Pro-life Or Pro-choice?

[Xanadu4ever]

"Subjective" means that it depends on the observer, not that the observer decides it. Suppose you like chocolate ice cream and I hate it. The tastiness of chocolate ice cream would be subjective. Does that mean that either of us ever decided that we like it or hate it?

I think you are conflating a "preference" with Subjective decisions. true you may have a predilection for vanilla or whatever and I for chocolate...… my point is that a preference is not a moral choice it is a preference so it is morally neutral. The two are not to be confused. Unless you ae saying that every decision is now a moral decision?

What do you think it means for morality to be objective? Something is objectively true if it's truth value is independent of the observer. For example, the speed of light has an objective value. It would have that value even if there were no humans to observe it. Is objective morality like that, too? Does it come from physical properties of the universe? From somewhere else?

Now you're asking the right questions in my opinion. So yes, objective truth is independent of all people. It would come from a supreme law giver who defined truth. If this is a fairy tale (like Nietzsche was arguing) then people would be forced to define their own moral truth and incidentally reality and I posit this will degrade to subjective truth. Subjective truth = truth that is dependent upon the observer and not independent of the observer.

But let's suppose for a moment that the legislative system in my country was exactly me. I get to write or remove laws as I please. Does that mean that those laws are subjective? No. A law either exists or it doesn't exist. Now, a law might be poorly written so that its scope is vaguely defined, but the existence of a law is not subjective.

YES! The law's existence say nothing of HOW you arrived at the conclusions you did. The mechanisms for which you developed those laws are the subjective part - not their existence. We are talking the HOW here and not the existence of the what. If you came to their conclusions and basis based on you and you alone (hence the definition - they are dependent on YOU) then they are subjective laws based solely on what you think they out to be.

Since morality is unnecessary to distinguish good things that happen to me from bad things that happen to me, I can distinguish those things regardless of whether I have a moral code.

HOW can you distinguish? you keep telling me you can - I hear that as magic! Plus you don't need morality so why are we having a debate about morality and it's effects on actions such as abortion? That is just useless. After all you, don't need it to decide so you have another mechanism for deciding - pain and pleasure I assume or magic? Notice that YOUR pain and YOUR pleasure are based on YOUR perceptions because they are your senses. This involves your perceptions so it is based on YOUR subjective truth because it is what YOU feel. I have no idea what you feel so I had no input.

I think we got fairly off-track.
What you originally said was "there is no reason to lament any 'bad' outcomes because this is merely a subjective perception to being on the wrong side of someone else's decision."
So, I ask again, are you able to distinguish pleasure from pain? If you're able to distinguish pleasure from pain then you will likely at least attempt to defend yourself if someone tries to hurt you. This has nothing to do with morality. It's a basic instinct of all animals to move away from harmful stimuli and towards pleasurable stimuli.

So stimuli (senses - sensory) is the basis of your moral decision mechanisms? What if your senses are flawed? What if I need to cause you pain to actually help you - such as a tooth extraction so you don't die of an infection? By your definition ay operation or inoculation against disease is evil. WHY? Because it caused YOU pain. If it feels good it must be good.

We did not get off track. I said that IF ad ONLY if we are in a subjective society that the definition of "bad" outcomes has no definition. You just proved it. Your senses told you it was bad for YOU - your senses don't bother me so I could care less of what conclusion you came to. And since your sense only inform YOU they are by definition subjective - you ae the only observer that can receive that info.

This is a shabby basis for a morality code. We are right on track. Your decisions are going to decide our laws and I have to deal with it. Don't think I like that outcome much. A you would not like it if I did the same to you.

Xanadu

[zapshe]

I think you are conflating a "preference" with Subjective decisions.

Two ways of saying the same thing. Morality is based on preference. You prefer to stand up for emotional views, I prefer to use logic to dictate it.


Overall, you've still hopscotched over the major points and now your argument is pretty baseless. You've delved into the realm of "subjective", which means you practically gave up on there being any real basis to your ideas and you're saying your idea is as good as ours.

[Xanadu4ever]

Zapshe,

All your arguing now is that we are both on baseless arguments? Not that I agree, but that would mean the logical option is to keep it legal (since making it illegal would be done so on baseless grounds) and anyone who thinks it's not moral can simply refrain from it themselves.

Nope, I'm arguing that if morality is subjective then we'll all come to separate independent conclusions based on ourselves alone. And every person will do what is good in their own eyes. And that this subjective outcome has its own special perils that society would have to deal with and just won't go away just because it is inconvenient...…… for the 4 millionth time.

Your personal observations don't amount to fact.

I think someone was just arguing that earlier - oh that was me. Remember, I said that our own perceptions and senses aren't a basis for us to develop a moral construct - is information that only the observer can evaluate right? And you are also right - senses don't make fact - they're just electrical impulses in your head conveying information that only YOU can perceive. So why wouldn't I base reality on that? Maybe because that would be too SUBJECTIVE of me??

Uh... NO? What chips are going to fall? It's already legal where I am and lots of other palaces. You talk like there's going to be hell in the streets or some civil war.

Wow, not sure where you got any of your apocalyptic fever dreams from but I guess it makes sense ==> There are only 2 known ways to convince anyone of anything 1.) Reason and 2.) force. And remember, the guy with the machine gun (in a subjective construct) makes the rules. So yeah, I guess it might get to the streets.

But hey, ...… you'll deal with it when it comes I suppose. Just consequences..... no biggie. (Try not to get killed BTW!)

Xanadu

[Xanadu4ever]

Two ways of saying the same thing. Morality is based on preference. You prefer to stand up for emotional views, I prefer to use logic to dictate it.

You got the dictate part right at least..... not sure about the logic though. The jury is still out on that one.

And if someone has a preference that you should cease to exist... then that is morally ok according from what you are saying? It's just a preference after all! Just like sugar cone or waffle cone! You got me!

I can't argue with that logic in the least. You are on top of your game!

Overall, you've still hopscotched over the major points and now your argument is pretty baseless. You've delved into the realm of "subjective", which means you practically gave up on there being any real basis to your ideas and you're saying your idea is as good as ours.

Well, if you say so, then who am I to argue against such insight? I will hand you your pyrrhic victory and you can go have a beer at the local tavern in celebration!

Take care and it has been a pleasure mentally sparing with both of you. Thank you for the discussion and debate. It was great on multiple levels.

however, I now have to get back to some work unfortunately.....

Xanadu

[zapshe]

And that this subjective outcome has its own special perils that society would have to deal with and just won't go away just because it is inconvenient...…… for the 4 millionth time.

You're shooting yourself in the foot. You're saying we all come to different conclusions but also that everyone else's conclusion (that isn't yours) is wrong and will cause "special perils"?

I'm glad you're arrogance has exceeded my own. Well done. The difference between you and I is that my arrogance isn't built upon stupidity.

I think someone was just arguing that earlier - oh that was me. Remember, I said that our own perceptions and senses aren't a basis for us to develop a moral construct - is information that only the observer can evaluate right?

What are you saying? My whole argument was built around facts. We call it a fetus at conception because it lacks the qualities to be biologically human, it's the size of a tip of a pin - a bundle of cells. Calling it human is philosophical and YOU wanted to go down the path of "subjective".

senses don't make fact - they're just electrical impulses in your head conveying information that only YOU can perceive. So why wouldn't I base reality on that? Maybe because that would be too SUBJECTIVE of me??

You don't have a choice but to build your reality on that. It's the only information you're given. I don't know what your point is.

There are only 2 known ways to convince anyone of anything 1.) Reason and 2.) force.

How does force convince anyone of anything? That's FORCING someone to admit to something, not convince them. You convince people through 1.) Reason 2.) Emotion - and there are many other variables that tie into them.

And remember, the guy with the machine gun (in a subjective construct) makes the rules. So yeah, I guess it might get to the streets.

Batman makes the rules.

But hey, ...… you'll deal with it when it comes I suppose. Just consequences..... no biggie. (Try not to get killed BTW!)

Are you threatening to do a terrorist attack?

[helios]

It would come from a supreme law giver who defined truth.

Which is...?

The law's existence say nothing of HOW you arrived at the conclusions you did.

The fact that laws as a whole exist implies that morality is not absolute. If it was, there would be no need for laws. Everyone would just agree on the correct course of action in any given situation.
Since we can't always agree (e.g. you think abortion immoral and I disagree), we have laws, which dictate which behaviors are not permissible and suitable deterrents against engaging in them. Regardless of our opinion on abortion, in any given jurisdiction it's either legal or illegal.

HOW can you distinguish? you keep telling me you can - I hear that as magic! Plus you don't need morality so why are we having a debate about morality and it's effects on actions such as abortion? That is just useless. After all you, don't need it to decide so you have another mechanism for deciding - pain and pleasure I assume or magic? Notice that YOUR pain and YOUR pleasure are based on YOUR perceptions because they are your senses. This involves your perceptions so it is based on YOUR subjective truth because it is what YOU feel. I have no idea what you feel so I had no input.

That's fine. I honestly do not care in the least to convince you of my internal mental states. I'm telling you I can; you can take it leave it.

So stimuli (senses - sensory) is the basis of your moral decision mechanisms?

Defending yourself from harm has nothing, nothing, to do with morality. Do you know what the withdrawal reflex is? It's an automatic response in the human (and other) nervous system that's triggered when a nociceptor detects a painful stimulus, such as a burn or a cut. It's mediated by the spinal cord before the brain even receives the pain signal. Are you going to argue that the spinal cord has a moral code?

By your definition ay operation or inoculation against disease is evil.

By my definition of what, exactly? I never defined anything. All I said is that an animal doesn't need a moral code to distinguish pleasure from pain and to defend itself. What am I defining when I say that?

We did not get off track. I said that IF ad ONLY if we are in a subjective society that the definition of "bad" outcomes has no definition.

Yes. That's exactly what we observe in everyday reality. Most people think murder is wrong, a few don't. Some people think stealing is wrong, some don't. Some people think taking drugs is wrong, some don't. Some people think speeding is wrong, some don't. Some people think abortion is wrong, some don't.

Your senses told you it was bad for YOU - your senses don't bother me so I could care less of what conclusion you came to. And since your sense only inform YOU they are by definition subjective - you ae the only observer that can receive that info.

If you try to harm me I'm going to try to stop you or to run away from you. There's no moral code telling me that, it's just that I don't want to be harmed. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Your decisions are going to decide our laws and I have to deal with it. Don't think I like that outcome much.

If you don't like a country's laws you are free to choose to live in a different country, after doing the appropriate paperwork. If you don't like the laws of any country then you're free to go live in the wilderness by yourself. As long as you live in a society you will need to follow some rules.

[Xanadu4ever]

LOL!

No terrorist attacks from this user...…. but perhaps others out there in subjective land?

Who knows. Can't be held responsible for what they do. Only me.

Xanadu

[zapshe]

I've been arguing with a lot of idiots lately. At the moment, some 13 year old is trying to tell me creationism is real and that dinosaurs were on the Ark. In most arguments I've had, the other person and I could walk away with our minds unchanged but with an understanding of why the other thinks what they do at least. Now, whether because of the people or topic itself, it's like I throw logic at them and they toss back meaningless garbage.

[Xanadu4ever]

Well,

When you are the source of all objective truth I guess everyone is naturally going to be an idiot and just have meaningless garbage. What's a person to do?

Anyway, it has been great discussing this issue with you both. It has been enlightening and intriguing at the very least.

I'll wonder off to my work again and terminal ignorance and I'll leave the debating to you paragons of mental fortitude.

Thanks again people.

Xanadu

[helios]

When you are the source of all objective truth

Yes, that's exactly what we've been saying.