These are guidelines for psychologists dealing with kids. And, yes, if someone brings their kid to a psychologist, the presumption is that they want that expert to "weigh in" on things. I'm not seeing the offensiveness here. — Baden

This discussion deals with what policy ought be adopted by a society in raising children, with the OP suggesting gender neutrality is a defensible objective. My objection would be in that policy being enforced on others who haven't asked for direction. Good parenting is as much based upon personal morality and tradition as it is a science, and it would be an intrusion to enforce the opinions of psychologists upon parents if they've not sought out those opinions.

Suppose an undercover cop was assigned to infiltrate a gang - a particularly gruesome gang. In order to join the gang they make you pass an initiation, which consists of them kidnapping a person and having you kill them. Would killing them be morally wrong?

Before you answer please consider the following facts that might have weight in your decision.

- The undercover officer had no idea about the initiation test, they were unaware that they'd be required to kill an innocent person to join.
- There are too many gang members present for the undercover officer to fight back and possibly save the kidnapped victim.
- If the officer refuses, the gang will kill both of them.

Thanks in advance for your answers. — Taneras

These are the sorts of questions that divide the Kantianists from the Utilitarians. The former will allow the universe to burn to the ground before they allow a moral rule to be violated, consequences be damned. The latter would just add up the pain and tears from option A versus B and then choose.

I think that it would be hard to judge a man harshly for choosing either option, but I think we can all agree that the true morally corrupt were the gang members. Of course, these hypotheticals need not require there be a morally corrupt agent. You could have asked if it were ok to cook and serve several babies in order to save a dozen others who had been shipwrecked.

Whereas, the politicised gender war taking place in America does seem more poisonous. — unenlightened

Americans, don't you know, wish to be left alone to their own devices, permitted to do whatever they want? The offensiveness of seeing a boy clothed in pink is dwarfed by the offensiveness that the schools, the government, or any APA "expert" knows better how to raise my kids and thinks he or she has the right to weigh in on it.

My assumption, and it seems to bear out in the Swedish example, is that modern society doesn't require regimented male/female roles so much anymore, and it's entirely possible to live happily ever after never being exposed to them. Whether there is an innate inclination for boys to rough house and girls to play house, maybe, but it's doubtful that not catering to those innate drives will amount to much harm. It's also doubtful that raising boys like traditional boys and girls like traditional girls is going to do much harm either, assuming there is no abusiveness or humiliation in the process.

This strikes me as a government intrusion issue more than an issue of conservatives trying to demand how their neighbors raise their children.

Yes, overuse of the quote — S

Not to interrupt, but I agree that overuse is bad

function can also be bad — S

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

This is why I love you. Let's get married. I hear that there are some beautiful churches in Dover. There's this one church in particular which I have my heart set on, close by those lovely white cliffs. — S

The church in Dover sounds nice, but there are a few problems. First, Dover is far away from me and I'm not sure it's worth the flight. Second, I was more thinking a synagogue. Third, I think we're going to have to convince the immigration officials that our marriage isn't a sham just to give you citizenship in the US so that you can avoid the consequences of Brexit. Fourth, since man on man love cannot result in disposable offspring, we'll have to adopt children for that purpose, and I understand there is red tape involved in that process, especially for those who have previously incinerated their children. If I had my druthers, I'd prefer adopting and disposing Dutch children as the best they'd have ever achieved is becoming a Dutch adult, and their value is just above a piece of straw and just below a chewing gum wrapper based upon the International Human Worth Scale (IHWS).

On an unrelated note, does anyone know how much it would cost to hire an incinerator for the day? — S

I don't think we need a whole day. We can throw a whole lot of fuckers in there in just under an hour. I have some evidence from some other shit I did a while ago that I also need to incinerate, so we can do all that at once.

A long post I know, but comprehensive I think.

I take your subjective emotive position as primitive and undeveloped and rife with problems because it doesn't offer a reason (as it's emotive) for me to accept your position. If you like murder and ice cream, but I don't, I don't know how you're going to convince me of either. We're just dealing with preference under your theory.

I'm not denying an immediate intuitive reaction people have when faced with moral issues, like feeling repulsed by murder. This is not an entirely rational reaction I'll admit, but it's not entirely emotive. There are good reasons, after all, for believing murder wrong, as in it would destroy society. Matters of conscience are more complicated than just emotive preference for things, like ice cream.

I called your position primitive because I do agree that we start with these intuitive reactions to situations, but we then derive principles for deciphering the morality of hard cases. Utilitarianism and Kantianism are two efforts of providing such principles. I think we all agree that few if any actually keep the categorical imperative in their head at all times and use it to decide right from wrong, but that's not to say it might not describe the process many undertake intuitively.

We also have to admit that some often feel emotional repulsion to things that they morally ought not feel such repulsion for (e.g. homosexuality, mixed race marriages) and we must admit that some feel a lack of emotional repulsion when they morally ought to (e.g. child molesters, serial killers). The idea that we can logically convince the morally misguided to change their emotional preference makes as much sense as logically convincing someone to like ice cream who doesn't. We do, though, change people's minds when it comes to moral questions, which means something more is at play than simply emotional reaction.

In the examples I gave of people having an inappropriate moral compass, all have a certain underlying principle that is being violated. Namely, each shows a lack of respect for autonomy and deprives people of the power of their own decision making. This principle that drives much of moral theory must therefore be applied consistently throughout other moral decisions. So, for example, if I find homosexuality abhorrent, my mind could be changed by pointing out that my moral rejection requires that I ignore the moral principle of affording people the same autonomy I insist upon providing people in all other situations. Assuming I'm reasonable, I then will reconsider and then take a permissive view on homosexuality, perhaps while even maintaining my emotional repulsion to it. It is the logic, not the emotion, then that drives the final decision.

So, back to abortion. If we accept that we must protect individual autonomy at a certain level in order to be moral people, we then must figure out who has the right to this protection. We generally say that people do, and for reason, we must decide who is a person. The fetus is a hard case because it tests our ability to offer a fine tuned definition, but find a definition we must. Throwing our arms up (ala @Banno) to the notion of definitions is too easy. We all know the limitations of definitions and we all know the problems of essentialism, but just because we can't figure out an exact and always accurate definition of a cup doesn't suggest we don't know when we have a cup and when we do. My response then is as it was, which is that we have to offer a definition of "person" that liberally protects things that might not entirely be people, simply because the destruction of something that might be a person is so morally wrong.

I was never the only person who judges it to be wrong, so it was never wrong only for me. There were always others. And you're one of them, surely. So why do I need to convince you? — S

This is non-responsive.

The question was asked so that you could provide your basis so that I would know what you relied upon to determine that infanticide was murder. Whatever principles you rely upon should be usable to determine the outcome of unclear cases. This, of course, assumes your principles are logical and not simply emotive, but if they are emotive, then I'd have expected you to say that in response to the question I posed, as opposed to simply posing another question of your own.

I can't force you either way. I can only tell you why I judge the matter as I do and try to convince of why you should adhere to my moral standards. — S

Alright, why is murdering infants wrong other to you?

Is there a question here?

No objection whatsoever to ethical analysis generally. A declaration of ethical subjectivism? Why not? — S

It's the "says you" defense. I say abortion is wrong and you say "says you," and I say sure, and because I say it, it is so for me but not for you, and then we just sort of end things there.

I meant that there's a variation within a particular range to the extent that it makes this a highly controversial topic. — S

There are actually variations throughout the whole spectrum of opinions. A small minority find murder of children moral. Infanticide is practiced in some cultures. Are you committed to infanticide being moral for me if I say it is?

I certainly judge murder to be deeply wrong. My moral overview is not that nothing is wrong and that therefore anything goes, which is the suggestion I suspect you of planting. I just don't believe in objective morality. — S

You don't think anything goes for you, but I don't see upon what basis you can force me to adhere to your moral standards unless you think there's something inherently correct about them and that's it not just a matter of personal preference.

You’re being obtuse. You are a human being; you have been one from the moment you began to develop. You did not develop from a sperm cell, you did not develop from an egg cell, you have never been a liver cell, you have never been a fingernail. The combination of the former two was your conception and beginning; the latter two are simply a part of you. — AJJ

Why was a I a human being the minute I began to develop? If you keep saying it, does it just become true?

If I have a stack of wood, a saw, and a set of plans, do I have a table?

No, no, no. That's not actually reflective of reality. There is no objective point at which sufficient worth can be attained. The whole reason why this topic is so controversial is because there is such variation. Different people value this "thing" differently or not at all depending on a number of subjective factors. People have different feelings, different priorities, different ways of thinking. That's the key determinant here, not personhood. Your rules are not the rules. There are no rules we must all adhere to, we each set our own. — S

This strikes me as a global objection to ethical analysis generally and a declaration of ethical subjectivism,

You speak of the massive variations in opinions and subjective viewpoints, but there's actually a well formed consensus on whether the intentional killing of a healthy, bouncing baby boy is unethical. If we can't say whether the killing of an embryo is objectively wrong because all such determinations are necessarily subjective, then it follows we can't say the same for the murder of you and me. If I've misunderstood your position and you actually believe there is an objective basis to declare the murder of you or me unethical, then you'll have to explain why those same objective criteria cannot be used to evaluate what may rightly be done to embryos.

The equivocation issue arises here in how you're using "state's rights." As to abortion regulation, the Court was examining the Constitutional limit on government power generally, which in this case happened to deal with a specific state law. Roe v. Wade would apply equally even if the abortion regulation examined were a federal law and not a state law. Their use of the phrase "state's right" was synonymous with government's right.

The Civil War "state's right" issue was a 10th Amendment argument, arguing the federal government was improperly imposing its power on the individual states. The term states' rights here means the actual states, as opposed to the federal government.

Reject the CA, if you see something better. — Banno

I'll accept the CA, but reject your criteria you've offered. I'm fine with accepting the conclusion that we will never define the essential characteristics of a person, but I instead fall back on the idea that I know a conceptus is not a person but that a newborn is. The precise delineating line is unclear, so within the grey area, I give the benefit of doubt to personhood.

I don't shrink from ensoulment either, as I do believe the newborn is sacred, yet the embryo not. Religious talk causes discomfort I know, so substitute ensoulment with simple becoming.

And the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery: a rank piece of sophistic re-writing of history. — tim wood

This misunderstands @Rank Amateur's post. Roe v. Wade is in fact about the state's (meaning the government's) limits and rights to regulate abortion. The civil war, to the extent it was about state's rights, was about the authority of the federal government to dictate it's authority upon the states (meaning the individual states of the Confederacy). I think you're equivocating with the term "state" here.

Wrong question it seems. How valuable is it? — S

A quibble. A one second old embryo has minimal worth, but a 10 year old child infinite worth. At what moment in time does this thing have sufficient worth to cause us to protect it fully? That moment is called personhood.

I destroyed the first one. Tree or acorn?

Note the term approach. The list is not a definition of personhood. It's rather a way of thinking about what we ought to do. — Banno

I'm not sure how you define "approach" here other than a definition that works only sometimes.

Nor a foetus from growing; if it were not for the overwhelming capabilities of the woman. — Banno

I don't understand how this follows. You started out trying to generally define personhood and then threw down a balancing test to use when deciding fetal rights versus women's rights.

If I value oak trees, then I should value acorns, despite the fact that acorns are not oak trees. — S

Sure, I'll value them both, but lets say there's a need for a law that prohibits cutting down oak trees. Do you get fined for stepping on an acorn? What's the difference between the two?

Yeah, you tell him, Hanover! Stop dancing around the irrelevant question, AJJ! — S

I'll pay attention to you in a moment. I see you've got your hand raised.

As to AJJ, his position is explicitly that certain things are clearly classified as human and others not, so he does have answer the question, even if you believe you have a better solution that avoids his problem.

The qualities listed by Nussbaum are sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.

A newborn is a person. — Banno

Yes, but what about the drunk homeless man, asleep in the gutter? Shall we kill this insentient, unemotional, inaffectionate, physically unhealthy, and irrational hunk of flesh before he awakes and sobers up?

A liver is not a human being. Neither, as far as I’m aware, is it made of a single cell. A human being is one of us, from the point at which we begin to develop, which is the moment of conception, right? — AJJ

But you're dancing around the question. What is a human being? Why is a sperm attached to an egg a person and a fingernail not?

So we're concerned about the potential future of the foetus (to be a deformed child). Yet earlier Banno was saying that it isn't reasonable to consider the potential future of the foetus (to be a child) to determine that abortion is wrong. I'm highlighting the apparent inconsistency between these two positions. — Michael

I'm not sure it is inconsistent. Only people can sue, not fetuses, so if you abort the fetus, it never gained any rights to do anything. The thing that sues is the person, complaining his mother smoked, the factory produced noxious fumes, or drug company failed to warn mothers of the dangers.

True. It's not my conclusion, but my starting point. — Banno

Then your conclusion is your starting point. If you start with the idea that only people have rights and that fetuses aren't people, then what's there to debate? I'd think the issue for debate would be whether your definition of "people" is sustainable, especially in light of the fact that many of those we consider "people" do not have the attributes you list. For example, an infant, a coma patient, a severely brain injured person, a drunk person, an asleep person, and many others would not be rational or autonomous. I could accuse you of ensouling people as well, arguing that the reason such people are afforded rights is that they have that magical sprinkling of humanity in them, call it a soul or what you will.

Persons aren't the only thing of value. — S

Are you arguing things other than humans have inherent value, and are you suggesting that value exists without humans?

A sperm, an egg or a random cell are not human beings. Left to themselves they do not become anything more than what they are. — AJJ

Each cell grows and each organ grows, so they do become more than what they are.

Regardless, you're adding arbitrary rules here. Previously you claimed that a embryo was entitled to protection under the law because it was human life, but now I'm to learn it must be human life that is capable of becoming something else. As I've pointed out, my liver satisfies your definition, so you'll need to continue working out the nuances of your definition.

We condemn pregnant women who smoke because we care about how it will affect the growth of the foetus for the sake of the future child, not the sake of the thoughtless mother. — Michael

The law is consistent with only people having rights. The fetus could not sue for its injuries, only the injured child could. What we're concerned about when expectant mothers drink and smoke is not deformed fetuses, but deformed children. Partying moms to be yield people like you.

Since I'm a lawyer, and law is all I like to talk about, I'd also point out that wrongful life suits are generally not recognized, and when they are, there are limitations (except apparently by the Dutch). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_life That is, you can generally not sue because you were born and argue they ought to have aborted you knowing how bad off you'd be. That is such a lovely concept, though, son's advocate suing mom for not aborting him when she had the chance.

If. A person is an end in themselves; a foetus a means to an end. — Banno

You assume your conclusion in you argument, namely that a fetus is not a person. That seems to be the issue in dispute. If one takes a fetus to be a person, it cannot be an means to an end.

It seems to me that you either maintain that life matters from the moment of conception, or it matters from some other, entirely arbitrary, point in a human being’s development — AJJ

Your comment does properly recognize that the pro-choice crowd uses an arbitrary moment to define when human life begins, but you fail to recognize that the pro-life crowd does as well. Conception is an arbitrary moment to declare the existence of human life, as is quickening. as is the trimester framework.

If it is so clear, then you must explain why killing a live sperm or live egg is not murder, or why killing any live cell on a human body is not murder.

People claim to be appalled by abortion but then they tolerate this: — Andrew4Handel

Assuming they do tolerate child neglect and do nothing to alleviate it, or, better yet, assume they actually advocate child abuse and also are opposed to abortion, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is justified. The best you've shown is that there are some fucked up hypocrites in the world.

Why are the people around me so stupid? — AppLeo

Do you live on Jupiter because that is where people go to get more stupider?

I've never been able to get a good education, not so much because of my class standing, my pedigree, or even an unavailability of funding, but more so because any school that would let me in obviously couldn't be that good.

How dare you?! I did not incinerate my children. I would never do such a thing.

I threw them off of a cliff. — S

The incinerator was at the bottom of the cliff though.

Sorry to hear about Fido. Are you doing the full bagpipes sort of funeral or are you throwing him in the county incinerator like you did your children?

Are you going to change your name to Esse? It sounds a bit more feminine I think.

It's going pretty good, I guess. Wish the weekend were longer. The kids are doing well, thanks for asking. The oldest has a birthday coming up. Fun! Fish and chips sound good, but I think the extra crispy ones are a little heavy for my taste. I hope Fido is doing good. He's always been a ball of energy. There's an over the counter treatment for worms you might try. It'll save you a little money. I'm sure your shoes are lovely and knowing your taste, I'm sure they match your dress, although I did think you were a guy. I wasn't aware you were a cross-dresser, but I do admire your courage. I'm sure you make a beautiful man. It is nice to talk to you, and I hope you, Fido, and your transition all go well.

But let's use the perception of the bug. Considering that it is really small compared to us, do you think that it sees us moving slowly? — Paul24

I don't know about bugs, but my cat is pretty small and she seems to move in hyper speed, so that would support your theory that maybe she sees me moving really slow so she's able to swat me faster than I can swat her. On the other hand, I find that worms are really slow, so I can't really find any rhyme or reason to this other than maybe some things are fast and some slow and some have quick perception and some are dull and dimwitted, like a worm.

In this way, testicles are both a representation of pure masculinity and a vulnerability that betrays this very same masculinity. — darthbarracuda

Yeah, but if you call someone a dick, it's not a compliment either, so there's that. Calling a man a pussy also isn't a compliment, but I suppose women could tolerate that insult better, considering it amounts to pointing out their lack of masculine assertiveness which they aren't always expected to have (damn double standards).

Regarding humor, I might laugh if two women were punching one another's breasts like speed bags, or if one took a kick to the hoo-haa and the other cried out "Ouch! My balls!" All of this assumes slapstick cartoon humor where no one is actually getting injured. I, being the sensitive soul that I am, truly never found humor in those videos where someone flew headfirst off their bicycle into a beehive, nor where someone took a kick to the nads. It's not funny, but then again, I'm very sophisticated. If you don't get it, grow a pair of ovaries and call me.

I don't believe any form of speech should be censored, no matter how idiotic, ignorant, hateful or violent. One is either are a proponent of free speech or of censorship and I choose the former. Let the revolutionaries preach the revolution. Let the KKK preach their racism. Let conspiracy theorists talk about how the government is brainwashing you. I don't see why that should bother me, unless they commit violent actions. At that point the authorities should swoop in and enforce the law. — Tzeentch

Counterexamples to consider: Defamatory speech aimed at a particular person, as in me destroying your reputation and causing you to lose your job based entirely upon lies, me refusing to honor an oral contract with you, or me causing imminent danger to the public by yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The examples you provided were all of the same sort. They were generalized ideological statements, and they are generally allowed in Western democracies, regardless of their offensiveness. An exception to that would be Germany's limitation on advocacy of Nazism, but that is understandable, considering their particular history.

The prohibition isn't against speech. It's against promising something and not delivering it. — Terrapin Station

Promising something isn't speech? What is it, a rabbit?

"Metre" is a rigid designator for a certain length. — Banno

I'm not being stubborn here, so help me out. What is a rigid designator other than a certain type of precise definition, where a definition of the form X is Y is reducible to X is X because there's perfect synonymity?

Could you provide an example of a flexible designator? My point will be (spoiler alert) that all designators are flexible.

What am I missing?