Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Morals

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

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2015
  • None

#1

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
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

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

#2

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
  • Melchior

    you never had the makings of a varsity athlete

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#3

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
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

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

#4

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.

ArmyRaidFail404
  • ArmyRaidFail404

    Banana Republic without the Bananas

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2013
  • Australia

#5

Posted 4 days ago

I could. I mean, right now I couldn't as the decision to abort generally is dependent on the woman's ability to cater for the child - for lack of a better phrase. In a perfect society (which in a philosophical sense should always be considered) there should absolutely be no reason to perform an abortion. Not because of morals but because there is no gain in it. The decision SHOULD be made before the act of child-birthing is even conceived of, but sadly that is not the society which we currently live in.

Either way on the topic of morals I would bring up Egoism (namely my own esoteric form of egoism). In this scenario you should treat the foetus and the woman as completely seperate egos. The fetus is not a part of the woman's body no matter how much you claim it is. Just as much as the food in my stomach is fundamentally foreign to me, so too should an entirely different life form that you play host to be to you. As such it is murder - intentional murder. You get nothing out of it apart from not having to go through the pain of child-birthing. Meanwhile you just killed your kid. Even under the most basic form of understanding you can't escape that fact, if even if you claim it's not fully grown yet.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Nškyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#6

Posted 4 days ago

That presupposes that the ego of a child exists when it is in utero. This is not self evident and is clearly open to critique. One could equally argue that the ego does not exist until birth, or until a child is feasible (as at that point is ceases to be a surrogate being). Or even at the mirror stage of infancy, as the concept of ego is do closely intertwined with self awareness. Or not at all, because it's a psychoanalytical concept with no bearing on empirical fact.

Switch
  • Switch

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Iraq

#7

Posted A day ago Edited by Switch, A day ago.

I'm just finishing my first semester in philosophy, and to be honest the most interesting of all the ethics we had was virtue ethics. Virtue ethics gets criticized constantly, but recently since the 90s (yes that is recent lol) it has sort of made a comeback. It's still not as big as the others, but i just found it much more refreshing since we all know about utilitarianism and deontology. The virtue of moral importance is a learned trait (from childhood) or so-called internalized action pattern. In Aristotle's doctrine of virtue ethics, virtue is what a human must achieve for a good life, and virtue consists of different qualities that must be adapted to society. Examples of these attributes are: courage, wisdom, honesty, justice, goodness. The usual critique is that virtue ethics can't guide you for what you should do in specific or certain situations. 

 

Rosalind Hursthouse is one of the newer virtue ethicists and she gave her take on the whole abortion discussion from a virtue ethics pov.

 

Basically, she says that there are some non-factors in this whole debate such as: Not the status of the fetus, Not women's right to self-determination. (These factors are not relegated to Hursthouse's problem.)

 

Factors: Correct Basis / Intent, Consequences for the Child (Life worth living?) / Mother. What conditions for pregnancy (eg rape.). Parent-child relationship. Emotional response.

 

This is very shortened and basic version of her argument, i recommend reading it https://eclass.uoa.g...nd abortion.pdf

She also responds to the critique from relativists.

  • Eutyphro likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users