Jump to content

» «


3 replies to this topic
Super Sayan Nappa
  • Super Sayan Nappa

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2015
  • None


Posted 05 October 2016 - 08:36 AM Edited by Super Sayan Nappa, 05 October 2016 - 08:47 AM.

Morals today. And individualism today.


Yes, morals and individualism can rarely get in same sentence without pulling the trigger on the other one. How much assumed values, or better to say inherited ones, are shaping our self being today? Even though such question set would be no less valid if asked 100 years ago, nowadays the gaps are very transparent, in both society and cultural context. And immoral behavior is this infamous deviance. And again I ask, how determining is moral pack of values to our lives? And how is it justified to be put above the individualism? By the way, what moral cares about individualism?

Note: Laws are one, morals are not. Confusing them is a fault.


My opinion, even though I believe my presentation was enough suggestive for reader to figure it, is that moral is a type of shiny, gold on surface shackles that in allegorical sense gives us an imperative to wear them. And many people will happily wear these shiny bracelets.

  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union


Posted 15 October 2017 - 04:20 PM

I think I remember a debate on this topic about a year or two ago. I guess no one is interested in this subject anymore.

I am a utilitarianist\consequentialist but I am aware of its flaws in practice. There is one retort that I got from someone when I was advocating for consequentialist principles that gave me pause. It was on the topic of abortion. I was making the case that if we killed everyone in their sleep painlessly there would still be something to lose: the potential for future positive experiences. Why is it that a consequentialist shouldn't apply the same logic to a fetus? Is the woman's discomfort really more important than the future potential of the fetus?

I would still side with the woman, but not necessarily for rational reasons, even if it turns out to be that by consequentialist principles, the fetus is more important. I experience more empathy towards women facing that choice than for an unborn child. I guess I don't have strong feelings towards children, potential or otherwise, but thinking about this from a personal perspective, I would put my girlfriend\wife's freedom above everyone else's, so to be consistent, I would have to want the same thing for all women.

It seems to me that the consequentialist argument in regards to abortion could go either way.

  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam


Posted 15 October 2017 - 11:13 PM

If it could be determined that a fetus was going to grow up to have an incredible impact on the world, then you could make a consequentialist argument that that individual woman should be prevented from having an abortion. There is no consequentialist argument to be made for banning abortion generally though because the kid might grow up to do great things. By that logic simply using contraception or choosing not to have kids is immoral. Consequentialism generally doesn't mean you can engage in any brutality as long as its connected to some general societal good. That's a slippery slope. 

  • Tchuck and Dealux like this

  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union


Posted 16 October 2017 - 09:01 AM

But even then it seems kinda wrong to me even if I am a consequentialist. Let's say that woman was my girlfriend and I desperately tried to convince her to keep it. I wouldn't feel comfortable at all doing that even if I knew that the child was most likely going to be healthy and have a good life. But a lot of guys here (where I live) would think that abortion would be wrong for them for pretty much those reasons. That the fetus has so much potential and I can't really argue that they are wrong in any given case.

If that's a bias for them I think I have the opposite bias. I would have more empathy for the woman facing that choice precisely because I couldn't deny a girlfriend or wife the right to decide.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users