. When I say consequences, I am not speaking of punishment. I am speaking of the direct effects of an action. The effects of an action cannot be changed because they are in the past and the past cannot be changed. If we ever invent time travel, moral arguments may become moot because the consequences can be reversed, but in the mean time, the events of the past are immutable and have a specific impact on the present.

Society's views may vary, but that simply means that some (or possibly all) people are wrong on that issue. That is my assertion and what I have been providing arguments for throughout the thread. Merely stating that it is subjective does not refute my argument.

Quote:
The very fact you think morality is objective is subjective!

Is this "logical" enough for you? Or am I just too absurd for adequate logical argument?...in your opinion.


This is yet another unsupported assertion.

I don't think that you are too absurd to argue logically, as I think that everyone is capable of employing logic, but you are only using logic sporadically, and much of it is flawed. Yes this is my opinion, but I have backed it up with logical argument in my previous posts.

Quote: Originally posted by Doddibot
I disagree. This is the subjectiveness of morality. I'm a utilitarian, I say whatever maximises happiness/pleasure is good, and whatever causes pain or a lack of happiness is bad. Many disagree. There doesn't seem to be any objectiveness here, and if there is, we're bad at working it out.


Happiness is a quality that requires some level of awareness of one's condition, however, which is a quality that is unique to life, as we tend to group anything with any awareness into the category of life. Yes, it is a self-referential definition, but saying that you think whatever increases happiness is good means that you want what increases happiness of living things.

I fully agree that we are bad at working out the objective standard. That's why there are so many different philosophies in existence. You and I can argue back and forth all day and never come to a perfect way of determining who is correct because the nature of human thought is that we base our ideas on certain unprovable assumptions. There are only two base assumptions that I have that I feel confident that I have a proof for: that there is objective reality (though it may not match up to our perceptions of it) simply because there must be some type of existence for our perceptions to have anything to observe; also because the assertion that there is no objective morality, should it be true, is an objective fact, therefore contradicting itself. The other is "I think, therefore, I am". It has a very similar argument to my argument for objective reality, in that there must be something that I am for me to be able to perceive anything. Everything else is built logically on top of those base assumptions or is unsupported assumption.

The fact that we cannot know certain objective facts with certainty does not mean that they aren't true. The argument can go either way, making it a fairly pointless argument if you actually want to make a case for something. It is human nature, though, that, no matter how much we may want to reject all assumptions, we will run on certain assumptions. I think this is for the best because we would be trapped in endless metaphysical crisis if we were to try to cast out all assumptions.

I don't think that all philosophies are equal, however. Some are based on shakier logic than others and some require much stranger base assumptions. I believe that relativity is one of these, so that is why I argue against it.

One final note: You are a rather unusual utilitarian if you really believe in subjective morality while believing that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is good. If you believe that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is good as your own personal philosophy, but that other philosophies are equally valid for other people, then you are actually a relativist. If you believe that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is objectively good, then you are not carrying out your moral stance in a logical fashion if you think that only you are required to follow it, but that others can follow whatever (false) moral ideas they like.
Scholar
#119 Old 6th May 2010 at 9:51 PM Last edited by Nekowolf : 6th May 2010 at 10:05 PM.
1. As I keep saying, I disagree. Context in an action is both objective and subjective. It is not black-and-white. Almost nothing is purely objective, or purely subjective. And I don't think anything is ever, now, forever, and always has been, "morally wrong," because morality is a invention of human intellect, and human knowledge. To say it is eternal is dogmatic. You are sustaining a creation of man, and a set of morals that you personally believe into a position of authority that presides over all. A set of morals you personally believe in as unchanging and has always been and will be. That. is. dogma.

I find it is bereft of context or relativity. Because no matter what happens, the context adopted is either you are right, or you are wrong. You could be "less" wrong, yes, but you are still wrong. That is what is objective in your argument. If you do not follow "our" moral values, my (as in you) moral values, you (as in everyone else) are wrong. You may say it is a lesser evil, but an evil nonetheless. Regardless of the situation, if a deviant conclusion against the precedence of your morality should happen, your morality then no longer objective. If for all of man, a specific action is wrong, then one situation happens, just one, that justifies that action as a right, your entire argument is null, because it no longer has objectivity. Because it has gone against its own precedence.

The context taken by your concept of morality is poor, and deprived of the simple fact that as a species are an emotional species. Your concept turns a blind eye to subjectivity. It is a flawed concept. It is, in my opinion, a concept of egotistical bullshit.

2. Yes you can be subjective! You are human! Humans ARE subjective! It is in our very nature! The only thing objective is that you are human, and that you are here in some context. And reality IS subjective! We can see a death, and we can agree that someone has died. But! We may disagree on the nature of death! We may disagree on what death entails! We may disagree on what is the afterlife! We may disagree that there even is an afterlife! All of this is part of reality. Even the concept of reality is subjective. Yes, shocking, isn't it, that there are arguments over what reality is. Over what life is.

What you have been doing is picking one specific objective element in a situation, and using it, saying "This is objective, this is my proof!" while ignoring everything subjective about that situation. Like murder, you take the act of murder as objective. Yes! The act of murder is objective! But you take it, and say, "it is wrong, this is objective." NO! It is not objective! Because I could argue this specific case was not wrong! That it does have justification, and that some could perceive it as a right, just as much as others could perceive it as a wrong. And THAT is contextualization! You simply stand there, and say "No it is always wrong, and if anyone disagree, they are false, incorrect." That is not context! That is arrogance!

Even the consequences are not absolute, lest you believe in a divine plan. The past is the past, true. The present is the present, also true. But the future is vast with many possibilities. What we do now, in the present, will change the future in one of many possibilities. You are ignoring the future consequences, the future which is dynamic. Your view that encompasses only the past and present is a shallow one.

And once again, I repeat, your concepts are dogmatic. And dangerous. Because throughout the course of history, there are those societies which used such concepts, that all others are wrong, to impose some of the worst, most horrific, events. You may say, in retrospect, they were wrong. But this does not change the fact that they believed they were right! That they believed their morals were to be authoritative of everyone. Just like you are arguing now. That there are morals that all should follow, and those who don't are wrong, those who disagree are false.

3. And lastly...

I have supported myself plenty of times! I am sick of your god damn bullshit! All you have been doing is lording over my opinions, dictating! I am fucking tired of hearing your asinine excuses that "oh, I used logic!" Yeah? Well a lot of fucking people used logic to justify the worst atrocities! And they thought their logic was pretty damn sound, too! Sporadic, my bleeding ass! You either refuse to follow my logic, or you just feel so god damn superior that I could not possibly be accurate! I'll grant the benefit of a doubt and go with the former. You have not backed up your logic with infallible logical arguments because I have torn them down! Your logic is no better than mine, and I am sick of you sitting there and presiding that my logic is flawed, ergo, I am incorrect! Pull your head out of your ass, o' mistress!

I'm done with you! It's obvious you have no interest aside from sitting upon thine throne, judging in fallacy, superior because of your greater logic capabilities devoid of emotion or bias; a goddess among men, human no more. After all, you are "probably right" because, god forbid, I dare be equaled to you in my own logic regarding my opinions, which are obviously much more flawed and simple than your otherworldly knowledge.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Lab Assistant
#120 Old 6th May 2010 at 10:24 PM
Okay, first - my human rights for smilies are damaged, but ok. I have right to put 1 per post.
I can compare gays with killing because both is natural. Someone said that animals are also gays, so I am saying that animals are killing other animals.
But anyway, what are we talking about, when we are all animals?
So abortion is natural, mother is killing future baby.
There is too much people on Earth, so maybe is good to reduce our number, even with abortion.

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#121 Old 6th May 2010 at 10:55 PM
...are you being serious? Sarcastic? Or are you summing up the arguments made? Cause frankly, I'm confused as hell by what you are trying to say.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Instructor
#122 Old 6th May 2010 at 11:56 PM
*Pours sh*t into the washing basin*

Ivan, do you want to wash in that sh*t? It's natural for pigs.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Mad Poster
#123 Old 7th May 2010 at 1:31 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Xunixeon
Ivan, do you want to wash in that sh*t? It's natural for pigs.


Technically, I think they roll in mud. Dogs, on the other hand, will roll in crap (but they also sniff each other's butts).

What was my point again...?
Instructor
#124 Old 7th May 2010 at 3:08 AM
That was a mean joke for him. But if I made this special poo-poo bath, then he is a dog.

God, please protect me from your idiot followers for they have blinded themselves with bleach.

Money doesn't buy you happiness but it buys you beer and coffee.

Life is like Go. Its takes smart and amoral people to make decisions based on their strategies of living.
Instructor
#125 Old 7th May 2010 at 4:46 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
1. As I keep saying, I disagree. Context in an action is both objective and subjective. It is not black-and-white. Almost nothing is purely objective, or purely subjective. And I don't think anything is ever, now, forever, and always has been, "morally wrong," because morality is a invention of human intellect, and human knowledge. To say it is eternal is dogmatic.


Thank you Nekowolf for stating the bolded part, because this puts into words exactly why I believe Oaktree's argument is flawed. Survival instincts guide most of what life does, but that is not morality.
 
Page 5 of 7
Back to top