My Kidney Challenge II

[Kylie]

I’m just using your own argument against you. Again. You have no basis to say I’m wrong. All you have is personal feelings.

I have never forced my morality on you.

 

[Kylie]

That depends whether person A actually caused person's B's death or merely didn't prevent it from happening. I already covered this.

Irrelevant. Person A CHOSE the course of action knowing what the outcome will be.

 

[Hammster]

I have never forced my morality on you.

But if I force mine on you, you have no basis to say it’s wrong.

 

[Kylie]

But if I force mine on you, you have no basis to say it’s wrong.

Yes I do. Because no one has the right to push their morality onto others. Your morality applies to you, not other people.

 

[Astrid]

Yes I do. Because no one has the right to push their morality onto others. Your morality applies to you, not other people.

If I like your Hermes and decide to take don't try to
your morality on me with some objection.

 

[Kylie]

If I like your Hermes and decide to take don't try to
your morality on me with some objection.

My what?

 

[tall73]

Yes I do. Because no one has the right to push their morality onto others. Your morality applies to you, not other people.

You have proposed this as a moral principle.

Why should we accept this principle, that morality is individual, and does not apply to others?

And isn't it forcing your morality on the unborn child to abort it?

 

[Kylie]

You have proposed this as a moral principle.

Why should we accept this principle, that morality is individual, and does not apply to others?

Would you like it if a vegan forced their morality onto you and stopped you from eating animal products?

Would you like it if a Muslim forced their morality onto you and forced you to be a Muslim?

And isn't it forcing your morality on the unborn child to abort it?

First of all, I don't hold that a fertilized egg is a person, in the same way that I don't hold that an acorn is an oak tree.

Secondly, we humans have the right to bodily autonomy. We even extend that right to corpses, which is why it's unlawful to remove organs from a dead person if they have said that they do not want to be an organ donor. If we tell pregnant people that they must continue with a pregnancy, then we are saying that a pregnant person has less rights than a corpse.

 

[tall73]

Would you like it if a vegan forced their morality onto you and stopped you from eating animal products?

No, I would not like being forced to eat a particular diet. Though I have been a vegetarian and vegan.

But I don't see morality as just about what I "like". You could perhaps be invoking some golden rule type ethic. But then isn't that something that you are taking from your own ethical system and asking me to apply?

Would you like it if a Muslim forced their morality onto you and forced you to be a Muslim?

No, though you are somewhat blurring the line between morality and religion, which from my perspective are certainly related, but are different spheres in application. Without belaboring the point, I see Scripture indicating that government has a delegated moral authority, but does not have authority to compel religion.

But then I also don't hold to subjective morality. So we may need to compare notes for me to understand your view.

First of all, I don't hold that a fertilized egg is a person, in the same way that I don't hold that an acorn is an oak tree.

Secondly, we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.

Now you just extended your subjective morality to others, when you said "humans" have the right to bodily autonomy. It seems you are again stating a moral principle that applies to more than just yourself. It sounds like you actually do have a set of principles that you think apply to people, beyond just yourself.

A fertilized egg is a life, with its own unique characteristics. And it is human, not bovine, or reptilian, etc. You are extending your moral principle to all humanity, yet you withhold it for the most helpless human life.

We even extend that right to corpses, which is why it's unlawful to remove organs from a dead person if they have said that they do not want to be an organ donor. If we tell pregnant people that they must continue with a pregnancy, then we are saying that a pregnant person has less rights than a corpse.

Ironically you extend more rights to a corpse than you do to a human life that is developing. But you also set down moral principles that you wish to extend to others beyond yourself.

So let's clarify some things. If someone murdered and ate you, and that was completely consistent with their own ethical system, would that be a problem? They are not imposing their view of morality, just killing and eating you. You don't have to agree that killing and eating people is a problem.

 

[tall73]

Would you like it if a vegan forced their morality onto you and stopped you from eating animal products?

I realized I addressed part of the thought, but wanted to address another. Someone could not force their morality on me. Even if someone forced me to eat a particular diet, it would not mean I necessarily adopt their moral principles behind the diet (such as not using animal derived foods). I would have to choose to do that for it to become my moral code.

They could force outward compliance to the dictates of their moral code in some circumstances.

 

[tall73]

Your subjective morality has two principles--so far-- that you apply to all people, and one appears to me to be self-contradictory.

1. no one has the right to push their morality onto others. Your morality applies to you, not other people.

Because no one has the right to push their morality onto others. Your morality applies to you, not other people.

If each person's morality only applies to themselves, how can you say that this principle applies to everyone? What if they don't think this principle applies? It may be your principle, but @Hammster already proposed that his morality may in fact require imposing on others.

2. we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.

Secondly, we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.

How do we know everyone has this as a component of their morality? For instance, the US government officials who intentionally infected people with sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala, to study the results, didn't seem to hold the view that each person has a right to bodily autonomy.

US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s - CNN.com

Those who sterilized populations they thought were inferior, for the sake of "improving" humanity didn't seem to hold to that view.

Bodily autonomy had to be fought for by appealing to various arguments, rather than just being something that everyone subjectively holds.

Are there other principles that you see applying to everyone?

 

[Kylie]

But then isn't that something that you are taking from your own ethical system and asking me to apply?

Ah, so you can see how forcing some moral system is wrong.

But then I also don't hold to subjective morality. So we may need to compare notes for me to understand your view.

I don't hold to objective morality.

Now you just extended your subjective morality to others, when you said "humans" have the right to bodily autonomy. It seems you are again stating a moral principle that applies to more than just yourself. It sounds like you actually do have a set of principles that you think apply to people, beyond just yourself.

No, I just hold that there isn't a person alive who has the right to make me use my body in a way that I don't want.

A fertilized egg is a life, with its own unique characteristics. And it is human, not bovine, or reptilian, etc. You are extending your moral principle to all humanity, yet you withhold it for the most helpless human life.

Do you hold that an acorn is a oak tree?

Ironically you extend more rights to a corpse than you do to a human life that is developing. But you also set down moral principles that you wish to extend to others beyond yourself.

A fertilized egg is not a person.

So let's clarify some things. If someone murdered and ate you, and that was completely consistent with their own ethical system, would that be a problem? They are not imposing their view of morality, just killing and eating you. You don't have to agree that killing and eating people is a problem.

Yes they are imposing their ethical system, because they are involving me against my will.

 

[Kylie]

Your subjective morality has two principles--so far-- that you apply to all people, and one appears to me to be self-contradictory.

1. no one has the right to push their morality onto others. Your morality applies to you, not other people.



If each person's morality only applies to themselves, how can you say that this principle applies to everyone? What if they don't think this principle applies? It may be your principle, but @Hammster already proposed that his morality may in fact require imposing on others.

If you can find someone who thinks that it's acceptable for another person to push their morality onto them, then please show me.

But isn't it funny how the only people who say that are the ones who want to push their morality onto others, and never those who want others to push their morality onto them?

2. we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.

How do we know everyone has this as a component of their morality? For instance, the US government officials who intentionally infected people with sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala, to study the results, didn't seem to hold the view that each person has a right to bodily autonomy.

US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s - CNN.com

Those who sterilized populations they thought were inferior, for the sake of "improving" humanity didn't seem to hold to that view.

Bodily autonomy had to be fought for by appealing to various arguments, rather than just being something that everyone subjectively holds.

Are there other principles that you see applying to everyone?

If your source really claimed that, then why did the US apologize for it?

You might as well ask how we know we don't have the right to not be killed.

 

[Hammster]

Yes I do. Because no one has the right to push their morality onto others. Your morality applies to you, not other people.

So just to ensure that I understand you, you are saying that it’s wrong to push morality on someone else. Do I have that right?

 

[Kylie]

So just to ensure that I understand you, you are saying that it’s wrong to push morality on someone else. Do I have that right?

And you will now no doubt say that abortion is doing that.

To which I say that a fertilized egg is not a person.

 

[Hammster]

And you will now no doubt say that abortion is doing that.

To which I say that a fertilized egg is not a person.

Actually, I’d like you to answer the question so I know if I understand you correctly.

 

[tall73]

Kylie said: ↑

Would you like it if a vegan forced their morality onto you and stopped you from eating animal products?

tall73 said: ↑
No, I would not like being forced to eat a particular diet. Though I have been a vegetarian and vegan.

But I don't see morality as just about what I "like". You could perhaps be invoking some golden rule type ethic. But then isn't that something that you are taking from your own ethical system and asking me to apply?

Ah, so you can see how forcing some moral system is wrong.

You seem to have misunderstood the question.

I have a moral code imposed on me, and I do not think it is wrong. But even if I did think it was wrong, I recognize it as there, regardless of what I "like".

However, I don't think a random vegan has the ability or right to impose a moral code upon me. And even if a vegan imposed a vegan diet through force, I would not recognize the right of that person to do so.

But the point you didn't address is that you are saying you see morality as subjective. But then you are appealing to us to agree with the notion that you can't impose your morality--and wanting us to agree that the notion fits our experience. So you are appealing to common experience to uphold this absolute of your moral system--that no one can impose morality on another.

But in fact, we don't agree that morality cannot be imposed. And your seeking to gain agreement shows that you do hold to a principle that you think is beyond just your own moral judgment.

I don't hold to objective morality.

You have indicated two moral principles that you think apply to more than yourself. Your statements are in conflict.


Kylie said: ↑
we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.


tall73 said: ↑
Now you just extended your subjective morality to others, when you said "humans" have the right to bodily autonomy. It seems you are again stating a moral principle that applies to more than just yourself. It sounds like you actually do have a set of principles that you think apply to people, beyond just yourself.

No, I just hold that there isn't a person alive who has the right to make me use my body in a way that I don't want.

That is not what you said. You didn't limit your absolute moral principle to yourself when you stated it earlier. You said:

we humans have the right to bodily autonomy.

You have posited an absolute moral principle for all "humans". So you must either

a. walk back your statement as incorrect, and say that all "humans" do not have the right to bodily autonomy, only those who think they do.

b. admit that there are moral absolute principles (such as humans having bodily autonomy) and morality is not just up to the person.

Please clarify which it is so we can continue.

 

[o_mlly]

First of all, I don't hold that a fertilized egg is a person, in the same way that I don't hold that an acorn is an oak tree.

Irrational, at best.

Secondly, we humans have the right to bodily autonomy. We even extend that right to corpses, which is why it's unlawful to remove organs from a dead person if they have said that they do not want to be an organ donor. If we tell pregnant people that they must continue with a pregnancy, then we are saying that a pregnant person has less rights than a corpse.

Bizarre, at best. Now your kidney donor has died on the operating table. Do you know that an organ donor must be alive for their organs to have any use? Apparently, not.

Just admit that you want to have irresponsible sex. And if the act produces a child that you will want to kill the child. This thread is just your feeble attempt to justify a murder.

 

[tall73]

Do you hold that an acorn is a oak tree?


A fertilized egg is not a person.

We can take this up once you have clarified whether "humans' have bodily autonomy, or only those who think they do.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
If each person's morality only applies to themselves, how can you say that this principle applies to everyone? What if they don't think this principle applies? It may be your principle, but @Hammster already proposed that his morality may in fact require imposing on others.

If you can find someone who thinks that it's acceptable for another person to push their morality onto them, then please show me.

Christians recognize that God imposes morality, and we don't just come up with it. We find it very acceptable.

So we do not accept that each person develops their own morality, as you have posited.

But isn't it funny how the only people who say that are the ones who want to push their morality onto others, and never those who want others to push their morality onto them?

@Hammster already presented himself as an exhibit. He wants God to push His morality on him, and he said he also thinks it should be imposed on others. Theonomists are the
"never" you imply doesn't exist.

Theonomists want the morality of another imposed upon them, AND upon you.

And as @Hammster noted, you have no defense against that if you think each person is a moral system unto themselves. You have no right to impose your views upon @Hammster who thinks society must impose God's morality on you. His moral system says he must impose it.

Or there are moral absolutes that apply to people beyond just their own notions, which you could appeal to as a defense. But that would mean abandoning the idea that you are your own moral system. It would mean establishing the basis for an absolute moral principle to defend you against @Hammster's moral system (which was imposed on him).