It’s certainly an interesting dispute. Thank you for asking.

Could you perhaps elaborate on what you feel is presented here (in the concept of the 'practical view of the potential of a fetus' and why this wouldn't clear itself back to the Sperm without fault. — AmadeusD

The chances of killing a sperm actually effecting someone (and it would also need to be negative as well, only deaths matter because the chance of a positive genetic change is the same as a negative one), is extremely slim. You might say that with my philosophy it would still be impermissible, and I would probably ask you why you are killing a sperm in the first place.

Maybe it is a requirement for this argument to make sense that killing a sperm would also be impermissible. Maybe it is.
But using this to say what I’ve said is a non-functional argument obviously has some flaws, as that means that any crime that has a probability of effecting something isn’t as impermissible with a lower probability. (Obviously adding a benefit of the crime that doesn’t chance or at least doesn’t change as much affects this, but this particular question works the opposite way.)

Furthermore, if the implications of this idea do in fact clear back to a sperm, then why doesn’t the crime of killing an infant clear back to the fetus back to the sperm?

What’s the point at which a fetus becomes valuable enough to be worth keeping (or morally significant enough to demand keeping)?

(If this doesn’t answer your question just rephrase and I’ll give it another go.)

I merely wanted to point out that, even if you are opposed to abortion on moral grounds, it's hard to argue that banning abortion in the present improves the situation for anyone. It's hard to see how taking the decision away from those most involved - the parents - is an effective strategy. — Echarmion

Fair point. Banning abortion right now is definitely not the play. I do hope that it eventually becomes a thing of the past.

There's plenty of room for debate about "not completely necessary".
I think we have to be careful about a policy in relation to decisions that ought to be made at an individual level. A policy of encouraging people to have children because the population is declining (or the reverse) is one thing - and actions to make the process (for or against) easier would not be objectionable. But laws compelling people in either direction are objectionable; people tend to resist them strongly anyway. — Ludwig V

Totally agree.

It really, truly does not seem like anything of any note. This would be the same as pretending "every sperm is sacred" . Preventing a potential is the same as allowing a potential. It is prior to the issue. — AmadeusD

The difference is the probability. Killing one sperm isn’t really going to affect the chances of a successful pregnancy and birth. Killing a fetus is massively more likely to have prevented a life.

It's about the moral implications of the practical view of the potential of a fetus, specifically. Not about holding the value of the fetus or sperm up to a human life by rote.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim that no access to abortion would make the world a better place. Who benefits from such a policy? The unborn? But then why do "potential" people have a say at all? — Echarmion

This point (while valid to a large degree) is fully though the point of view of someone already living in this world. It's one argument to say that more humans limit the quality of life of existing humans, and a whole other to say that because of this it's good to prevent new people being born. It's not that they have a say (as they don't), it's that we can still (obviously) measure the pros and cons of the unborn being aborted versus continuing normally.

Currently we have a lot of social and political issues limiting reform at this level, or just making them not worth it. That's why this argument in particular is more about the practical philosophy of limiting abortions and not a moral call to do so now.

Obviously I'm not calling for all abortions to be banned. I just think that in the future, we would do well to adhere to a policy of not aborting when not completely necessary (presuming a future that has improved upon the world today, which might be a stretch, but is also the only way I can see a future at all).

My belief is slightly different. God does not create evil or allow it to exist except when he must to avoid destroying our agency.

God has clearly given us opportunities to make choices, and so the most he can do to alleviate the suffering of the righteous is to offer comfort and blessings despite challenges. Anything more usually limits others’ agency.

What we see as God allowing evil is often just the unavoidable result of putting fallible men in bodies capable of harming others, with those men often having the inclination to do so.

A lot of this discussion is morally based, but there is, I think, another side to it. Practically, as a species, it makes little to no sense to allow any abortions (obviously there are special cases).

At least some moral element must be introduced for a practical law; banned abortion also means additional suffering for many individuals who had no choice in the matter, and so at least some limited abortion must exist.

Another thing is that if you delve too deep into the moral side of it you begin to realize that the suffering of even a conscious fetus being aborted is nothing compared to the experiences of a life. From that standpoint, maybe not even viewing a fetus as a person who can be murdered but as an individual with a potential to live, it seems like the worst kind of crime to purposefully prevent that individual the chance of a life.

I’m sure that this issue, although major, is somewhat temporary, as no doubt an issue with such political traction will at some point experience technological development making more and more premature and less uncomfortable delivery methods possible. I look forward to that.

In my opinion, the whole idea of a fact or a truth only makes sense in a human concept. There are no untrue things in the universe besides things we have created. The whole concept of a statement and its properties is a product of our language and thinking processes.

There are no true facts in this concept because out of a human concept, things just are, they aren’t true or false. Interesting concept, I can explain further.

There isn’t really another practical definition of a pure fact, and it’s hard to formulate one even if there could be one. For example, if you take a pure fact to be something that’s true in every context, and take any statement, that statement will have sections that are defined a specific way but could be defined differently by different people and therefore not true in their context.

Despite all this, there are still truths that are absolute, if not pure. We can thank our brains for creating specific contexts and allowing us to use highly useful human fabrications such as language, logic, and truths.

One of the most appealing parts about this philosophy to me is that it works in the context of this question. This is only really an applicable answer in some interpretations of the question, using some definitions.

And finally, my commitment to practical philosophy requires me to mention that this is practically a good thing, as it allows us to interpret the universe in our context, and determine what we trust and what we don’t.

The answer to the question at the end of this OP is easy to answer.
We should worry about misinformation because it’s effective and because usually misinformation means a darker truth is being hidden, one that it would be good for the public to know about.

However, that’s not what I think this is actually about. The argument you made is more relevant to the question: “How should we go about avoiding misinformation?” and I believe the best plausible solution is just to rely on individuals who care using their resources to find truth on their own.
Having someone else tell you what's true just adds another chance for the truth to get corrupted.

Language often fails to describe specific yet often powerful experiences, which is why poetry and songs and stories are so important to human culture, as they get closer to replicate the indescribable feelings in actual experiences.

However, the main downfall of our languages is also the reason why telling stories works and is done for a living- some speakers are better than others.
Flawed can easily lead to miscommunication, and so more often we argue over language than substance. Maybe if we could use it better, we could also fix language easier.

What kinds of beliefs specifically do you think we should aim to suspend?

This has to be more specific. If a decision isn’t based on beliefs (including knowledge) then it must not be a decision (or it’s random/meaningless, depending on whether you allow beliefs that enable you to choose something.
The real question is “Are there personal beliefs that we should ignore when making decisions that x”, x being a variety of things (affect other people, are important, etc). The answer is probably yes, but it's not like it's going to be easy to decide which ones those are.
And before you say that it’s about personal beliefs, you must define what that means to have a meaningful conversation about it.

I would define it as anything that has any value of any property specific to itself. (Having the property and the value be specific to itself, not have a unique property/value).
For example, a down quark is a thing because it has a charge (one of many properties), but it is not two things because all the properties of the quark are not properties of only one of two smaller things (according to our understanding).

I think this is primarily a result of taking things that determine results and saying “there are not measurable, therefore they cannot have determined the result.”
This is often directly true.
Indirectly is another matter.
Oftentimes something you can’t measure (such as potency) influences not only the result of such an experiment to find something but also the process by which the other factors influence the result.

In the infinity example, you could easily make a case to say “x physical equation isn’t dependent on infinity” and then dispute any contrary idea because its impossible to measure infinity as the input or output variable. Despite this, we still use the concept of infinity in the physical sciences because it’s a useful tool for theoretical calculations and it is necessary to make our equations work because a mathematical system where infinity doesn’t exist wouldn’t be as accurate in portraying our universe.

It all depends on where it’s useful, I think.

It’s easier to discard potency in natural philosophy because we only have to get rid of a few applications, while if we discarded infinity we would also have to ignore the gaping hole in our calculation system and we would have to ask ourselves if any of our non-basic mathematics even makes sense without infinity.

So, empiricism has its flaws, and this is one of them.
While we can’t prove them the way we would want to, we still need to retain some concepts because they are essential to understanding the other progress we have made. And where we can discard concepts and not lose a night’s sleep about it, we do, because we are trying to be as accurate as possible.

So in this instance, you replace something that already existed rather than always being that thing from the get go/start? — Benj96

That’s what the OP sounded like it was asking to me.

So in this case your "God" concept is a particular state or thing separate to you that can be unified with, or from which you can take over responsibility/definition? — Benj96

Yes, that’s the assumption.

How would u say this pre-existant and you are separated? And how would you go about reaching towards and becoming it? — Benj96

We are separated by our histories.
I would reach towards, but I wouldn’t need to try to become it, as we would be completely different in the ways I would prefer and similar in our abilities.

I would probably continue to do whatever that deity is doing, assuming this God is omniscient (as it would have some reason to do or not do something, and I would follow the same reasoning). If it's just an omnipotent God, my first step would probably be exploration, figuring out my new nature, the rules of the universe, how I became a God, etc.

Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks.
The reason for this I find sort of funny. A pretty big assumption would need to be made to attempt to find the truth of a question that deals with truth-discovering methodology. Therefore, I get straight to the use-cases.

Another thing. Even if it leads to assumptions and a limited context in which an answer is useful, looking for an objective answer can be helpful, because if one is found, at is at least true for the context it was found in. This also allows a comparison of contexts easily on that issue, seeing if that truth is provable in a different context can have ramifications for other truths in the new context.

Regardless of whether or not relativism is more accurate, or if we feel as though objectivism is too rigid, assuming objectivism in the search for truth (the answer to this question's use case) is generally more useful than assuming relativism.

Most truths worth looking for (except for personal truths) either have one answer, or the assumption that they have one answer leads to more productive debate and higher quality proposed solutions.

This is just my take, though.

We’ll, I’m assuming they can’t actually be perfect, and that an authoritarian government wouldn’t do a great job in making them.

I wouldn’t want to live in a society where every offense in punished heavily. And who knows? Maybe the people think this is for the best. But I doubt it.

It’s sad that there is truth to this. I agree that any realistic society will fall short barring divine intervention.

The most likely reason to me, however, is simply that a government and country set up for perfect individuals would not actually work for real individuals.

You do bring up a good point, and that is that a government that claims its goal is perfection is probably just a dictatorship. I can’t imagine that goal would mean more freedom to the people.

The only example you gave that I feel made sense in the context of the explanation you gave was the riches vs poverty one. This is also the least relevant to a utopian society.
The bad experiences actually happening isn't what's necessary, it's the possibility of them (or the memory of them).

Usually the balance argument is about the fact that these things (riches, joy, etc) could never have existed without some poverty or pain.

In my opinion, the only thing holding a utopian society back the actual viability, which primarily depends on perfect individuals.

Religion has the answer for that question.

Personally I think it is morally obligatory to defend yourself in a way that doesn’t hurt the attacker, but it could also be permissible to defend yourself in a way that hurts the attacker. As long as the previous is obligatory, you don’t get problems where someone who has been attacked (assuming they follow this) attacks the original perpetrator for vengeance.

The reason the latter isn’t impermissible (and is allowed legally) in my mind is because of 3 reasons, most of which have to do with the likely hook of being able to actually apply these principles.

• It is unreasonable to expect people to not fight back in the interest of others, especially since we have an instinct for self-preservation.
• There will always be people that violate the moral code, and allowing self defense in it discourages the perpetrator from attacking, for fear of action on the victim’s part or simply the ineffectiveness of the attack itself. The moral code described in the OP hasn’t been widely adopted because it only really works best in a society where everyone follows the code, in which case you don’t need it.
• Self defense with the conditions stated above is almost always an overall benefit for humanity as a whole, usually benefitting the victim more than it hurts the perpetrator, and discouraging attacks from occurring, as stated above.

Generally, a utilitarianism (negative or otherwise) would agree that self defense is necessary in these situations.

TL;DR: I agree with all but the second stipulation. Not that it is always good, but that if it actually has a good effect that outweighs the bad, then it is permissible. Obviously the question of weights complicates things a little, but it feels like the right way to go.

Personally I think it is morally obligatory to defend yourself in a way that doesn’t hurt the attacker, but it could also be permissible to defend yourself in a way that hurts the attacker. As long as the previous is obligatory, you don’t get problems where someone who has been attacked (assuming they follow this) attacks the original perpetrator for vengeance.

The reason the latter isn’t impermissible (and is allowed legally) in my mind is because of 3 reasons, most of which have to do with the likely hook of being able to actually apply these principles.

• It is unreasonable to expect people to not fight back in the interest of others, especially since we have an instinct for self-preservation.
• There will always be people that violate the moral code, and allowing self defense in it discourages the perpetrator from attacking, for fear of action on the victim’s part or simply the ineffectiveness of the attack itself. The moral code described in the OP hasn’t been widely adopted because it only really works best in a society where everyone follows the code, in which case you don’t need it.
• Self defense with the conditions stated above is almost always an overall benefit for humanity as a whole, usually benefitting the victim more than it hurts the perpetrator, and discouraging attacks from occurring, as stated above.

Thank you so much. I knew there was some big evidence I missed.

Pardon me if this is a little bit missing the point of this post, but are we not just able to say,
Yes, in that our actions have an effect on our thoughts and behaviors (ignoring the free will problem).
Because how else would you describe changing your thoughts and behaviors in a universe that allows perfect free will? Are we not as free as it gets?
Even if our thoughts, behaviors and choices are decided by a set of factors we don't always have complete control over, I believe free will is simply our senses of reason or want being a factor and influencing the importance of other factors at play.

This seems to me as free as you could be without being omnipotent, being able to choose based on these factors, as opposed to being forced to pick a choice.

And while many say this allows and even proves determinism in the subject universe, I would say that determinism only really makes sense as a concept if the future is realized by anything before it becomes the present. If the idea of the future is not literally real (which is another matter of debate), then determinism doesn't make any sense. You could say that determinism deal with the past, but this is only because you have hindsight. From that point in the past, the outcome you are talking about cannot have been determined if the future doesn't exist (either as a prediction of some entity or if you subscribe to the block universe theory, or others).

If the future is literally real, then yes, this is determinism.

Here's an example of Jesus claiming God is his father in the Bible:

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

- Matthew 16:17
And here saying his father conferred the kingdom upon him:

29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:29

If you are going off of the Bible as a source, it's hard to see a way that Jesus could have just been an ordinary man, or a "great moral teacher" as many say.

Option 3 surely.
I am convinced enough of my religion that if I truly was convinced that the Christian God was not real it would be because of a slight difference, not a major issue, and I would likely know where to look for a religion that fits the logical process that convinced me better.

Additionally, while this might have been the right choice given the post, Jesus could never have been just a man, in that he was either divine or he was a hypocrite who told others to repent while being so prideful as to make himself divine when he was not.

But I wonder if we would find it easier to make progress if we stopped amalgamating a complicated and multi-dimensional issue into one, and treated the various sub-issues piecemeal, leaving the grand distinction to fall into place (or to fall into disuse) as it may. — Ludwig V

I think it’s likely we would make more progress.
Part of the reason why we do this is because many people view the entire point of these subjects is exactly that, to combine them, and so we are as a result, overeager to do so.

It would, surely, be more accurate to say the science is about understanding the universe conceived of as a machine, or the universe insofar as mathematics can be applied to it — Ludwig V

Agreed.

Are you assuming that the study of literature and history are essentially philosophical? That's an interesting thought. I think there's a case to be made. — Ludwig V

I didn’t think I was, but looking back, probably?
There is obviously at least some overlap with attempting to understand the past and the field that works in understanding our present knowledge and answering the deeper questions that elaborate on human nature.

It might be more accurate to say the instead of the humanitarian studies being philosophical, that philosophy is concerned with studies of all sorts, and apart from the study itself, it is also concerned with the subject matter of these studies, given that they often pose questions we try to answer.

I also realize that I am leaving out the connection between philosophy and other fields’ subject matter, but I hope it suffices to simply say that they are useful for understanding the world we live in (and therefore are relevant) but often not as useful for understanding ourselves in that world individually and as a collective. It would simply take too long to talk about fields individually for my patience.

I guess I haven’t asked these questions because I myself look at things from a religious, or more specifically, a Christian perspective.

I do, however, agree that these are important questions either way.

I think this is probably true, and that everyone would feel cheated out of something.
For those who received the payment, they would feel it as inadequate for repairing the suffering of their ancestors (which it, no doubt, would be), and for others (specifically lower class people who didn’t receive the payout), it would feel unfair that they didn’t get anything but many more rich and privileged did.

And finally, to everyone else, it would feel as though they had been cheated out of their chance to truly make things right, because now the chance of any reparations being made again are very slim.

Generally I agree with what is said here, I would just like to point out my previous comment only claims that they can coexist, not that they do.

The interesting thing for me about this coexistence is that it makes determinism less powerful. It means that true determinism only exists if someone knows about our actions before we make them. Otherwise, it can just be concluded that even if you still think determinism exists in a universe with the coexistence, it is the weakest kind, given that we would have the free will to choose and the only way it is determined is by the factors that influence our choices.

I don't pretend to be very knowledgable on this subject, but I as well like the idea of the quaila literally being the self. It feels pretty distinguished from the elegant idea of the self being our minds, our reactions to stimuli from all sources, but maybe it's closer than I think. What's more essential to our consciousness and state of mind than our experiences?

I guess the most important part about this in this particular context is just that it doesn't really distinguish us from animals except for us thinking on a higher level and any spiritual additions.

Personally I agree that reparations are good in theory, but I am skeptical about the viability. For example, if we are going to help disadvantaged people, why limit it just to descendants of slaves? (Not to say we shouldn't have a unique program for those reparations, just showing how it will be viewed as unfair to other disadvantaged individuals).

And is trying to make this fairer even feasible? I agree that we should if we could, but we would need more information than we have to avoid just giving benefits to those with certain backgrounds, which will cause at least some political backlash, and if that is inefficient, then shouldn't we just spend that money on creating a fair and equal world that's better for everyone?

Speaking of looking through lenses, someone who studies humanities would likely disagree with the idea that science deals with "what" and humanities deal with "how". From a certain perspective, if humanities is the focal point, then it is the what, and science is just about understanding the universe in which events happen.

Personally, (and I think this might be a common ground on this site) I am more concerned with Why, specifically. Science is about understanding the universe, humanities are about understanding our past (generally) and philosophy is about understanding where we, either as individuals or as a larger group, fit into that universe. There are discussions that don't aim to answer that question, but I feel as though that particular "Why" is the main reason people try to create or improve philosophies, or feel drawn to it.

This response was a little weird just because I didn't really know where to go with my elaboration, but I have expressed my main thoughts.

Someone who doesn't believe in free will would say that what we "want" to choose is also an illusion, determined by a set of factors. Personally I subscribe to the philosophy that free will is being able to react to changes in the environment, whether or not it's determined. I believe that is a different argument that the free will one.

This is useful for expressing that we do have the ability to react to those things unless our wants (or original environment) overpowers additional factors, in which case you could sometimes say a person lacks free will situationally.

I agree that this is the best path, but it sometimes appears to create problems in marriages that actually had problems to begin with.

Many times this kind of separation (even though it is better for the relationship) is blamed for causing divorce and ending a romantic relationship, but in my opinion, the problem was that the marriage was so weak that it couldn’t handle the separation. It might also be true that a relationship like this is doomed anyways because the wife in the example prioritizes her pleasure in the activity and having her husband with her over her husband’s lack of pleasure caused by being forced to do something he didn’t want to do.

Sometimes, though, to sustain a dying relationship, the husband has to go to the theater anyway, and pretend he wants to, since that preserves the relationship on the wife’s end, the part he has less control over.

The question is, why does he want to preserve that relationship?

I reach the conclusion sans argument that while books are to be read, they are also to be challenged, and once challenged and the challenges disposed of, to be set aside or even discarded in favour of the business of living a life. I leave it to the discussion to settle what books this applies to, whether all, some, or none, or what types. — tim wood

I’ll just respond to this because it’s shorter.

I agree with the purpose of books concept, but don’t completely agree that once their challenges are disposed of books should be set aside. While this may work for an individual, a society needs people who don’t put the books away even when their challenges have been disposed of. These writers need the book simply because even if the individual has a perfect understanding of the book, they need it for reference in order to add credibility to their own creations.

This philosophy would generally apply to all books if not for one factor, which is memory. Books may be read many times, and even if you can understand the concepts of the book, some need to be reread anyway (to take new meaning from the text).

So maybe the conclusion is that it applies to some books more than others, and philosophical texts less than most.

What’s the question you want us to answer?

I agree with the idea you are illustrating, and it could also be helpful to provide a logical connection between the authoritarian action and a divorce (even if it seems obvious).

Maybe logic describes physics in some ways, but I don't know if physics "describes" logic. Probably only as an application/example of it?