Ethical Subjectivism and the Pro-Choice Movement
CorporateWhore
Posts: 1,890
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism
Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical belief that all ethical sentences reduce to factual statements about the attitudes of individuals.[1]
Now, I think most intelligent people would admit this is not true all the time. We know some things are wrong and right and it does not vary based on the attitudes of individuals.
But, the Pro-Choice movement seems to use this reasoning frequently. They claim that women should have the right to abortion because only they can make that decision. Some of these pro-choice individuals will even claim that they find abortion is immoral for themselves. And yet they still believe the attitude of the woman determines the morality of the decision for her.
This belief system is false. It is false because a decision cannot vary in morality based on the person confronted with it.
Suppose a Nazi soldier is confronted by a Jewish person and he kills the Jew. For the Nazi, that act was moral. Then suppose an American soldier is also confronted by a Jewish person and he kills the Jew. The act would be immoral for the American.
They committed the same act, but one was moral and one was immoral. This is irrational and it is no way to make moral judgments. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to fault the Nazi for killing the Jew because he could claim that it was a moral act according to his beliefs. In our heart of hearts, we know that his act was immoral.
In the same way, I cannot claim that abortion is okay for other people to do but it isn't okay for me to do. It is either okay for me and for you or it is not okay for me and for you.
Of course, Pro-Choice people do not enjoy admitting that they support the use of such a brutal and disgusting procedure so they conclude that they do not approve of the procedure for themselves but they approve of it for others.
They fail to take accountability for their beliefs. That is the mark of a truly repulsive moral outlook and belief.
At least pro-choice people that admit they would have an abortion have some moral consistency. It is when they claim that I don't have to approve of their act in order for it to be legal that I draw the line though.
Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical belief that all ethical sentences reduce to factual statements about the attitudes of individuals.[1]
Now, I think most intelligent people would admit this is not true all the time. We know some things are wrong and right and it does not vary based on the attitudes of individuals.
But, the Pro-Choice movement seems to use this reasoning frequently. They claim that women should have the right to abortion because only they can make that decision. Some of these pro-choice individuals will even claim that they find abortion is immoral for themselves. And yet they still believe the attitude of the woman determines the morality of the decision for her.
This belief system is false. It is false because a decision cannot vary in morality based on the person confronted with it.
Suppose a Nazi soldier is confronted by a Jewish person and he kills the Jew. For the Nazi, that act was moral. Then suppose an American soldier is also confronted by a Jewish person and he kills the Jew. The act would be immoral for the American.
They committed the same act, but one was moral and one was immoral. This is irrational and it is no way to make moral judgments. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to fault the Nazi for killing the Jew because he could claim that it was a moral act according to his beliefs. In our heart of hearts, we know that his act was immoral.
In the same way, I cannot claim that abortion is okay for other people to do but it isn't okay for me to do. It is either okay for me and for you or it is not okay for me and for you.
Of course, Pro-Choice people do not enjoy admitting that they support the use of such a brutal and disgusting procedure so they conclude that they do not approve of the procedure for themselves but they approve of it for others.
They fail to take accountability for their beliefs. That is the mark of a truly repulsive moral outlook and belief.
At least pro-choice people that admit they would have an abortion have some moral consistency. It is when they claim that I don't have to approve of their act in order for it to be legal that I draw the line though.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
-Enoch Powell
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Thank you for that thoughtful response to such an important issue
-Enoch Powell
actually what is moral is subjective in itself. When human life begins is subjective depending on the person. As for those that advocate choice, even if they are against abortion for themselves, the issue is not moral or personal, I think it's about the Constitution of the United States, and whether the government should be taking a right away from someone or not.
does life begin at conception? a cell? millions of cells in a human die daily. I think blood starts pumping at 18 to 20 days, hell at several months you have a fetus, but you still don't have a viable being that can survive outside the mother.
I think for many, when has a lot to do with how they feel about abortion.
regardless, the generalizations you state are rediculous to lump everyone into your conclusions.
I might as will say all Christians are for the raping and molestation of children since the catholic church not only ignored what was going on, but refused to do anything to stop it for years, and still haven't taken ownership of the problem, though throwing money at it to make it go away is just fine...I guess that makes all Christians guilty. I mean people still go to church, they must agree?
kind of absurb isn't it?
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
you seemed to be looking for approval so i said it's okay...now go get one
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Why don't you spend time promoting your beliefs, as opposed to knocking the beliefs of others....you may garner a bit more credibility.
Well, it does vary quite a bit, otherwise we wouldn't have black rights today. It was considered "wrong" for Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat to a white man.
Slavery was commonly accepted as this: a good thing. Does that make it so? After all, most people thought it was "right".
This is not true. Killing people is immoral, but if someone has a gun to my head or my wife's head, I don't think killing that person would be immoral. Stealing is immoral, but if someone is starving to death, I don't think it would be immoral to steal a sandwich.
And going by this belief that a decision cannont vary in morality based on teh person confronted with it, how do pro life people justify war and the death penalty?
I am pro choice but I think that abortions are immoral for me or anyone else. I just don't have the desire to pass legislation to outlaw something that maybe immoral to me, but not to the next person.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
It is moral to kill in self-defense though. That is true for all people.
-Enoch Powell
That's what you say (and I agree for myself), but I'm sure there are people who believe that it's immoral to kill anyone for any reason. What makes them wrong and us right?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
the problem is who decides what is and is not moral for all people? why is it decided solely by devout christians? you realize that by saying your morality is the correct one (christian) you are doing the same thing as the pro-choice movement.
the issue in the abortion debate is never about choice, or ethics, or anything else. it is about when life begins. the pro-choice people believe it is not until late in the pregnancy. the pro-life people believe it is at conception. there is evidence to support both views.
They're wrong because if you logically follow their beliefs, bad people could kill all of the innocent defenseless people and it wouldn't be immoral. What results is a world of solely murderers. That's no way to judge morality.
Ideally, the most good can be brought about by one's moral system of judgment. Not allowing someone to defend themselves against attack is immoral because a net "bad" results from the act.
-Enoch Powell
There will always be a consistent battle for what is right and wrong. Pro-choice people can claim that abortion is right and pro-life people can claim that abortion is wrong. Eventually society will come to an agreement on it.
I do not allow room for the idea that abortion is okay and pro-choice people should not allow room for the idea that abortion is wrong. But, they shouldn't also claim that I can be opposed to abortion but still believe abortion should be legal. That's an irrational moral judgment.
-Enoch Powell
Is everything cut-and-dry, black and white with you?
No, my hair is cut-short and dark brown.
-Enoch Powell
Only a complete fucking idiot would support it or waste another dollar trying to promote it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
A pro-life person saying "abortion isn't right for anyone" is making a moral judgement on the other person - and in fact making moral choices for other people.
You're right, the first person is being ethically subjective - but the truth of the matter is, ethic subjectivity is the correct way to approach many, many things. And if you start into the whole "either everything is subjective or nothing is" bullshit, well, you won't get very far in this world.
People didn't have as many abortions when it was illegal. I daresay people would jackoff just as much if not more if that was illegal.
-Enoch Powell
Life isn't that cut and dry with most thing and it isn't for pro choice/pro life either.
You've stated numerous times that big government is bad when it comes to health care and disaster aid and I'm sure other areas as well... Why is big government bad then, but not when legislating along your moral beliefs? I'm just surprised that someone who supports Ron Paul so much still wants so much government interference.
There are plenty of things that I view as immoral, but the libertarian side of me doesn't want the government to legislate against. There are also various degrees of morality in my opinion too.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Well, that's a start, I guess.
Ethical subjectivism doesn't answer the difficult moral choices. All I'm saying is: there are better ways to determine moral judgments. Utilitarianism, while I do not necessarily agree with it entirely, is better. Ethical subjectivism is no way to make difficult decisions regarding morality and that is what we are generally confronted with.
A person who says "killing innocent healthy dogs isn't right for anyone" would also be making a moral judgment on all other people. If they tried to make it illegal to kill all innocent healthy dogs, they would be making moral choices for other people too.
We just like to assume that most people don't want to kill dogs in the first place because that is a terrible thing to want to do and we make laws against it with that assumption.
We also assume that people wouldn't want to kill their unborn child.
-Enoch Powell
If you don't think government has the responsibility to protect you from being senselessly murdered, then what responsibility does it have?
In the same way, the government has the responsibility to protect innocent prenatal life.
-Enoch Powell
It stops nothing. It will always return and continue as before. You can't ever own people like slaves and tell them what to do with their personal lives. Ever.
Perhaps for a little tiny while, but it will ALWAYS fail and the entire effort will be a huge waste of time and effort, and money.
It's the same idiotic broken record over and over again.
Hopelessly stuck on stupid some people are.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
no it isn't. im opposed to drinking. but i still think you should be allowed to do it if you want. how is that irrational?
though i do agree it should be a social issue, not a constitutional one. id prefer it to be decided on a state by state or county by county basis.
I understand your point and this is why I usually try to stay away from abortion debates altogether. The two sides will never reach an agreement because they view the issue from two entirely different perspectives.
Yes, the government should protect innocent life and innocent prenatal life, but it all goes back to the question of when life begins.
My wife is 4 months pregnant... we had and ultrasound at 5 weeks and all it was was a yolk sac. We were ecstatic that we were pregnant and that the embryo was implanted in the right place (we had an issue in the past). That being said, I still didn't consider that yolk sac as "life". It represented the possibility of life to me, and the future child that we were hoping for, but at that stage in her pregnancy, I didn't think it's life.
Now at 4 months when a fetus has hands and feet and developing systems in his/her body, yes, I consider it life, but not back at 5 weeks.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
again, this assume the prenatal fetus is alive.
Drinking isn't as serious of a moral dilemma as abortion. It doesn't injure anyone else when done responsibly. Abortion injures the fetus irreparably. I'm all for personal privacy and the government should have no say as to what you do to your body. But, abortion introduces a different scenario: the woman certainly does something to a different human being with different DNA.
The vast majority of issues should be decided state by state.
-Enoch Powell
It's not dead. Living things are usually judged living when their cells continue to divide. Fetuses are living by that standard. They are also human beings with human DNA, albeit lesser developed.
You wouldn't discriminate against lesser developed countries even though they don't have the same power as America. Just because they cannot defend themselves as well as America can doesn't mean you have the right to destroy them.
In the same way, you have no right to kill an unborn child simply because it is less developed.
-Enoch Powell
Besides, pro-choice isn't necessarily pro-death. I'd consider myself pro-choice, but I'd always prefer that the woman go through with the pregnancy, and put the child up for adoption if she must. That said, I do believe there are circumstances where an abortion could be necessary (eg. if childbirth is likely to kill the mother), and a blanket ban helps no one.
but we do allow hunting animals to extinction. we also allow harvesting plants, which also grow via cell division. just because it is not dead does not mean it a living, separate human entity. that's a deep philosophical question.