Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[Silmarien]

Well if we're talking about Italy specifically....

Here's the oath of office...

I swear to be faithful to the Republic, to loyally observe its Constitution and laws, and to exercise my functions in the exclusive interest of the Nation.

Seems rather clear. You can look at the founding documents of basically every modern nation and you'll see reference to what I explained. Though I should point out, there's nothing controversial about anything I said regarding "why nations/states are formed" amongst political or historical scholars.

If you're looking at our nation and why it was formed, look no further than the declaration of independence. It's basically a list of shared colonial values and interests that were either being ignored or trampled by the king.

If you're specifically talking about legal duties that follow because of documents the country has signed, then Italy absolutely has international obligations as well. It has signed a number of international conventions on human rights.

I'm sure some 19th century slaveowners did say that lol.

So am I. That's great company you're in.

Anyway, I am not sure what we are arguing about here. I don't disagree with you that this is a difficult time for humanitarianism--that is why I challenged the secular humanists on whether they can really defend their ideals against a nihilist attack. The nicest thing about the sort of picture you're painting is "barbaric dystopia," but I think it's up to the secularists to try to defend the notion of universal human rights. I shall leave this to Gaara and whoever else wants to jump in.

Let's imagine that we have two men....one is a moral absolutist and the other is a moral relativist. The moral absolutist says that he receives his morality from revelation through the Holy Bible. The relativist says that he approaches each moral choice uniquely, at the moment, based upon various personal and circumstantial criteria.

If you got to watch them go through their respective days...do you think that you'd be able to tell which is which? We all make 100s of little moral choices all the time, all without thinking about it much. Do you think that the absolutist actually references the bible in his head before he cuts someone off in traffic? Probably not. Do you think that he debates what Jesus would do before he gives up his seat on the subway to a pregnant woman? Of course not.

You may like to think that before big decisions he tries to reference his moral foundation....but so what? Someone who is a relativist 95% of the time and an absolutist 5% of the time is a relativist.

You aren't describing someone who is a relativist 95% of the time and an absolutist 5% of the time. You're describing a moral absolutist who makes poor moral decisions 95% of the time--this doesn't actually entail that their beliefs change from one moment to the next.

If the moral absolutist who cuts someone off in traffic does so because they have momentarily decided that such behavior is not immoral, then yes, they are momentarily a moral relativist. If, on the other hand, when asked later, they admit that yes, they acted immorally, then they are still a moral absolutist.

Well there's evidence of the physical world and of some historical facts. What is evidence of a "moral truth"? What would that even look like?

There isn't actually non-circular evidence for either the physical world or historical facts, but that is really besides the point. You made the argument that the subjective nature of human judgment means that moral realism is impossible. That has been shown to be false, given that the same argument could be wielded against any form of realism.

I am not really interested in arguing that moral realism is true, since I don't have the sort of time for that type of discussion. My argument is simply that you haven't shown that it is false, and so far, you haven't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's always interesting to see how quickly and dramatically moral boundaries are crossed when the first two tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs - food, water, safety, etc. - are no longer a given. I don't see this as a sign that a moral framework that emphasizes humanitarianism is wrong -- in fact, just the opposite. Many social ills are directly caused by the fact that there are so many people struggling to maintain access to basic necessities that they're never able to graduate to Maslow's third tier: meaningful human interaction. It benefits all of us to prevent and mitigate the kind of scarcity that drives people to desperate measures. This means entities that are able allocating resources to clean up and rebuild in the Bahamas rather than pointing to them as an example of moral depravity. It means saving people from drowning in distressed vessels at sea, and working to help fix the impossible situations they fled in their home countries. Shutting out the needy won't make them go away, it just makes sure they won't get help, and the more desperate they get for help, the more dangerous they are to you. Humanitarianism is the right answer no matter who you are.

I can see why you'd think that.

 

[Silmarien]

Alright, here we go. I'm just going to jump in at the point where you mentioned me. As an aside, I think I remember you saying that you've gone through phases accepting nearly every theory of morality except deontology. Now you seem to be arguing for deontology. Is this a new phase, or am I misreading something?

Nice catch. Yeah, I've fairly recently developed an appreciation for the Categorical Imperative. It is actually tied to my views on abortion--they're a little paradoxical, and I was playing with Kantian ethics and realized that it perfectly fit the paradox I was seeing: the woman is using the unborn child as a means to an end if she aborts, so that is immoral, but the state is using the woman as a means to an end if it forces her to carry the child to term, which is also immoral. It was an eye-opening way to frame the question.

I wouldn't really consider myself a deontologist, though. I think the Categorical Imperative is true, but I'd probably view it more as an abstraction than as a moral law. Though I have been toying a bit with Trinitarian theology and what it might say about the relational aspect of morality, so that probably draws closer to traditional deontology, but honestly the notion of a moral duty still feels really anthropomorphic to me. I guess I should say that I see deontology as sort of like language--it refers to something real, but it has no reality in and of itself.

Anyway, if you were to tie me down and demand I answer honestly whether I think morality is "real" or "universal" in the sense that it has anything to do with the fundamental structure of the universe, I would have to answer "no." Morality, to me, is a convention meant to make sure we can all sustainably co-exist with a reasonable quality of life. I think there are objectively right and wrong ways to go about attaining this goal, but I don't think there's anything "objective" about the goal itself. I just happen to think secular humanism is the best framework with which to approach that goal. I don't know if that truly qualifies me as a secular humanist, but I will be responding as one in this thread.

I think you're going to need to develop why co-existing with a reasonable quality of life is a worthwhile goal. I'm not sure it makes much sense to say that there's nothing objective about it--even if you just think that it's the most pragmatic option on consequentialist grounds, that's still an objective claim.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So am I. That's great company you're in.

Your company? Because we're both fairly certain about what 19th century slaveowners said?

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying I'm like the 19th century slaveowners? How about this quote?

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

Sound familiar?

Anyway, I am not sure what we are arguing about here. I don't disagree with you that this is a difficult time for humanitarianism--that is why I challenged the secular humanists on whether they can really defend their ideals against a nihilist attack.

I don't see how it makes any difference also...

Secular humanists?

Standoffs at sea highlight the shameful criminalization of rescuing migrants

Take a look at who Matteo Salvini is...he's extremely religious. Obviously we aren't going to be able to know his personal moral philosophy, but it's a safer guess that he's a moral absolutist like you.

The nicest thing about the sort of picture you're painting is "barbaric dystopia," but I think it's up to the secularists to try to defend the notion of universal human rights. I shall leave this to Gaara and whoever else wants to jump in.

Well let's hope he does better than the moral absolutists.

You aren't describing someone who is a relativist 95% of the time and an absolutist 5% of the time. You're describing a moral absolutist who makes poor moral decisions 95% of the time--this doesn't actually entail that their beliefs change from one moment to the next.

I didn't say anything about the quality of their decisions....just the method for making them.

If the moral absolutist who cuts someone off in traffic does so because they have momentarily decided that such behavior is not immoral, then yes, they are momentarily a moral relativist. If, on the other hand, when asked later, they admit that yes, they acted immorally, then they are still a moral absolutist.

That would make their post behavior retrospective analysis more important than the process by which they actually make choices.....and I would disagree strongly with that.

There isn't actually non-circular evidence for either the physical world or historical facts, but that is really besides the point.

Then why bring it up?

You made the argument that the subjective nature of human judgment means that moral realism is impossible.

No...it makes us relativists.

That has been shown to be false, given that the same argument could be wielded against any form of realism.

Not really. Don't make points, claim they are "beside the point" then continue to reference that point.

We can talk about it or not. You pick.

I am not really interested in arguing that moral realism is true, since I don't have the sort of time for that type of discussion. My argument is simply that you haven't shown that it is false, and so far, you haven't.

It's an empty claim...completely devoid of evidence. You're asking me to prove a negative which lacks anything for me to even try to disprove.

We can debate the nature of physical evidence....or debate the nature of historical evidence....and yes, to a degree, all evidence is filtered through our subjective experience. The difference is, there's still evidence to examine and debate.

When it comes to "moral truth" on the other hand....there's nothing. There's no evidence whatsoever...only feelings and values and beliefs. You can't even tell me what evidence for a moral truth might look like, what it might be, because the idea itself is fundamentally absurd.

 

[Silmarien]

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying I'm like the 19th century slaveowners? How about this quote?

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

Sound familiar?

Yes, slavery was practiced in the ancient world. I'm not big on pulling biblical verses out of context and examining them independently of any sort of over-arching theological framework, though.

I don't know if you're like 19th century slaveowners. You seem comfortable with their moral reasoning, though, given that you just pointed out that they would say the same thing you did. I don't think that's the best company to be in, but you might not see much difference between their company and anyone else's.

Take a look at who Matteo Salvini is...he's extremely religious. Obviously we aren't going to be able to know his personal moral philosophy, but it's a safer guess that he's a moral absolutist like you.

Presumably, and hopefully a deeper engagement with Catholic teachings will improve his moral views, because he's more than a little bit out of step there.

Well let's hope he does better than the moral absolutists.

Well, you'd need to answer with more than a "I can see why you'd think that" if you really want to engage.

That would make their post behavior retrospective analysis more important than the process by which they actually make choices.....and I would disagree strongly with that.

I don't know how you could reasonably deny that people do things that they think are wrong. It happens all the time.

No...it makes us relativists.

Maybe it makes you a relativist. I don't know why you think you can speak for anyone else.

Not really. Don't make points, claim they are "beside the point" then continue to reference that point.

We can talk about it or not. You pick.

Okay. I can play the Berkeley card and defend subjective idealism, if you really want to go down that route. Show me evidence that the external world exists. Prove to me that the universe, with all our memories, wasn't created from scratch five minutes ago.

We can debate the nature of physical evidence....or debate the nature of historical evidence....and yes, to a degree, all evidence is filtered through our subjective experience. The difference is, there's still evidence to examine and debate.

Not to the subjective idealist.

When it comes to "moral truth" on the other hand....there's nothing. There's no evidence whatsoever...only feelings and values and beliefs. You can't even tell me what evidence for a moral truth might look like, what it might be, because the idea itself is fundamentally absurd.

Eh, I don't think there would be a 2500 year history of trying to capture precisely what morality is if the idea were "fundamentally absurd." I can understand moral philosophy pretty easily, even theories I disagree with, so it's a little wild to suggest that none of this stuff makes any sense.

 

[zippy2006]

Two quick points, one you might like and one you won't. ...And then a related idea regarding deontology.

It's always interesting to see how quickly and dramatically moral boundaries are crossed when the first two tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs - food, water, safety, etc. - are no longer a given.

According to Aquinas the nature of property leads to the conclusion that it is not unlawful to "Steal through stress of need" (to quote the English).

Shutting out the needy won't make them go away, it just makes sure they won't get help, and the more desperate they get for help, the more dangerous they are to you. Humanitarianism is the right answer no matter who you are.

"For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me." (Matthew 26:11)

Nothing will make the needy go away, primarily because they are not a problem to be solved. Economic realities are neither perfectly top-down nor bottom-up. What is required in a theoretical sense is a morality that spans the spectrum from the individual to the communal level, but the problem with the non-Christian options is that the uniqueness of the individual person, the haecceitas as the Scotists like to call it, is lost.

I wouldn't really consider myself a deontologist, though. I think the Categorical Imperative is true, but I'd probably view it more as an abstraction than as a moral law. Though I have been toying a bit with Trinitarian theology and what it might say about the relational aspect of morality, so that probably draws closer to traditional deontology, but honestly the notion of a moral duty still feels really anthropomorphic to me. I guess I should say that I see deontology as sort of like language--it refers to something real, but it has no reality in and of itself.

At this point in my life it seems to me that the truths of deontology are better expressed in the 'language' of theosis. We see through God's eyes, and God lives in us, and we live in him while remaining ourselves. Deontology is a concern for the infinite 'dignity' of each individual person. Christ died for all. Limited Atonement is not only Christian heresy, it is Kantian heresy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, slavery was practiced in the ancient world. I'm not big on pulling biblical verses out of context and examining them independently of any sort of over-arching theological framework, though.

Feel free to explain how God's position on slavery fits into your, or any, theological framework.

given that you just pointed out that they would say the same thing you did.

That never happened. I think you're confused.

Presumably, and hopefully a deeper engagement with Catholic teachings will improve his moral views, because he's more than a little bit out of step there.

Maybe he's in step.

Well, you'd need to answer with more than a "I can see why you'd think that" if you really want to engage.

I don't recall any real claims apart from what he believed.

I don't know how you could reasonably deny that people do things that they think are wrong. It happens all the time.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying the choices they make give a better understanding of their morality than any hindsight analysis. On some level, I'm sure you know this is true.

Maybe it makes you a relativist. I don't know why you think you can speak for anyone else.

Because by all appearances...everyone makes moral choices the same way.

Okay. I can play the Berkeley card and defend subjective idealism, if you really want to go down that route. Show me evidence that the external world exists.

External to our minds?

Not to the subjective idealist.

Which isn't a very tenable position.

Eh, I don't think there would be a 2500 year history of trying to capture precisely what morality is if the idea were "fundamentally absurd." I can understand moral philosophy pretty easily, even theories I disagree with, so it's a little wild to suggest that none of this stuff makes any sense.

I'm only suggesting the existence of a moral truth doesn't make any sense....and I haven't asked you to prove it (which would be impossible) I've asked only for evidence of it....which you cannot even describe, let alone produce.

I think the philosophical attempts to understand morality are a result of two things....our evolutionary compulsion towards pattern seeking and the desire to value things correctly.

 

[Moral Orel]

Although feelings aren't a reliable guide to truth all by themselves, this isn't to say that they should always and necessarily count for nothing when we make moral evaluations of situations we encounter around us ...

What exactly should they count for and why?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What exactly should they count for and why?

I for one won't venture to guess the "exact" way in which our feelings--i.e. emotions and intuitions--should count in our moral evaluations since that is indeed a community conversation, but I would think that, at the least, they can be said to serve as reminders to each one of us that we while we are often capable of great feats with our rational capacities, this capability by no means somehow takes us outside of our own humanity or removes our human vulnerability and limitations. In other words, there can be "No True Stoics."

It's this last point that the writers of both t.v. shows (Mind Hunters and Criminal Minds) seem to have instilled in the dialogue and thought worlds of their various characters ... It seems I may have sensed something of this theme also in the musical play I saw not too long ago. I think it was called: Hamilton.

It is also this last point on which the likes of Pascal and Kierkegaard had something to say, each in their own way.

I think, too, one might as well ask what the point of laughter is in the overall praxis of comedy, ay?

 

[gaara4158]

Nice catch. Yeah, I've fairly recently developed an appreciation for the Categorical Imperative. It is actually tied to my views on abortion--they're a little paradoxical, and I was playing with Kantian ethics and realized that it perfectly fit the paradox I was seeing: the woman is using the unborn child as a means to an end if she aborts, so that is immoral, but the state is using the woman as a means to an end if it forces her to carry the child to term, which is also immoral. It was an eye-opening way to frame the question.

That's definitely an eye-opening way to frame the question, and it seems to favor the crowd saying that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Is that where you land on the issue now?

I think you're going to need to develop why co-existing with a reasonable quality of life is a worthwhile goal. I'm not sure it makes much sense to say that there's nothing objective about it--even if you just think that it's the most pragmatic option on consequentialist grounds, that's still an objective claim.

It would be a good exercise to develop that, but it would be answering the question "why be moral?" rather than "what is morality?" which was the purpose of my response back there. I'm defining morality as well as I can based on what its purpose seems to be whenever people appeal to it. I know I've criticized Sam Harris for doing this before, but if you're allowed to pivot, so am I

To be honest, I don't think the answer to "why be moral" can be completely divorced from subjective, emotional motivations. We're a naturally interdependent species, so equitable co-existence is at least an intuitively attractive goal, but there's no amount of convincing that would make my idea of morality appeal to someone who is interested in neither self-preservation nor co-existence. I don't know of any idea of morality that would.

According to Aquinas the nature of property leads to the conclusion that it is not unlawful to "Steal through stress of need" (to quote the English).

Yes, I do like that. It occured to me as I was writing my response to Ana The Ist that those under sufficient duress could be said to be carrying out humanitarian efforts for themselves by stealing to survive. Feeding the needy is moral, even when it's the needy feeding themselves.

"For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me." (Matthew 26:11)

Nothing will make the needy go away, primarily because they are not a problem to be solved. Economic realities are neither perfectly top-down nor bottom-up. What is required in a theoretical sense is a morality that spans the spectrum from the individual to the communal level, but the problem with the non-Christian options is that the uniqueness of the individual person, the haecceitas as the Scotists like to call it, is lost.

Hah, indeed, I don't like this as much. Setting aside the optimism of those who foresee a post-scarcity world, let's assume he's right that there will always be poor people. That doesn't mean it's moral to ignore them or worse, deny them access to help or resources. Even if we cannot completely eradicate poverty, efforts to reduce it will at least be partially successful, and this is good for both "this one" who gets helped and everyone who now has fewer desperate people to worry about. I really don't see what prevents non-Christian options from incorporating the idea of valuing individual welfare as much as the collective. Where does secular humanism fall short in this endeavor, in your estimation?

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, I do like that. It occured to me as I was writing my response to Ana The Ist that those under sufficient duress could be said to be carrying out humanitarian efforts for themselves by stealing to survive. Feeding the needy is moral, even when it's the needy feeding themselves.

Yes, I think that's right, so long as you include need along with duress.

Hah, indeed, I don't like this as much. Setting aside the optimism of those who foresee a post-scarcity world, let's assume he's right that there will always be poor people. That doesn't mean it's moral to ignore them or worse, deny them access to help or resources. Even if we cannot completely eradicate poverty, efforts to reduce it will at least be partially successful, and this is good for both "this one" who gets helped and everyone who now has fewer desperate people to worry about.

I suppose Christians do not view poverty in an exclusively materialistic way. You might say that the U.S. has materialistic wealth and spiritual poverty (addiction, depression, anxiety, psychiatric drugs, etc.). I would never presume to interpret Christ's words, but one important point is that the person retains value in spite of their poverty, and therefore the goal of eradicating poverty at any cost is a devaluing of one's own "soul" in favor of another's ...clothing... or food, or mental state, etc. I say this because you already bit off a bit of the idea above. We can do as much as we want for the poor, but if our work prevents us from sleeping at night, loving God, and loving the person we are serving then it is an inappropriate kind of martyrdom.

(That might be too dense for this medium of communication - I'm not sure. )

I really don't see what prevents non-Christian options from incorporating the idea of valuing individual welfare as much as the collective. Where does secular humanism fall short in this endeavor, in your estimation?

How does secular humanism support the idea that a person has infinite and unassailable worth?

It is actually tied to my views on abortion--they're a little paradoxical, and I was playing with Kantian ethics and realized that it perfectly fit the paradox I was seeing: the woman is using the unborn child as a means to an end if she aborts, so that is immoral, but the state is using the woman as a means to an end if it forces her to carry the child to term, which is also immoral. It was an eye-opening way to frame the question.

I don't think the reasoning is valid. The woman/child relationship is not relevantly analogous to the state/citizen relationship. If your reasoning was valid then it would violate Kant's ethics for the state to impose any positive burden on citizens. ...And maybe Good Samaritan laws are not lawful from a natural point of view, but there is a second consideration too. The Pro-Life view is both anti-death and pro-life, but it is "more" anti-death than pro-life, because death is the opposite of life. No one wants a law that forces all pregnant women to carry their children to term. Lots of willing women are unable to do that. All we want is a law preventing forcible killing, and that doesn't even violate Kant's ethics.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, I do like that. It occured to me as I was writing my response to Ana The Ist that those under sufficient duress could be said to be carrying out humanitarian efforts for themselves by stealing to survive. Feeding the needy is moral, even when it's the needy feeding themselves.

What about killing for food? What if it can't be stolen and can only be taken with violence? Still humanitarian?

What about those stolen from? If they are left starving and dying is it still moral?

 

[Silmarien]

That's definitely an eye-opening way to frame the question, and it seems to favor the crowd saying that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Is that where you land on the issue now?

My preference would probably be illegal but decriminalized, actually. I think that might be the best way to strike a compromise between the two positions, where sanctity of life is upheld but pregnant women aren't effectively transformed into state property. I also think decriminalization is enough to solve the privacy issues.

(I probably owe you a longer response later, or at this point several, but it's late and I'm tired, haha.)

I don't think the reasoning is valid. The woman/child relationship is not relevantly analogous to the state/citizen relationship. If your reasoning was valid then it would violate Kant's ethics for the state to impose any positive burden on citizens. ...And maybe Good Samaritan laws are not lawful from a natural point of view, but there is a second consideration too. The Pro-Life view is both anti-death and pro-life, but it is "more" anti-death than pro-life, because death is the opposite of life. No one wants a law that forces all pregnant women to carry their children to term. Lots of willing women are unable to do that. All we want is a law preventing forcible killing, and that doesn't even violate Kant's ethics.

I don't think your reasoning here makes much sense. You want a law preventing forcible killing, but you don't want to force a woman to carry a child to term. I don't know how you're going to do the former in this particular situation without also doing the latter, so it seems to me that you can only say that Kantian ethics aren't violated here by forgetting what we're talking about in the first place. You can say that of the two violations, the one that the child suffers is more serious, but I think it's dehumanizing to claim that there's no violation of the woman whatsoever. This is why I have a problem with both sides: each turns a person into an object.

Note also that legally speaking, Good Samaritan laws generally seek to protect people who try to help those in distress from suffering legal liability afterwards. They don't impose positive burdens on people. That is actually relatively rare outside of specific occupations. A doctor cannot refuse to treat someone, a landlord cannot discriminate based on race, but the state usually does not impose positive burdens of this sort upon people. You do not have to jump into a river and try to save someone, unless you're a lifeguard. Legal burdens are much lower than moral burdens, and when that changes, like in a draft, things get really controversial.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't think your reasoning here makes much sense. You want a law preventing forcible killing, but you don't want to force a woman to carry a child to term.

Some things are intrinsically evil, such as murder (or forcible killing). It's not up to me to determine what someone does with that fact. Maybe it means they have to cut off their hand to stop themselves from sinning. Maybe they have to stop having casual sex. The fact that people like casual sex doesn't mean that the state can't write a law against murder. "Oh, you're forcing me not to murder people! That's using me as a means to your end!" No, not really.

I'm not opposed to compromise positions, but the idea that intrinsically evil acts are impossible is a Kantian error.

...the political philosophical error here is uncovered by people like Alasdair Macintyre and Michael Sandel. The laws of the state are never morality-neutral. That's a modern chimera.

I don't know how you're going to do the former in this particular situation without also doing the latter, so it seems to me that you can only say that Kantian ethics aren't violated here by forgetting what we're talking about in the first place. You can say that of the two violations, the one that the child suffers is more serious, but I think it's dehumanizing to claim that there's no violation of the woman whatsoever. This is why I have a problem with both sides: each turns a person into an object.

Perhaps my criticism does include a criticism of Kant. In any case, objectification is not black and white. The instrumentality of the mother in the case of childbirth is written into nature. If someone thinks a woman is objectified because women bear children, then their beef is with nature, not with positive law (such as categorical imperatives or political arrangements). If a moral system cannot make any sense of nature it should be left behind.

Note also that legally speaking, Good Samaritan laws generally seek to protect people who try to help those in distress from suffering legal liability afterwards. They don't impose positive burdens on people. That is actually relatively rare outside of specific occupations. A doctor cannot refuse to treat someone, a landlord cannot discriminate based on race, but the state usually does not impose positive burdens of this sort upon people. You do not have to jump into a river and try to save someone, unless you're a lifeguard. Legal burdens are much lower than moral burdens, and when that changes, like in a draft, things get really controversial.

I am a lifeguard, and the reason non-lifeguards don't have to jump into a river to save someone is because it is statistically likely that they would both drown.

Anyway, sorry if this post came across as snarky. It's been a long day. I do appreciate your thoughts on the issue, and I should probably find time to read them more carefully. I don't agree with you but I'm not generally opposed to compromises.

 

[Silmarien]

Some things are intrinsically evil, such as murder (or forcible killing). It's not up to me to determine what someone does with that fact. Maybe it means they have to cut off their hand to stop themselves from sinning. Maybe they have to stop having casual sex. The fact that people like casual sex doesn't mean that the state can't write a law against murder. "Oh, you're forcing me not to murder people! That's using me as a means to your end!" No, not really.

I think it's legitimate to say that what is at stake here (i.e., the life of the unborn) is of such value that women should have a legal obligation to carry a child to term. I just don't think it's legitimate to pretend that an unwanted pregnancy doesn't entail genuine issues with personal autonomy.

I get annoyed with the pro-choice movement all the time for oversimplifying the question. I replace "right to abortion" with "right to kill my five year old" in every argument I come across to see if the logic still works, and it usually does. That tends to make the position a disaster, but the question of whether you can force one person to act as an incubator for another remains. You need to address it, not caricaturize it.

I would say that there is no positive right to an abortion, because the question of medical ethics complicates things even further. The doctor's right to refuse to perform an abortion on moral grounds should prevail, so the Kantian analysis is getting a bit shaky. I don't think that denying someone a procedure really counts as using them as a means to an end, but if someone really wants to end a pregnancy, they could throw themselves down the stairs until they miscarry. If the state intervenes in situations like that, we're getting into really murky territory.

On a somewhat related note, are you familiar with the issue of forced c-sections? This is the sort of autonomy issue that really troubles me, since it implies that our society treats pregnant women as a means to an end to such a degree that hospitals are inclined to cut them open without their permission. I think you could make the argument that abortion exacerbates the problem of autonomy, since it's viewed as the only right a pregnant woman has, so if pro-lifers aren't talking about this type of thing, they should be.

I'm not opposed to compromise positions, but the idea that intrinsically evil acts are impossible is a Kantian error.

How is it a Kantian error? Kantian ethics absolutely affirm the possibility of intrinsically evil acts. Kant himself viewed lying as intrinsically evil. This is just an issue where Kantians come down on both sides.

...the political philosophical error here is uncovered by people like Alasdair Macintyre and Michael Sandel. The laws of the state are never morality-neutral. That's a modern chimera.

What political philosophical error? I don't think the laws of the state are morality-neutral, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.

Perhaps my criticism does include a criticism of Kant. In any case, objectification is not black and white. The instrumentality of the mother in the case of childbirth is written into nature. If someone thinks a woman is objectified because women bear children, then their beef is with nature, not with positive law (such as categorical imperatives or political arrangements). If a moral system cannot make any sense of nature it should be left behind.

Moral systems can make sense of nature in infinite ways. Given how many pregnancies naturally end in miscarriage, I don't think it would be at all difficult to say that early termination of pregnancy is fully in accord with the natural way of things.

This is why I don't like natural law. Just like consequentialism, I think it can serve as a post-hoc justification for just about anything. Better to stick with Kantian ethics, I think.

I am a lifeguard, and the reason non-lifeguards don't have to jump into a river to save someone is because it is statistically likely that they would both drown.

I am an attorney, and the no-duty-to-rescue rule is generally thought to tie into the theory of rights. The point is individual freedom, not a consequentialist analysis of whether a legal duty would do more harm than good. See for example: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=dlj

Anyway, sorry if this post came across as snarky. It's been a long day. I do appreciate your thoughts on the issue, and I should probably find time to read them more carefully. I don't agree with you but I'm not generally opposed to compromises.

Well, my thoughts here were initially more related to Kantian ethics than anything else. I dislike the pro-choice position, but I do think that it's strengths can be formulated in Kantian terms. The same goes for the pro-life position, which I think says a lot for the value of the Categorical Imperative. If the heart of both positions can be captured in such terms, that is good for Kantian ethics.

 

[gaara4158]

My preference would probably be illegal but decriminalized, actually. I think that might be the best way to strike a compromise between the two positions, where sanctity of life is upheld but pregnant women aren't effectively transformed into state property. I also think decriminalization is enough to solve the privacy issues.

(I probably owe you a longer response later, or at this point several, but it's late and I'm tired, haha.)

No worries! We all get busy now and then.

The only problem I see with keeping it illegal but decriminalizing rather than fully legalizing it is the same one I see with the prohibition of drugs and prostitution: people are going to do them regardless of what the law says, and when it's done on the black market there's no regulation for health and safety. Effectively, making it illegal might be intended to uphold the sanctity of life, but it's possible it would cause more damage than it prevents. Maybe in a longer response you'd have addressed that, so for now that's all I'll add.

What about killing for food? What if it can't be stolen and can only be taken with violence? Still humanitarian?

What about those stolen from? If they are left starving and dying is it still moral?

It should probably go without saying that if you're leaving someone worse-off than you are after interacting with them, that's not humanitarian. That includes killing, maiming, or or otherwise injuring them unless failure to do so would result in a similar fate for you. No one's actually thinking of it in this framework when they're in such a situation, but the moral calculus can be done just the same.

I suppose Christians do not view poverty in an exclusively materialistic way. You might say that the U.S. has materialistic wealth and spiritual poverty (addiction, depression, anxiety, psychiatric drugs, etc.). I would never presume to interpret Christ's words, but one important point is that the person retains value in spite of their poverty, and therefore the goal of eradicating poverty at any cost is a devaluing of one's own "soul" in favor of another's ...clothing... or food, or mental state, etc. I say this because you already bit off a bit of the idea above. We can do as much as we want for the poor, but if our work prevents us from sleeping at night, loving God, and loving the person we are serving then it is an inappropriate kind of martyrdom.

(That might be too dense for this medium of communication - I'm not sure. )

Poverty doesn't have to refer strictly to material wealth for secular humanists either. We can take "need" to include psychiatric or "spiritual" (for lack of a better, secular word) help as well and it still works. We're all better off in a society that takes an interest in the physical, mental, and emotional welfare of both our neighbors and the strangers beyond our gates. We're a social species, after all. We should act like one.
I will grant you that loving God has no place in secular humanism, and I'm skeptical of anyone who says they love everyone they're working to help. We typically only have the capacity to even care about 90-100 individual people at one time. On the other hand, if someone loves God and the person they are serving but doesn't actually help them, that's an even more inappropriate sort of martyrdom. Even Mother Teresa's legacy was tainted when it came out that the medical care her mission in Calcutta provided did more harm than good.

 

[Silmarien]

The only problem I see with keeping it illegal but decriminalizing rather than fully legalizing it is the same one I see with the prohibition of drugs and prostitution: people are going to do them regardless of what the law says, and when it's done on the black market there's no regulation for health and safety. Effectively, making it illegal might be intended to uphold the sanctity of life, but it's possible it would cause more damage than it prevents. Maybe in a longer response you'd have addressed that, so for now that's all I'll add.

What I'm particularly interested in is the German system, where abortion is official illegal but there are de facto rules regarding how it's regulated. I know very little about the system except that it exists, but as far as I can tell, it leads to less constant controversy than what we did here. Given our polarized culture, I think that ship has already sailed, but it would be my theoretical preference. I actually was in the "safe, legal, and rare" camp for a while, but I don't really think it's ultimately tenable--you can see this in how far the pro-choice movement has moved towards advocating for the morality of abortion. This was probably inevitable, given the taboos.

As far as legalization versus decriminalization goes, I am actually very much against the legalization of drugs and prostitution as well. I think decriminalization is enough to handle the health and safety issues, since there would be no fear related to going to the hospital if you've overdosed or been attacked by your client. The problem with legalization, however, is commodification--I know people in the legal field who have looked into the business side of marijuana, for example, so I have serious concerns about ending up with additional special interest groups commodifying problematic behavior. We see it with the tobacco industry and the NRA as it is. I don't know if the pro-life claim that there is an abortion industry is true or not, since I'm not sure where to find unbiased information on the subject, but I find the possibility troubling.

 

[gaara4158]

How does secular humanism support the idea that a person has infinite and unassailable worth?

It doesn’t, but it does support the idea that we should treat one another as though we do.

 

[eleos1954]

Let's assume the worst claims about atheism in the book are true. I don't think they are....but let's pretend....

Does a lack of a moral or ethical standard mean that "atheism" is a false position? Of course not....atheism has nothing to do with morals or ethics.

Does science's lack of acknowledgement of it's limitations have any bearing on the truth of atheism? Nope....not even a little.

Does the fact that mankind frequently believes in irrational and superstitious things make atheism untrue? Of course not....what the majority of people "believe" is nothing but an argument from popularity.

So even if I assume the worst arguments about atheism are true....that still gives me no reason to believe in the existence of a god. After all, I'd rather believe in the truth....even if it had bad consequences ...than a lie that has great consequences.

You wouldn't rather believe in the lie, would you?

than a lie that has great consequences.

If one believes in Jesus and let's pretend that is not true ... what are the "great consequences" of that "lie"?

I only see "great consequences" from the other angle ... if Jesus is true then an atheist forfeits eternal life with God ... life after earthly death.

If Jesus is not true then we all turn to dust and that's it. Nothing beyond the grave.

After all, I'd rather believe in the truth....even if it had bad consequences

well alrighty then ... with being an atheist it will be true ... will turn to dust/ashes and remain that way forever, so your are correct on that point.

We'll all wait and see ;o)

 

[Ana the Ist]

It should probably go without saying that if you're leaving someone worse-off than you are after interacting with them, that's not humanitarian.

Ok.

That includes killing, maiming, or or otherwise injuring them unless failure to do so would result in a similar fate for you.

Isn't that the situation we're talking about?

Failure to kill someone and steal their water will result in you dying of dehydration?

Because if you're going to tell me that the "humanitarian" thing to do would be to quietly die of thirst....

It brings us back to your original statement about "humanitarianism" always being "good"....and leads to the question "Good for whom?"