I'd argue that more abortions would lead to less use of the death penalty, but that's a whole different discussion.

11/12/2013 6:35:35 PM

Freakonomics has that thing where they claim abortion was responsible for a 30% drop in national crime.

Unwanted kids are criminals! Who knew!

11/12/2013 7:05:34 PM

Interestingly enough, non-whites tend to have abortions more frequently than whites (mostly because of socioeconomic conditions and lack of resources, education, birth control, etc). You'd think the hard right would actively encourage brown people to abort their babies, but I guess slut-shaming ALL women is a higher priority on the agenda.

11/13/2013 11:55:52 AM

Quote :

"ou'd think the hard right would actively encourage brown people to abort their babies, but I guess slut-shaming ALL women is a higher priority on the agenda."

My thoughts exactly. Even beyond that you'd think the Hard-Right would be handing out birth control like candy.....

Not only does it reduce the number of welfare/food-stamp babies from an economic conservative standpoint but also throws a bone to social conservatives to put downward pressure on abortion rates. After all it is easiest way to stop abortions is to prevent pregnancies in the first place.

Nope the christian right would rather live in some fantasy world where there is no sex before marriage and many economic conservatives are too simple to realize that free birth control is an investment....

11/13/2013 4:37:29 PM

Quote :

"Freakonomics has that thing where they claim abortion was responsible for a 30% drop in national crime. Unwanted kids are criminals! Who knew!"

If 55 million murders were included, the whole claim falls apart. The crime increased to levels never seen. We just changed the definitions.

Millions of criminals are unwanted, marginalized, disliked, and a huge inconvenience to a lot of people. Just kill them.. problem solved?

On another note, amazing how many arguments by the pro-choicers (definitely not all of you though) depend on straw men. It's like you're only encounters with people different from you are via Fox News. Get out much? Pro-life ? pro-war, racist, bigoted, backwoods, religious redneck.

11/14/2013 1:19:04 AM

Quote :

"If 55 million murders were included, the whole claim falls apart. The crime increased to levels never seen. We just changed the definitions."

lol, no.

Quote :

"Millions of criminals are unwanted, marginalized, disliked, and a huge inconvenience to a lot of people. Just kill them.. problem solved? "

There's probably more pro-lifers that would support this statement, than pro-choicers...

11/14/2013 1:29:53 AM

Quote :

"There's probably more pro-lifers that would support this statement, than pro-choicers..."

^see my last note in my previous post. ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments abound itt.

11/14/2013 1:41:50 AM

We don't murder them but we certainly lock people up for non violent crimes for long periods.

Also none of this bickering has changed my mind about abortion.

11/14/2013 8:11:58 AM

Quote :

"Millions of criminals are unwanted, marginalized, disliked, and a huge inconvenience to a lot of people. Just kill them.. problem solved?"

sure

11/14/2013 8:31:01 AM

Quote :

"On another note, amazing how many arguments by the pro-choicers (definitely not all of you though) depend on straw men. It's like you're only encounters with people different from you are via Fox News. Get out much? Pro-life ? pro-war, racist, bigoted, backwoods, religious redneck."

It's amazing how many pro-lifers (definitely not all of you though) that completely mix up hyperbole and strawman. Then again if you take the Bible or the gospel of the Christian right quite literally, word for word, it really isn't that amazing that hyperbole flies over your head.

11/14/2013 10:25:32 AM

^it's a fallacy to assume that a person's pro-life stance has to do with the bible or religion.

11/14/2013 12:42:36 PM

yet no other anti-choice argument has been raised

[Edited on November 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2013 1:04:51 PM

wat

11/14/2013 2:45:48 PM

The crux of the pro-lifer' argument against abortion mostly has to do with the supposed sanctity of life of the fetus. Who perpetuates the sanctity of life claim again? Oh, that's right: religious folks who believe that life begins at conception!

I don't hear lots of atheists clamoring for more control on abortion, but oddly enough I hear them being against the death penalty pretty frequently.

I fall in the same camp as theDuke in that I'm not exactly crazy about abortion OR the death penalty, but they definitely are appropriate for certain situations. And FWIW I'm not an atheist...

11/14/2013 3:03:46 PM

Quote :

"it's a fallacy to assume that a person's pro-life stance has to do with the bible or religion."

Although the majority of pro-lifers are religious nut jobs, i would agree that you can be pro-life and not necessarily religious.

11/14/2013 3:46:20 PM

Quote :

"Who perpetuates the sanctity of life claim again? Oh, that's right: religious folks who believe that life begins at conception!"

Well murder is a thing in conventional civil, rational, ethics. Pro-lifers are sitting on the point that we have no justification for "where to draw the line". They offer a solution to "never" draw a line. I do have a friend who is rabidly pro-life and campaigns against animal 'kill' shelters and doesn't eat meat. So that person is at least fully consistent. I can believe that he actually believes that nothing should ever be killed ever.

Of course, this ignores the standard ethical argument, which says that the state has an interest in the fetus when it is viable on its own. There is a very practical and consistent argument to get there. After all, the state assumes responsibility for those who can't take care of themselves. It's a very good argument, and it makes crystal clear statements that a fetus before 20 weeks or so is not the government's business, and a birthed infant totally is the government's business. There are several positions, all validly consistent, with this framework, and it may or may not include the full bodily autonomy position. The modern progressive consensus lies on the pro-choice side of this gap.

Within the context of fully rational frameworks, the protection of a fertilized egg remains extraordinarily weak. If protecting life is most important, then you still need to prioritize. The people in this camp either
1. don't prioritize forms of life or
2. prioritize human-ness

Point #1 just incoherent, either that or childishly naive. It's like 3-year-old logic. ITT, I am constantly constantly arguing against #2, and they offer it as a postulate. They won't even entertain the idea that it needs to be justified.

Calling that faith is wrong. It's anti-intellectual.

11/14/2013 3:53:17 PM

Quote :

"They won't even entertain the idea that it needs to be justified."

You're right. I do think human-ness must be justified, but I haven't done that in this thread, because it's another thread altogether. Maybe we could discuss it there.

I did mention human-ness without justifying it to point out that IF the distinctiveness human-ness is assumed, I hope people could understand why it influences people's thoughts on abortion. If human-ness is a real thing, it's no longer about choice. I brought it up to point out that we are arguing about much more than issues; we're arguing about entire world views and philosophies. And that's what you see in our country as well.

This is probably better for the other hypothetical thread, but what is the point of an ethical framework if we came from nothing, and are headed for nothing? Any of your ideas of justice or morality are just synaptic reactions, so the entire idea of a moral framework seems incredibly arbitrary. Sometimes I think only Nietzsche had the courage to admit what so many materialists don't.

11/15/2013 2:52:36 PM

Of course it's arbitrary. Is that better or worse than handed down from the sky by an imaginary friend?

11/18/2013 8:31:01 AM

Quote :

"Any of your ideas of justice or morality are just synaptic reactions, so the entire idea of a moral framework seems incredibly arbitrary."

reductio ad solipsism? why are we even having this discussion, then?

Quote :

"Sometimes I think only Nietzsche had the courage to admit what so many materialists don't."

go on

[Edited on November 18, 2013 at 8:42 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2013 8:41:59 AM

Quote :

"Of course it's arbitrary"

That's quite the admission. Everyone see this? That's great progress that we've established the entire framework in favor of abortion is arbitrary. Not sure you're ready to admit that, though. So let's be clear about the definition of arbitrary. Are you saying that the framework for allowing abortion is... "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system" as my dictionary reads?

It also reads "decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute," which might be what you intend to say. In which case, I'd say that the judge or arbiter, or law that has put that in place allowing for abortion, appeals to a "moral framework" that is ""based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". And we're back to my original point.

Quote :

"handed down from the sky"

No one said that.

Quote :

"an imaginary friend"

No one said that.

I think you meant... the possibility of absolute truths or natural law? Or the fact that science (which sets out to prove the physically and immediately observable) becomes bad philosophy when it conjectures about matters it admits it's never intended to address, observe, or explain? (That's why philosophy is a separate field.) Those are the beginnings of a more rational exploration of these issues (human-ness, where laws come from, etc.)

Quote :

"reductio ad solipsism? why are we even having this discussion, then?"

That's my point. I do believe we are more than synaptic reactions and colliding atoms, so this discussion, and moral frameworks in general, are not arbitrary.

Quote :

"go on"

In summary...no meaning. no hope. no point. all of this is meaningless, so we shouldn't be having this discussion.

doesn't the materialist/atheist realize that in all of their angst/passion about politics and ideologies and all of their efforts to dissuade those religious fundamentalists...and every ideology of every holy war jihadist and genocidal Nazi... are just instinctual? And the instincts of a species always wins out, in the individual and the playing out of nature... so just... chill.

I've heard something about the instinct to preserve the species is the best instinct. Based on what? The instinct about what feels more honorable or valuable? Hmm, don't know if that one exists. Basically you have no right to make value judgments or issue any sort of oughts or shoulds once you give up the notion of any value or absolute outside of our material existence.

As C.S. Lewis said, "And that knowledge [of making value judgments] cannot itself be instinctive: the judge cannot be one of the parties judged; or, if he is, the decision is worthless and there is no ground for placing the preservation of the species above self-preservation or sexual appetite."

/opening pandora's box

told you this should have gone in another thread

[Edited on November 19, 2013 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ]

11/19/2013 12:30:52 AM

Quote :

"doesn't the materialist/atheist realize that in all of their angst/passion about politics and ideologies and all of their efforts to dissuade those religious fundamentalists...and every ideology of every holy war jihadist and genocidal Nazi... are just instinctual? And the instincts of a species always wins out, in the individual and the playing out of nature... so just... chill."

You're talking specifically about atheists who don't believe in free will. That's probably a smaller subset than you'd think.

Also there are entire schools of thought which address that question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
And especially: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

Quote :

"Basically you have no right to make value judgments or issue any sort of oughts or shoulds once you give up the notion of any value or absolute outside of our material existence. "

I think it's generally accepted that you should be considerate toward others so that they will be considerate toward you. Do you need a divine book to tell you that?

11/19/2013 8:14:19 AM

^^You're so full of shit. You call out materialism and then act like your alternative isn't Yahweh and the Bible. You quote C.S. Lewis for Christ's sake.

What I meant by arbitrary is that all moral ontology is arbitrary. Choosing to maximize well-being and minimize suffering as the basis of a moral framework is the arbitrary part. Building the moral framework from there (and deciding that abortion should be an option as a corollary from it) is not arbitrary.

The sad part is that your moral ontology is also arbitrary you just don't want to admit it because you think this makes it meaningless, when that couldn't be further from the truth. Choosing to base your morality on maximizing well-being when you could have just as easily chosen maximizing rape makes that choice ultimately meaningful.

But seriously, you're welcome to present the evidence for your non-arbitrary moral ontology at any time.

[Edited on November 19, 2013 at 8:51 AM. Reason : .]

11/19/2013 8:51:30 AM

Quote :

"Or the fact that science (which sets out to prove the physically and immediately observable) becomes bad philosophy when it conjectures about matters it admits it's never intended to address, observe, or explain?"

Science deals with the observable, no matter how subtle or difficult to observe. String theory is science, but yet, the set of predictions it makes are sufficiently minute that they can't be tested with a particle accelerator smaller than roughly the size of our solar system. In other words, its predictions are vastly beyond what we could ever hope to observe in our foreseeable technological future. But this is science. Before you dismiss string theory, you should recognize that all of goddamn modern physics were formulated at a time when their predictions were only barely unmeasurable, or not measurable at all. General relativity was 100% theoretical, arising from logical inconsistencies of special relativity within gravity. Some years later we confirmed predictions, and Einstein's legacy was enshrined in history.

I would hardly call it "immediate" to create theories that literally can't be measured by today's technology. Of course it's still measurable, or else it wouldn't be science. The best science ever conducted in history falls into this category.

Science can't make any stand on the ethical issues ITT, but science is also pretty cool because can definitively say when something isn't science. This is useful because we don't have a scientific definition for life. We're working on it, but we don't have it. Even if we could establish a robust definition, that doesn't say that life is deserving of any particular protections.

[Edited on November 19, 2013 at 9:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/19/2013 9:37:37 AM

Hell, we've never observed the orbit of Pluto, but it's still science to predict where it will be in 1000 years. We've never observed protons or dinosaurs either.

11/19/2013 9:52:53 AM

And by that, you mean that it takes 250 goddamn years for it to go around the sun once.

But right, we don't actually know it'll complete that rotation. It could get half way around and decide it's had enough. Like

11/19/2013 10:02:07 AM

well, according to ohmy, the maximally good being he's afraid to name could just decide to halt the orbit at some point.

11/19/2013 10:39:45 AM

uh what? I agree with everything you guys have said about science in the last few posts. i guess you guys take issue with my use of the word "immediate". We make predictions based on what's immediately observable. I never meant to say those predictions aren't valid. Take "immediate" out then, my point still stands, and you haven't addressed anything else in my post.

Quote :

"I think it's generally accepted that you should be considerate toward others so that they will be considerate toward you. Do you need a divine book to tell you that?"

generally accepted? really?

Christianity used to be generally accepted by a majority of people in this country and in the Westand that's a problem you guys are trying to solve in these discussions.

Slavery was generally accepted at one point too.

generally accepted? by who? many cultures all over the globe and throughout history would definitely disagree with you on this one. the fact that you can make assumptions on life without using reason in your defense, then impose those assumptions on others (Nazis, jihadists, cannibals, etc.) shows how incredibly narrow-minded and arrogant the progressive "secularist" is.

you don't need a divine book. you need reason, logic, and human experience.

Quote :

"You're so full of shit. You call out materialism and then act like your alternative isn't Yahweh and the Bible. You quote C.S. Lewis for Christ's sake."

u mad? C.S. Lewis grew up as an atheist well into adulthood. He, like me, and many others, pursued reason and sound philosophy which led us to Yahweh and the Bible. It wasn't our starting point. But if you want to resort to the old postmodern tactics of throwing out all adherents of religious or absolute truths, because somehow their purely philosophical reasonings are tainted due to their progression of Christianity (when they're not even mentioning God or the Bible or imaginary friends)...by all means proceed in your hypocritical narrow-minded arrogance. Here at Columbia's grad school, I've grown quite used to it. The rest of us will attempt to have a more open-minded discussion in pursuit of truth, considering all alternatives, those both admitting and denying the existence of something beyond the material.

Quote :

"Choosing to base your morality on maximizing well-being when you could have just as easily chosen maximizing rape makes that choice ultimately meaningful."

Why? What basis do you have to say rape is wrong? Seems pretty instinctual to me. Satisfying urges and what not. See my previous questions about the materialist's moral framework that no one wants to address. (Yes, I do believe rape is wrong, but there's an acknowledgement of natural law in my belief system that supports the idea)

Quote :

"Also there are entire schools of thought which address that question."

I'm slightly familiar with Taoism. Though perhaps atheistic in its denying of a capital G God, my understanding was it definitely deferred to a "truth" outside of the material.

And from the little I know of Absurdism, it sounds awfully... absurd, in that it's just bad philosophy and reasoning. Trying to trick ourselves into thinking what we don't think in a sense. You practically have to suspend reason in order to accept it.

Admittedly, I don't know much about either and would love to know more.

Quote :

"But seriously, you're welcome to present the evidence for your non-arbitrary moral ontology at any time."

baby steps

[Edited on November 19, 2013 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2013 4:08:18 PM

I think we all agree with ohmy that moral frameworks are arbitrary. There's no universal reason, as disco_stu pointed out, to pick favoring rape or not favoring rape.

But as disco_stu pointed out, in the absence of a universal standard, societal stability and thriving is a better basis than believing in ancient religious beliefs or believing everyone should be raped.

Ohmy definitely seems full of shit at this point, unless he has some evidence to suggest Christianity is real and thus a good chose as the basis for his framework, rather than being an arbitrary belief system developed over thousands of years by hundreds of politicians, priests, scoundrels and a few good people.

11/19/2013 4:21:02 PM

Quote :

"u mad? C.S. Lewis grew up as an atheist well into adulthood. He, like me, and many others, pursued reason and sound philosophy which led us to Yahweh and the Bible. It wasn't our starting point. But if you want to resort to the old postmodern tactics of throwing out all adherents of religious or absolute truths, because somehow their purely philosophical reasonings are tainted due to their progression of Christianity (when they're not even mentioning God or the Bible or imaginary friends)...by all means proceed in your hypocritical narrow-minded arrogance. Here at Columbia's grad school, I've grown quite used to it. The rest of us will attempt to have a more open-minded discussion in pursuit of truth, considering all alternatives, those both admitting and denying the existence of something beyond the material."

I'm not the one saying "no one said that" to try to hide the fact that your well-reasoned and open-minded worldview includes talking animals and people rising from the dead.

Quote :

"Why? What basis do you have to say rape is wrong? "

The basis is the admittedly arbitrary distinction that it causes harm and minimizes well-being. Do we need to go over this again?

You're in the same boat. Even if Yawheh tells you directly or emanates because it's part of his "nature" or whatever that rape is wrong what kind of basis is that? What if he told you it wasn't wrong? Or what if he's a monster that assisted the Isrealites to murder and rape countless other tribes?

Or most of all, what if he doesn't actually exist? You can't just declare a priori that a perfect moral ontology exists and it happens to be the god described by the Bible. That claim needs to be supported by an amount of evidence that has never been provided.

Quote :

"seems pretty instinctual to me. Satisfying urges and what not."

No reasonable person believes instincts map to perfect morality. Most reasonable people (and I assume even you) believes a major part of what separates us from other animals is our ability to choose to rise above our instincts.

Quote :

"baby steps"

riiiiiight.

[Edited on November 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2013 4:24:50 PM

Quote :

"Why? What basis do you have to say rape is wrong? Seems pretty instinctual to me. Satisfying urges and what not."

Exactly. The moral course of action is always reachable by intuition.

11/19/2013 4:37:37 PM

^ baby steps here mrfrog. geez...

11/19/2013 4:41:00 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/19/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-texas-abortion-restrictions/

11/19/2013 9:16:38 PM

Quote :

"the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate" a law that serves a valid purpose, "one not designed to strike at the right itself.""

lulz

11/19/2013 10:31:15 PM

Quote :

"I think we all agree with ohmy that moral frameworks are arbitrary. "

Well if I've gotten you this far, there's hope yet!

To be clear I've pointed out that your moral framework is arbitrary. Not the one who believes in the existence of the nonmaterial, like me, and countless others. ibt GIMME YUR ANSWERS! Before I can offer an alternative, it's important to point out why you need an alternative.

Quote :

"Ohmy definitely seems full of shit at this point, unless he has some evidence to suggest Christianity is real and thus a good chose as the basis for his framework,"

I'm not even sure I'm committed to proving Christianity is real in this thread. All I need to prove is that a natural law and absolute truth DOES exist. Quite different things, although the closer you get to one the closer you get to the other. Many a Muslim, Jew, and Hindu agree more with me than the atheist or moral relativist.

Quote :

"rather than being an arbitrary belief system developed over thousands of years by hundreds of politicians, priests, scoundrels and a few good people."

Hundreds? Haha, try hundreds of thousands. I like that. Group the miscount of hundreds with "scoundrels and a few good people." You know like St. Peter, Isaac Newton, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and MLK Jr. This is 2000+ years of the best thinkers and most compassionate humanists in human history on my side, bud. The chronological snobbery by the Western postmodern materialists is incredible.

Quote :

"The basis is the admittedly arbitrary distinction that it causes harm and minimizes well-being. Do we need to go over this again?"

Yes, actually we do. Because you've never answered my questions. You're trying to put theism on trial without ever being skeptical of your own worldview. Your attempts to claim "minimizing harm" and "maximizing well-being" as honorable, valuable, and good (without defining them in those terms because that would imply the existence of the non-material, natural law, moral absolutes, and/or the Tao) are weak.

So first...

1. Define harm. Define well-being. And for the individual? Or the species? Try to do it without making value judgments.

2. And if you make value judgments then please tell me if those values are the mere result of colliding atoms and natural instincts or not.

3. If they are, then please tell me why it makes sense to assign the value of "best" to the instinct of "minimizing harm" and "maximizing well-being" but not assigning the value of "best" to satisfying other instinctual urges, like the need for self-preservation or sexual appetite.

4. If the values come from something other than atoms and instincts, then please tell me what that is. How are you appealing to anything BUT the existence of the non-material (supernatural, metaphysical, etc...now we're on the way to natural law you see). An arbitrary moral framework that we just create, you say? And this framework comes from what? Maximizing well-being yada yada yada...again, see step 2.

Admit it...you're appealing to natural law- something outside of the material- while trying to deny its existence altogether.

This isn't anything new, guys. This line of thought's been continued for centuries and reasoned by thousands, millions. To quote good ol' Clive Staples again, in case you didn't get it the first time...

Quote :

" The idea that, without appealing to any court higher than the instincts themselves, we can yet find grounds for preferring one instinct above its fellows dies very hard. We grasp at useless words: we call it "basic," or "fundamental", or "primal", or "deepest" instinct. It is of no avail. Either these words conceal a value judgement passed UPON the instinct and therefore not derivable FROM it, or else they merely record its felt intensity, the frequency of its operation and its wide distribution. If the former, the whole attempt to base value upon instinct has been abandoned: if the latter, those observations about the quantitative aspects of a psychological event lead to no practical conclusion. It is the old dilemma. Either the premisses already concealed an imperative or the conclusion remains merely in the indicative. "

So like I said before, you lose the right to claim shoulds and oughts because your "moral" framework has no authority at all compare to any other instinctual whim.

And as for you guys wanting me to defend all of religious/metaphysical reasoning and natural law in a single TWW post, immediately and easily, is the same garbage we see Fox News, MSNBC, and the worst politicians doing all the time- reducing all of history's greatest questions, and the attempts of the world's greatest thinkers to answer those questions, to freaking sound bytes. So considering that, and the fact that I have a life and a lot of work, means...yeah...baby steps.

In the meantime though, if you want sound answers quicker than I can provide them, I'd recommend "Right and Wrong as Clues to the Meaning of the Universe" by C.S. Lewis. It's found in his book "Mere Christianity." He predicted all this pseudo-intellectualism you guys are fumbling around with 70 years ago. (And it's not just Lewis; Eric Metaxas, Tim Keller, G.K. Chesterton, Thomas Aquinas, Arifreakingstotle...there's a whole line of great thinkers from the past and present who could tell you the same things.) I know it's a lot easier to rebut the other side if you reduce them to Jerry-Fallwell-esque caricatures, but it might do you good to listen to the best the other side has to offer, instead of the worst.

Well, have at it! Now when I return, you guys better have a good reasoning towards a moral framework! (I'll give you lots of time. A crapload of work has been dumped on me, so perhaps we can continue this conversation at a later time...

IN HELL!

no but later)

to lighten the mood, I'll leave you with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBA6qlHW8po. Caricatures of both sides perhaps?

[Edited on November 19, 2013 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2013 11:45:13 PM

There was a lecture on youtube I was going to post, but I couldn't find it.

The basic idea is that the professor asks you to make a moral criteria. Then he gives you a scenario where the action you know to be right violates the criteria you just came up with. Then he does it again. Basic point: you have your views and then rationalize them, not the other way around.

11/19/2013 11:51:37 PM

^If you find it, please post it. I love stuff like that and am incorporating it into some work I'm doing in English Education here at grad school about the formation of ideologies and on literary critical theory.

And I agree with you (or the professor). Everyone is biased (for many reasons). That doesn't excuse reckless reasoning or complete indifference, but it's something we must acknowledge so that we can try to work towards an objective understanding of the truth. (The Christian faith..Scriptures specifically... talks a lot about that actually)

11/19/2013 11:55:25 PM

Quote :

"To be clear I've pointed out that your moral framework is arbitrary. Not the one who believes in the existence of the nonmaterial, like me, and countless others. ibt GIMME YUR ANSWERS! Before I can offer an alternative, it's important to point out why you need an alternative. "

Ahh.

In that case, you're just wrong. Religious belief is even more arbitrary than trying to understand what's better for thriving, and then do that.

11/20/2013 1:52:58 AM

Quote :

"generally accepted? really?"

You're right, that was a bad point. But it can be reasoned that treating your neighbors well is better for all of mankind, as others have said.

Quote :

"I'm slightly familiar with Taoism. Though perhaps atheistic in its denying of a capital G God, my understanding was it definitely deferred to a "truth" outside of the material."

It defers to a singular undefinable "truth" that branches down to other "truths".

http://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/1n20b9/tell_me_what_its_like_to_be_a_taoist/ccequy0
http://www.whatilearnedwhen.net/parable-of-the-chinese-farmer/
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

Quote :

"And from the little I know of Absurdism, it sounds awfully... absurd, in that it's just bad philosophy and reasoning. Trying to trick ourselves into thinking what we don't think in a sense. You practically have to suspend reason in order to accept it."

How could it be bad reasoning? It's one of the most open-to-interpretation philosophies. Life is absurd and there may or may not be intrinsic meaning. The rest is up to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism#Relationship_with_existentialism_and_nihilism

11/20/2013 8:40:05 AM

Quote :

" moral frameworks are arbitrary"

Quote :

"All I need to prove is that a natural law and absolute truth DOES exist."

I agree with you that absolute truth exists. Moral frameworks are arbitrary in the sense that murder is sometimes justifiable, stealing, etc. A true universal moral framework would be insanely complicated, because it would need to refer to an infinite number of scenarios, arguably including any unpredictable outcomes. (see: http://www.whatilearnedwhen.net/parable-of-the-chinese-farmer/)

Hence why the general rule "Be excellent to one another" is about the best we've got.

11/20/2013 8:50:48 AM

Quote :

"To be clear I've pointed out that your moral framework is arbitrary. Not the one who believes in the existence of the nonmaterial, like me, and countless others. ibt GIMME YUR ANSWERS! Before I can offer an alternative, it's important to point out why you need an alternative."

So simply believing in the nonmaterial means you can declare by fiat that your moral framework isn't arbitrary?

What a crock of shit.

Quote :

" All I need to prove is that a natural law and absolute truth DOES exist. Quite different things, although the closer you get to one the closer you get to the other. Many a Muslim, Jew, and Hindu agree more with me than the atheist or moral relativist. "

This isn't actually true. You suffer the same epistemic barrier as the rest of us. Even if you could somehow prove that natural law and absolute truth (whatever that means) does exist there's no way for you to verify that you actually have access to it. How do you know your morality aligns correctly with "aboslute morality"?

This is usually where the theist conjures their pet god and says they can somehow reveal it to them. But they can't prove their god exists and they can't prove that what the god is revealing is accurate or even not a delusion.

You're welcome to explain your position at any time instead of this dishonest "I don't have to explain MY position because it's non-arbitrary because trust me I said so."

Quote :

"Your attempts to claim "minimizing harm" and "maximizing well-being" as honorable, valuable, and good (without defining them in those terms because that would imply the existence of the non-material, natural law, moral absolutes, and/or the Tao) are weak."

If by "weak" you mean "admittedly arbitrary and objectively unjustifiable" then guilty as charged. Of course, I never used the words 'Honorable', 'valuable' or even 'good'. Morality is a series of value judgments and it's the very criteria by which we make those judgments which is arbitrary.

Quote :

"1. Define harm. Define well-being. And for the individual? Or the species? Try to do it without making value judgments."

First, why without making value judgments? I'm not the one declaring that have to have absolutes to have morality. Morality is value judgments. Well-being and harm can vary by individual and by collective and that's ok.

Quote :

"And if you make value judgments then please tell me if those values are the mere result of colliding atoms and natural instincts or not."

Both? Natural instincts are themselves a consequence of "colliding atoms".

Quote :

" If they are, then please tell me why it makes sense to assign the value of "best" to the instinct of "minimizing harm" and "maximizing well-being" but not assigning the value of "best" to satisfying other instinctual urges, like the need for self-preservation or sexual appetite."

It doesn't "make sense" form the top down. It makes sense in the sense of one results in people getting raped and one doesn't.

Quote :

"4. If the values come from something other than atoms and instincts, then please tell me what that is. How are you appealing to anything BUT the existence of the non-material (supernatural, metaphysical, etc...now we're on the way to natural law you see). An arbitrary moral framework that we just create, you say? And this framework comes from what? Maximizing well-being yada yada yada...again, see step 2. Admit it...you're appealing to natural law- something outside of the material- while trying to deny its existence altogether."

I won't admit it because you're arguing against a position I never presented.

edit-I've bolded the part I'd really like you to respond to so please make sure you address that in whatever word salad is to come.

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 9:48 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 9:20:27 AM

Albuquerque Voters Reject Late-Term Abortion Ban

Quote :

"ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A closely watched, first-of-its-kind proposal to ban late-term abortions in New Mexico's largest city appeared headed toward defeat. Opponents of the referendum to ban most abortions after 20 weeks were claiming victory after results from 50,000 early and absentee ballots, plus 14,000 of the more than 36,000 votes cast Tuesday, showed 55 percent of the votes were against the proposal."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/albuquerque-abortion-ban_n_4306652.html

11/20/2013 11:00:41 AM

Quote :

"This isn't actually true. You suffer the same epistemic barrier as the rest of us. Even if you could somehow prove that natural law and absolute truth (whatever that means) does exist there's no way for you to verify that you actually have access to it. How do you know your morality aligns correctly with "aboslute morality"? This is usually where the theist conjures their pet god and says they can somehow reveal it to them. But they can't prove their god exists and they can't prove that what the god is revealing is accurate or even not a delusion."

Yeah I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the theist NEVER has to defend his position. Absolutely we do. I meant that's not my goal right now. I guess before I show you how my position does have reason on its side, I wanted to point out that your argument is self-defeating. By attempting to explain everything in material terms, you've explained away your very explanation. In this thread, though, the argument for abortion was based on this arbitrary framework you guys at first wouldn't admit was completely arbitrary. So if I were to prove there is natural law ("whatever that means"? read a book..or a wiki page) I would prove you wrong. Not that I'm right. Maybe the Muslims are right. Maybe the Buddhists. But if you admit YOU'RE wrong, maybe that'd get you to rethink your position on certain social issues, like say, abortion. (ha! yeah right, right?!)

And if you can't admit you're wrong about imposing your arbitrary moral framework on others, then what makes me think you would follow a reasonable argument in favor of the existence of God? (note I didn't say PROVING, I just said in favor)

Quote :

""I don't have to explain MY position because it's non-arbitrary because trust me I said so.""

I didn't say trust me I said so. I said we'll get there in time. And I said trust the millions of the world's best thinkers who have gone before us and wrestled with these questions for longer than you and I have, and with more honesty than you and me. If you're so giddy about finding the truth (who am I kidding), then pick up Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I might eventually provide some reasons to support the existence of God, but every time you refuse to admit your own folly in your reasoning to ardently support your a deeply flawed framework, it's really discouraging.

I can't take you through tomes dealing with life's most complex matters, if you can't even admit a basic flaw. So maybe I'm throwing too much at you (which you keep deflecting and asking for proof of something I haven't even begun to argue yet.) So let's start basic...

Quote :

"It makes sense in the sense of one results in people getting raped and one doesn't."

Why?

11/20/2013 11:42:09 AM

Quote :

"And if you can't admit you're wrong about imposing your arbitrary moral framework on others"

In what way is this happening with regard to abortion? By "others" do you mean the fetus? Or the father?

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2013 11:48:00 AM

Quote :

"I agree with you that absolute truth exists. Moral frameworks are arbitrary in the sense that murder is sometimes justifiable, stealing, etc. A true universal moral framework would be insanely complicated, because it would need to refer to an infinite number of scenarios, arguably including any unpredictable outcomes. (see: http://www.whatilearnedwhen.net/parable-of-the-chinese-farmer/) Hence why the general rule "Be excellent to one another" is about the best we've got."

I agree with your first paragraph. I don't think the general rule- the golden rule- is not the quite best we've got, although it's close. (And in fact, if applied to abortion, we're certainly glad our mommies didn't kill us!) But you're right that even if there is natural law, that in a broken world, we can only do our best to get as close to that as we can. And it would be impossibly complex because it would refer to an infinite number of scenarios, like you said.

What you're saying is radically different from what disco's saying though, who is attempting to throw off any obligation to any absolute truth, outside of himself.

^I mean that in many ways. Definitely the fetus (but you can't agree with me if you deny them personhood I understand). And I mean in his insistence that we ALL follow his framework in our day to day lives (Thankfully it's a democracy so we get to vote on this framework. And we can also have discussions where I can convince my fellow man not to vote on such an empty, arbitrary framework, but suggest that maybe there is a universal one we should try to pursue with our best efforts, and then implement to our best knowledge)

See that's why I'm trying to take it one step at a time. Now disco is going to ignore my original question, using his usual deflection tactics, and harp on what I just said. Probably find some Leviticus verses to quote from his wealth of Biblical knowledge and context. That's why saying "baby steps" is actually pretty helpful. It means...FOCUS.

(I'm going to try to be serious about my hiatus though. This is too distracting! Later!)

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 11:48:30 AM

Quote :

"And if you can't admit you're wrong about imposing your arbitrary moral framework on others, then what makes me think you would follow a reasonable argument in favor of the existence of God? (note I didn't say PROVING, I just said in favor)"

how does the second part of this follow the first?

11/20/2013 11:53:59 AM

Quote :

"(And in fact, if applied to abortion, we're certainly glad our mommies didn't kill us!"

i don't remember much at all about life as an early fetus. i doubt i would have cared. In fact, if she thought that she wasn't ready to be a mother to me, i would probably prefer her to end me.

11/20/2013 11:54:29 AM

That if you can't be reasonable with A you're unlikely to be reasonable with B?

11/20/2013 11:55:23 AM

^^you'd care when you were in unbaptized baby hell limbo

^but those are two different things, you need to establish how they are related.



[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM. Reason : I am very curious what a reasonable argument in favor of God looks like, make a thread!]

11/20/2013 11:55:28 AM

I see what you're saying. You want me to jump to the "proving of God". That's the variable. I'm saying the constant in each of these situations will be faulty reasoning. Which is faulty reasoning. Which if you can't acknowledge, won't help in A, B, X, Y, or Z.

Aghhhh...we're getting ahead of ourselves though. I want disco's answer as to why rape is bad.

And please not ... IT'S JUST GENERALL ASSUMMED MAAAAN. Because many people generally assumed child sacrifice was good, as well as slavery, as well as war for conquest, and so on. in fact...some cultures have believed that rape was GOOD (in the context of war on vowed enemies for example)

[Edited on November 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2013 11:58:33 AM

no, i want you to explain how one's thoughts on moral absolutes reflects how they would respond to a "reasonable argument in favor of the existence of God"

you need to show a connection between those things if you want to make that argument

11/20/2013 12:01:02 PM