And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Diogenes]

People like Diogenes think in black and white. They do not understand that the real world does not work that way.

But the "real world " law does.

They live in some fantasy reality that only exists on TV. In my experience the world is a variation of shades of dark grey, I have not seen any white anywhere, other than in babies and even that is sometimes debatable.

Skipjack, i'm beginning to suspect that every time you open your mouth, the world grows a little bit stupider. In a "shades of dark grey " sort of way, of course.

[KitemanSA]

Funny thing is, you are both part correct and part incorrect.

Morality (right vs wrong) is in fact a binary set. There is no "righter or rightest. Actions are either right or wrong.
Ethics (good vs bad) on the other hand is situational. There is good, better best, as there is bad, worse, worst. What may be good in one situation may be worst in another.

The problem you two are having is that neither of you seem to understand that fact and since you don't, neither of you even TRY it determine what is "right" and what is "good".

But have fun talking past each other!

[Diogenes]

The Naturalistic Fallacy

Simpleminded little child. Just because YOU are fuzzy on reality, doesn't mean that everyone shares your ignorance. Statistical analysis works well enough to create an atomic bomb, so I suspect we can use the same means to ferret out the validity (or lack thereof) of your point.


There are 10 Trillion cells in the human body. There are 6 Billion Humans on the planet. I'm not going to bother getting into the plant and animal kingdoms, but the same circumstance holds true for them as well.


With a current estimate of all the cells in the human race being something like 10*10^12 * 6*10^9 = 60000000000000000000000 examples of nature functioning without (mostly) artificial interference.


If artificial methods are going to make a dent in that current number (notwithstanding all previous examples for the last 4 billion years), it is going to have to do a lot of catching up.


In any case, your comment misses the point. As I mentioned earlier, for the purpose of this discussion "natural" means "in the absence of external interference."

[Diogenes]

I point out the obvious. I see little evidence of a clear line defining one condition from another. As you are the advocate of the clear line, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it's existence and how it might be discerned.

I can't understand your position here. Your "zygotes are human" position
is because you can't find a clear dividing line other than zygot/pre-zygote.

And apparently, neither can you.

You adopt this because you don't allow the reasonable position that there is a continuous progression from not-human to human. Thus, most people think that aborting a 1 month foetus is much less harmful to mother, and less morally objectionable, than aborting a 5 month old foetus.

When actual facts are decided by consensus, do let me know. At that point I will vote to eliminate hunger and world wide evil.

You further misunderstand me: I have been arguing consistently against clear dividing lines. But I don't have your cognitive inability to imagine shades of grey. All courts do this, if allowed by legal system, even in cases of murder.

So someone gets a "grey" verdict? Or a "grey" sentence? Funny, I thought they were either acquitted or convicted.

It must be a fascinating world in which you live. I suppose someone has to paint the shades between quanta.

We are discussing legally defined dividing lines, and it is contingent upon you to provide a scientific explanation for your position, not to prattle on some nonsense about it being one big shade of grey. At some point, a decision has to be made, and you ought explain why it should be one place and not another.

I think my perspective is perfectly consistent from a scientific basis. Yours is just an effort to try and force your subjective personal preferences into a costume of objectivity.

Science does not support your position. It supports mine quite well.

[Diogenes]

It creates a distinction, but that distinction does not by itself create a moral obligation of the mother (or any other creature) to care for the egg. That's a separate issue.

One of my long standing laments (on this forum and elsewhere) is that people imagine boundaries where none in fact exist. You are trying to create an artificial boundary between a mother's consent to create a child and a mother's consent to care for a child.

The one is implicit of the other. In nature, they are the same thing. Creatures that do not follow this natural instinct are eliminated by the process of evolution. Survival dictates morality, and by objective standards, as that conduct of behavior which survival necessitates, abandoning offspring is immoral. The issues are not separate, they are exactly the same thing.

You are mistaken. I'm describing a boundary that exists in reality. In nature, survival sometimes dictates that offspring has to be abandoned to wait for better conditions.

The survival of a species does not depend on all offspring surviving, nor on all members having offspring. The human race is hardly at risk of dying out. As to survival of an individual's genes, that's up to the individual. Having no children is not immoral.

Some lives are unnecessary as far as you are concerned. Got it. Given that you are one of the survivors, your position reminds me of those who criticize farmers while eating.

And having an abortion doesn't mean having no children, either.

Sometimes it does.

Natural (as opposed to artificial) does not mean justified, so where does a justification come from?

It is a philosophical point. All I do is point out that one behavior is no different from another behavior, and if we accept the premise that the first behavior is okay, then we cannot condemn the second behavior either.

It is a method of demonstrating that one is engaging in false reasoning. In logical terms, if "A"="B", and " B"="C", then "A" must also equal "C."

And I point out that you use the false equivalence of "natural" = "okay". Whether something is natural is not a moral judgement.

"Natural" means "in the absence of interference" in this context. It is axiomatic. if one does not interfere, then one cannot be responsible for the outcome. It is the only morally neutral position. To interfere is to become part of causality chain.

I also have little doubt as to the outcome - tampering will prevail as it outpaces natural evolution.

And you presume to think that natural evolution will have no retort? Well, the people who built the Titanic thought it was unsinkable. Hubris seems to be a characteristic of people who think they are too smart to miss something.

Despite failures, building ships has turned out to be vastly more successful for crossing the Atlantic than waiting for evolution to give us gills or wings. I'm not presuming human design to be infallible. Just slightly better than random mutation with incredibly long cycles.

That remains to be seen, however I grant you that it might be possible to improve the human condition by tampering, but my observation is that evolution is a pretty successful system.

The issue here is causality. If you don't do anything, you have no responsibility for the consequences.

If a mother doesn't do anything, the child dies.

After it's born this may be true. Prior to that, she cannot kill it by doing nothing, unless she starves herself to death as well.

Abandoning the child after birth has a set of legal penalties to go with it.

[CKay]

Morality (right vs wrong) is in fact a binary set. There is no "righter or rightest. Actions are either right or wrong.

Sorry, this is an unprovable assertion.

Morality is a value judgement. What one person thinks is morally acceptable, another may find unacceptable - and there is no objective way, no universal constant from which to take a bearing to decide which of two conflicting moral judgements is right.

It is possible to build a system of morality based upon some basic assumptions - 'God is the source of moral authority', 'human life is sacred', 'that which minimises suffering is the good', or 'most reasonable people would agree that...' etc - but these will still be assumptions the truth of which can not be proven or divined from natural laws (see the is-ought problem).

Now, despite the above, it seems that one individual here believes that he is able to divine absolute objective moral truth through the application of the scientific method, or logical deduction or something. In response to which, the following quote seems fitting:

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand Russell

[CKay]

And fwiw, my morality is based upon the unprovable utilitarian assumption that that which minimises harm and suffering or increases happiness and well being is the good.

[KitemanSA]

Morality (right vs wrong) is in fact a binary set. There is no "righter or rightest. Actions are either right or wrong.

Sorry, this is an unprovable assertion.

It is a fact amply demonstrated by language.

Morality is a value judgement. What one person thinks is morally acceptable, another may find unacceptable - and there is no objective way, no universal constant from which to take a bearing to decide which of two conflicting moral judgements is right.

Nope. Folks who confuse dogma or credo with morality might believe this, but it is just a confusion.

It is possible to build a system of morality based upon some basic assumptions - 'God is the source of moral authority',

This is the symantically the same as "Thor brings stormy weather".

'human life is sacred',

Equivalent to "humans are unnatural". Somehow beyond the natural world.

'that which minimises suffering is the good',

This is a statement of ETHICS.

or 'most reasonable people would agree that...' etc - but these will still be assumptions the truth of which can not be proven or divined from natural laws (see the is-ought problem).

Approach morality as a scientist might. Look thru all the various attempts thru the ages to describe what people call "right" as opposed to "good". The one that most universally captures what folks keep trying to enunciate is "People (sapient beings) have the right to voluntary action".

Now, despite the above, it seems that one individual here believes that he is able to divine

"observe"?

absolute objective moral truth through the application of the scientific method, or logical deduction or something. In response to which, the following quote seems fitting:

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand Russell

He who knows and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, is a student, Teach him.
He who knows, but knows not that he knows, is asleep. Waken him.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun him.
Ancient Middle Eastern Proverb

[KitemanSA]

And fwiw, my morality is based upon the unprovable utilitarian assumption that that which minimises harm and suffering or increases happiness and well being is the good.

Sorry, this is a statement of your ETHICS; (good vs. bad).

What is our statement of MORALITY? (right vs. wrong)? What makes something "right" as distinct from "good"?

[CKay]

Note : The "basic assumptions" I listed were meant as examples - they are most certainly not the assumptions upon which I base my own moral beliefs.

-

[CKay]

What is our statement of MORALITY? (right vs. wrong)? What makes something "right" as distinct from "good"?

This is your distinction.

Ethics is moral philosophy. It involves discussions about how we ought to act, what is right and wrong behaviour, as well as the nature of the good and the good life.

[CKay]

Approach morality as a scientist might. Look thru all the various attempts thru the ages to describe what people call "right" as opposed to "good".

This is an objective method. But you can't demonstrate that it is a method that will give you access to some kind of objective moral truth.

-

[tomclarke]

I point out the obvious. I see little evidence of a clear line defining one condition from another. As you are the advocate of the clear line, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it's existence and how it might be discerned.

I can't understand your position here. Your "zygotes are human" position
is because you can't find a clear dividing line other than zygot/pre-zygote.

And apparently, neither can you.

It is patent, explicitly stated by me, not apparent.

You adopt this because you don't allow the reasonable position that there is a continuous progression from not-human to human. Thus, most people think that aborting a 1 month foetus is much less harmful to mother, and less morally objectionable, than aborting a 5 month old foetus.

When actual facts are decided by consensus, do let me know. At that point I will vote to eliminate hunger and world wide evil.

Having a moral framework that differs from the rest of society in extreme cases is called psychosis. In yours not, just slight idiosyncracy. I've nothing against that, as long a syou don's start telling other people what they should or should not do.

You further misunderstand me: I have been arguing consistently against clear dividing lines. But I don't have your cognitive inability to imagine shades of grey. All courts do this, if allowed by legal system, even in cases of murder.

So someone gets a "grey" verdict? Or a "grey" sentence? Funny, I thought they were either acquitted or convicted.

Well no. A wide variety of sentences are possib;e for a given crime.

It must be a fascinating world in which you live. I suppose someone has to paint the shades between quanta.

White and black is simple, but loses information. It is not as realistic.

We are discussing legally defined dividing lines, and it is contingent upon you to provide a scientific explanation for your position, not to prattle on some nonsense about it being one big shade of grey. At some point, a decision has to be made, and you ought explain why it should be one place and not another.

Legally defined lines are a matter for law-makers. They are often arbitrary but sensible, as with statutory rape. Similarly with abortion.

I think my perspective is perfectly consistent from a scientific basis. Yours is just an effort to try and force your subjective personal preferences into a costume of objectivity.

Science does not support your position. It supports mine quite well.

Science says nothing about arbitrary moral dividing lines, and in this case nothing about morality.

[williatw]

The point is that the steps taken by your government in the 20th century i.e. the gradual systematic banning of firearms and practically speaking self defense have not helped the British people in fact they have made things worse. All you are saying is well your homicide rate is still much lower than the US so there. They were lower before your gov did anything, the point is that the things they have tried has only made things worse for you not better.

I never like proof by asertion. Do you have evidence to back up this idea? Like historic homicide rates in UK? Noting also problems caused by lack of reporting a long time ago?

As arguments go, the ones on the other side (see above) look much stronger and are backed by:

(1) clear inverse correlation between overall homicide rate and gun owndership

(2) no correlation between non-gun homicide rate and gun ownership.

Across many different countries.

From that filthy untrustworthy rag the BBC news:
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.









Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place





David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.
.

[williatw]

you obviously think it is more "civilized" for a man to watch an intruder break into your house rape your wife or daughter in front of you while you are a good witness for the police, than the barbaric american who would rather shoot the SOB

Obviously.

Such ridiculously overblown and easily refuted rhetoric makes for neither a sound nor a persuasive.

Gun Control's twisted outcome Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/g ... singlepage
English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America's has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times. Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York's homicide rate consistently about five times London's. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years." The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America's "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.