And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Diogenes]

he has made various unprovable, conflicting assertions:

That they have yet to be demonstrated proven does not mean that they are unprovable.

But rather than presenting your theories as assertions - I believe that ...- you present them as self evident facts - it is obvious that blah blah is the case...

They are self evident to me. If you don't like the manner in which they are presented, regard the presentation in whatever manner you prefer.

Can you prove Fermat's last theorem?

A poor analogy:

1.Philosophical problems aren't susceptible to proof in the way that mathematical problems are.

Irrelevant to the point. Fermat's last theorem was merely the first example that came to mind. The point is that just because *YOU* cannot prove something, doesn't mean that it cannot be proven. Fermat's has been proven. You didn't do it, and probably can't. (Neither could I)

2. Following from the above, you can neither prove your theory nor disprove any contrary theory.

A point not in evidence. I may very well be able to prove my theory, and I may very well be able to disprove contrary theories. Of course, at this point I am regarding you more as a contrarian who will continue to espouse a knee-jerk reactionary opposition to anything I point out, so you may very well be correct insofar as I will not be able to prove anything to you. (Self fulfilling prophecy.)

3. Fermat:Mathematics != You:Philosophy

The point was to pick something you couldn't prove but others could, and thereby exhibit the falseness of your thinking. In that regard, Fermat's Last theorem served quite well.

[CKay]

Fermat's last theorem was merely the first example that came to mind. The point is that just because *YOU* cannot prove something, doesn't mean that it cannot be proven. Fermat's has been proven. You didn't do it, and probably can't.

The one certainty in philosophy is that nothing is certain.

There are no absolute proofs... of any theory.

And that includes mathematical "proofs" which depend upon assumptions about the truth of the logical axioms from which mathematics is derived.

Münchhausen Trilemma

This is Epistemology 101 stuff.

[Diogenes]

• A human zygote possesses essential human personage and should thus be accorded the same rights as for any person (an essentialist argument).

The thread of a human life begins at conception .... A basic human only requires a basic right; The right to live.

Hmm, yeah but note my use of the word personage.

In this context it is a term defined by legal authority, and I think i've already demonstrated how arbitrary is their methodology on this (and other) subjects.

If builders built buildings the way courts decide cases, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.

Slaves were once non-persons as well. Eventually the law caught up to reality. I have hopes that it will do so once again.

You believe* that a zygote possesses essential human personage. This is an essentialist position (essence comes before existence).

I believe* that a zygote does not possess human personage. A person is something that a zygote becomes. This is an existentialist position (existence comes before essence).

*Note: we are both expressing beliefs - neither of which can be proven either way.

What *I* believe is that I cannot see a distinction between the one condition and the other, while you on the other hand believe that you can, yet continuously refuse to explain how.

As it is your philosophical argument that there *IS* a distinction, then the onus ought to be upon you to prove that boundary which you see exists.


You say there is a boundary. Prove it!

[Diogenes]

Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

Complete nonsense. Tools have utility. Tools are not living things.

Are you again having trouble comprehending, or are you just trying to think up stuff to respond back?


Tools have no purpose except to those who use them. They only acquire "purpose" BECAUSE a living thing is using them.

In absence of a living thing, a tool is just an inanimate object. The purpose of a living user is like that of an observer in Quantum Mechanics. Only by observation does the wave function collapse into the world of classic physics. Without an observer, it remains in a state of quantum uncertainty.

Tools have no purpose. It is a living thing that IMPARTS purpose to them. "Purpose" is a function of will, not of existence.

[Diogenes]

It serves no purpose in species survival.

Hmm, you are assuming that species survival, the passing on of genetic information, evolution and so on has purpose.

Whereas I see no reason to assume a purpose here. Rather, evolution is a cold, deterministic process that has no necessary purpose. It just is.

A river does not exist for the purpose of transferring water downhill.

And of course assigning purpose and utility to evolution would strongly imply intelligent design.

You are still hung up on the word "purpose". Again, without will, (a characteristic of living organisms) the concept of purpose does not exist.


Something that produces no benefit to a living creature, has no purpose. Water flowing down hill is indeed purposeless unless there is life taking advantage of it.

In the absence of life, (In the immortal words of Homer Simpson) "It's just a bunch of stuff that happened."

[CKay]

You say there is a boundary. Prove it!

I can't prove anything.. and neither can you.

I would think that most reasonable people recognise that there is a difference between a minor and an adult and as such the law determines a somewhat arbitrary age upon which a minor becomes an adult. But no one would ever claim that the chosen age reflects an absolute, finite division between the two states.

And I would similarly suggest that there is a difference between a zygote and a person.

[Diogenes]

Ayn Rand

Haha!

Yep, Ayn Rand's 'objectivism' often crops up as an example of a moral system based upon an unfounded assertion and which thus fails to account for the is-ought problem (... and that's how you've just come across her isn't it - reading up on the is-ought problem?).

Of course. Since you kept going on about it, I had to see if there was a kernel of insight I missed somehow. Nope, I was pretty much correct from the beginning.

Rand's comments reinforce this point in my mind.

Interesting Rand factoid - she spent most of her life denouncing the welfare state... but then happily accepted social security and Medicare when she got old, poor and sick.

Ad hominem eh? Figures.

And why should she not? Was she not forced to pay for it like everyone else? I certainly encourage everyone to get back anything they can from the system. We need to break it. We need to force it to collapse as quickly as possible. I think it ought to be our duty to overload the system. It was a fraud from the beginning and the sooner people come to realize it is unsustainable, the sooner they will take the responsibility for their well being into their own hands.

Allowing it to be created in the first place merely enabled the government to engage in even greater excesses. We spent a trillion dollars on the war on poverty, and it caused far more damage than benefit. It is programs such as Social Security that led the way for them to get their hands on this money. Social Security funds were what allowed the Democrats in Government to get away with so much irresponsible borrowing for so many years.

In her younger days she managed to attract a committed circle of fans (Alan Greenspan was one), but when it became obvious that she was an unhinged, self-serving, sociopath, they abandoned her.

I can see why you would find her appealing.

There is a thin line between genius and crazy. Sometimes people slip over the line. Note

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

Her arguments are solid, and better than anything her opposition has presented. I put her up there with Friedman, Hayek, and Smith.

I say let us not be followers of a personality, but a follower of ideas. The flesh withers and the mind falters, but ideas can remain immortal.

[CKay]

Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

Complete nonsense. Tools have utility. Tools are not living things.

Are you again having trouble comprehending, or are you just trying to think up stuff to respond back?

It's you who has problems communicating your thoughts in a clear way.

This:

Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

cannot be read as having the same meaning as this:

Tools have no purpose except to those who use them.

The two sentences are contradictory. /shrug/

[Diogenes]

Oh and Diogenes, your belief that survival of the fittest is the ultimate moral purpose sounds a lot like eugenics.

Lovely.

If you picked a beautiful wife, you are practicing eugenics. Again, the world makes a lot more sense when you don't insist on forcing artificial boundaries between one condition and another.

[CKay]

Her arguments are solid, and better than anything her opposition has presented. I put her up there with Friedman, Hayek, and Smith.

So you can't fault her thinking?

Even her claims that selfishness is the highest virtue and altruism a moral evil?

[CKay]

Interesting Rand factoid - she spent most of her life denouncing the welfare state... but then happily accepted social security and Medicare when she got old, poor and sick.

Ad hominem eh?

No, not really.

Her hypocrisy indeed shows her in a bad light, but it was not a gratuitous attack on her character. Rand's evident lack of belief in her own loudly proclaimed philosophy has obvious relevance for the credence we give to that philosophy.

(when I called Rand bat-shit crazy and an unhinged, self-serving, sociopath - now that was an ad hominem)

[Diogenes]

There is nothing in current law resembling a clear line. It is RIFE with contradiction and assumption.

And I'm not arguing in favor of current law.

Maybe not by commission, but obviously by omission. What is the law is the entire point of the controversy. You are either defending existing law, or arguing in favor of it's replacement.

I disagree. It is my belief that a Universal morality exists and can be objectively defined. Evolution, in fact, has created such a thing, and it is normally imparted by instinct. We have just yet to recognize and codify it completely.

Some aspects are obvious. "Thou shalt not Murder", "Though shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", etc.

As it is contrary to the passing on of genes from members of a species which kills it's offspring, evolution will eventually correct this problem, and thereby once again assert a Universal morality.

Those that pleasure themselves by creating children and then abjure their responsibility by killing their own offspring will eventually cull themselves from the gene pool in favor of those who do not.

The trait will become less likely to be passed on, unless it has some undiscerned offsetting propagational benefit that comes with it.

You are confusing moral acceptance of abortion with performing the act, as if humanity would somehow descend to killing all babies.

Not necessarily killing all babies.I just ran across this today.

In Japan, birthrates are now so low and life expectancy so great that the nation will soon have a demographic profile that matches that of the American retirement community of Palm Springs. “Gradually but relentlessly,” the demographer Nick Eberstadt writes in the latest issue of The Wilson Quarterly, “Japan is evolving into a type of society whose contours and workings have only been contemplated in science fiction.”

A society that allows abortion can still have an abortion rate near zero.

You are arguing that meddling with an existing dynamic might result in a stable quiescent point? This would only be true if the previous existing dynamic had no real purpose anyway.

My argument is that the degree of instinctive maternal protection will vary from woman to woman. Given time, the characteristic of indifference to offspring will be selected out of the system. The remaining pool of women exhibiting the greater degree of maternal instinct will slowly expand relative to the other.

Your argument that it could reach a quiescent equilibrium seems at variance with natural selection, and that isn't even with regard to any social dynamics at work.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that the stance towards abortion is a trait that is passed on (genetically?). But if that were the case, how did the pro-choice sentiment spread in the first place?

That is a short question that requires a long answer. I don't know how much you know about the history of how we got to this point, so I would have to start from the beginning. Rather than do that, i'll just point out three powerful components.

1. The development of Anti-biotics and birth control medications made the tendency toward reckless sex much more ubiquitous. By removing the worst risks, (in most cases) it induced females to be much less recalcitrant about engaging in sex outside of marriage.

2. The tendency of people to accept those things as true which people in Authority tell them. (The Court said so, and therefore people believed it.)

3. The influence of that minority of people who have been in position to propagate their own personal preferences to the masses, while inhibiting opposition voices from being heard. (Intellectuals, Glitterati, etc.)

Genetic effects in Humans take a long time to manifest themselves because the humans have such a long lifespan. Eventually, reality catches up to stupid human ideas. (See my We are DOOOOOMMMMEDDD! thread.)

As an idea that spreads, it might continue to outpace population growth in such a way that cultures which ban abortion today may grow but at the same time become increasingly tolerant towards abortion.

And they may legalized pedophilia, theft and human sacrifice, (as have some societies in the past) but that wouldn't make these better societies. I would be surprised if nature does not compel them to pay a price.

And it's entirely possible that allowing abortion has offsetting benefits. It could be that it leads to more pregnancies in the first place because sex is perceived as less risky. It could be that women who abort unwanted pregnancies have more children later, while those with an unwanted child don't. It could be that unwanted children are less likely to have children themselves. It could even be that unwanted children are more likely to become murderers.

They are. That's why the "War on Poverty" produced so many criminals. Whether there is a natural selection benefit to abortion remains to be seen. If such exists it certainly seems counter-intuitive.

Subjective laws defined by subjective opinion are not a good basis for justice or stability. The founders believed in "natural law" and employed it in the construction of our nation's government. Where we have deviated from it there have been consequences that have proven to be severe. (Slavery/Civil war)

Again, laws should follow natural boundaries because once established they have a natural resting place and are not so easily moved by whim.

Laws should follow moral boundaries. If those don't happen to coincide with "natural boundaries", tough.

I argue that moral boundaries ARE natural boundaries. See previous comments above. Explain to me how you make a "moral" boundary at three months gestation?

I wouldn't call it "very high". Anyway, why do you assume pregnancy equals not taking precautions?

One would think anyone growing up on planet earth would be aware of the endless examples of previous unwanted pregnancies. With 42 million abortions per year, one would think no further examples or proof ought be necessary.

Where does the linked page refer to failure to take precautions?

It is implicit in the data to anyone that has even a slight understanding of the reliability of various birth control methods.

[*]The purpose of a moral system is in ensuring that the genes of its adherents are passed on (so the morality of an action is down to whether it aids the transfer of genetic material - this a special case of utilitarian argument).

Not just transfer, but to provide the intermediate protection of it as well. It does no good to transfer material that does not in turn transfer material. Raising children to die without offspring is pointless. It serves no purpose in species survival.

Morality serves no purpose to inanimate objects. Of course it is utilitarian. Only living creatures can exert will. Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

So if someome defined their purpose as something other than ensuring species survival, why should they agree that raising children which produce no further offspring is pointless?

If a chicken pretends to be a cow, does that mean you can get milk out of it? Each acts in accordance with it's nature. (i.e. it's programing.)

I suspect that it is not possible for a normal person to reject their instincts in favor of some "purpose" they've made up their mind to follow. Interaction with people everyday are expressions of the instinct towards species survival. If you rescue a child, or loan money, you are engaging in acts that eventually equate to assisting species survival.

The act of eating and breathing is contributing to species survival. I have long argued that the act of suicide is a programed response designed to aid in species survival.

What you suggest would be a neat trick.

Greatest happiness for greatest number is suspect, as nicely illustrated by Huxley's Brave New World, where a drugged-up population is enslaved but happy. But this is merely "greatest fertility for greatest number!"

Happiness is not a purpose, but a condition of functionality. Survival is the purpose. Also, in the example you provided, the happiness only exists as an illusion, and is the consequence of artificial tampering. It isn't actual happiness.

Back to the naturalistic fallacy. If "natural" means "in the absence of external interference", then artificial tampering is the presence of external interference. So happiness derived from the presence or actions of other people is the consequence of artificial tampering, and therefore not actual happiness...

This is the fallacy of false equivalency. Happiness created by interacting with other people is not equivalent to happiness created by absorbing drugs that chemically react with your binding receptors. Chemical induced happiness is no different from shutting down processes or introducing viruses into a computer operating system.

It is tampering with the design of the system, and will likely result in a crash.

Survival is the purpose of what? Do you believe a species is a living creature in itself? And if so, what makes you think that we, merely being its cells, are able to discern its will?

I think people like to create boundaries to define one aspect as "this" and another aspect as "that", when in fact they are regarding different manifestations of a continuum.

Humans and their species are inseparable. A person cannot exist without his predecessors. Even one created out of raw chemicals would be following the blueprint copied from his evolved human ancestors.

As for discerning it's will, it has billions of wills, but the entire lot vector sums to survival and well being.


Later people.

[CKay]

You say there is a boundary. Prove it!

I can't prove anything.. and neither can you.

I would think that most reasonable people recognise that there is a difference between a minor and an adult and as such the law determines a somewhat arbitrary age upon which a minor becomes an adult. But no one would ever claim that the chosen age reflects an absolute, finite division between the two states.

And I would similarly suggest that there is a difference between a zygote and a person.

Seems to me that the questions of 'where is the boundary' is a version of sorites paradox.

[CKay]

Also see the continuum fallacy.

Note: The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

[tomclarke]

This is the fallacy of false equivalency. Happiness created by interacting with other people is not equivalent to happiness created by absorbing drugs that chemically react with your binding receptors. Chemical induced happiness is no different from shutting down processes or introducing viruses into a computer operating system.

It is tampering with the design of the system, and will likely result in a crash.

It is surprisingly easy to find contradictions in everything you say.

How do you define chemically-induced happiness?

What about pleasure after exercise caused by endorphins?

What about the same drugs introduced by intravenous drip?

What about the same drugs introduced by intravenous drip to correct a genetic defect that blocks natural generation of endorphins and causes depression?

You tamper with your body when you eat chocolate (which also causes chemical-induced happiness). Whether this causes a crash or not depends on many things.

This of course is unnecessary argument - there is no absolute distinction between natural and artificial as has been pointed out above....