I don't believe that a zygote is equivalent to a person, it's just not the same thing. — Sam26
Except that one could make an argument that the closer one gets to viability, the closer one gets to having a good argument that it's a person. The problem here of course is that the line gets blurry at points, and thus isn't as clear as we would like. For me it's clear that a zygote isn't a person. Thus, not being a person it's difficult to see how abortion could be murder, since murder always involves persons. — Sam26
A person is a philosophical construct.
Barring severe mutation or inter species breeding, we know the zygote is human life. We talk of “human rights” not “person rights.”
Life obviously is not a human right. — Kamikaze Butter
A person is a philosophical construct. — Kamikaze Butter
Barring severe mutation or inter species breeding, we know the zygote is human life. We talk of “human rights” not “person rights.”
Life obviously is not a human right. — Kamikaze Butter
Rights is a philosophical construct. — Hanover
Does all human life have rights, does a sperm have rights? — Sam26
are you familiar with Don Marquis argument on a future of value ? If so what do you think of it.
this part is opinion - not argument - but the concept of person hood has a rich history of being used as a justification for making a sub class of human beings that it is ok to do bad stuff to. — Rank Amateur
No, I haven't read Don Marquis argument. — Sam26
I am pro choice, and I have considered that children under two can be executed on the parents’ choice. Some go as high as four.
Is that immoral? — Kamikaze Butter
In a nutshell -
P1 - People like you and me have a future, it includes many things of value, relationships, experiences, etc
P2 - It is immoral to deny people like us our future of value without cause.
P3 - After the process of conception there exists a unique human organism
P4 - This organism is alive
P5 - This human organism has a future of value - much like ours
Conclusion - If it is immoral to deny a future of value, and after conception there is a human organism with a future of value, it is immoral to deny that organism its future of value. Abortion denies that future of value - abortion is immoral. — Rank Amateur
Hmmm, it's not always immoral to deny that organism its future value. I would stipulate that without good reason it's immoral to deny that organism its future value. — Sam26
P2 - It is immoral to deny people like us our future of value without cause. — Rank Amateur
C. Therefore, casual sex is good. — Michael
Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code.
Sperm does not contain the human genome, therefore it is not human life. Life begins at conception.
That part is academic. — Kamikaze Butter
Nowhere do you connect why a teleological function of an organ is tethered to morality, or why disregarding said teleology is immoral, or why using the sexual organs for pleasure (e.g. masturbation, casual sex) isn't a valid alternative use. Last I checked, Mother Nature did not hand down Ten Commandments to mandating how we must to use our bodies, and our sexual organs in particular. — Maw
As is typical of you, there are no citations, studies, articles, etc. demonstrating a causal relationship between the sexual revolution and societal issues, or how "non-conformity with the telos of sexuality" directly results in "psychological dissatisfaction". — Maw
And how precisely did the Sexual Revolution "hit" Blacks first? The idea of Black hyper-sexuality is a racist idea that has stubbornly persisted since the 17th century as a cover for white promiscuity. — Maw
Can we really ignore ... — Maw
You state that we, as a society, should "actively discourage" casual sex and polyamory, but it's not clear what that would look like in practice, — Maw
and I think it's fair to say - based on historical precedent - that this would be overwhelmingly focused on women. Jordan Peterson recently entertained the idea of "enforced monogomy", an explosive phrase he typically lobs in order to garner shock and attention (but vague enough to walk back from the otherwise obvious meaning). — Maw
However, contrary to yours and Peterson's concerns, monogamous relationships are overwhelmingly viewed positively, while, according to a Gallup Poll from 2013, shows that Americans strongly disprove of affairs (91%), and polygamy (83%). Divorce rates are also at 40 year low, as of 2015.
So yeah...I'm not quite sure how relevant the Sexual Revolution of the 60's has been in the last 50 years to our current "societal dysfunction", when "hookup culture" is more of fantasy played out in movies, TV shows, and in the imaginative minds of conservatives, than what exists in reality. — Maw
Finally, crime has also steadily decreased since the early 90's. It has not increased, as you said. — Maw
And your idea of that women have a "sexual market value" is blatantly sexist. — Maw
It's a more or less Aristotelian position — gurugeorge
I take your point re. lack of citations, but I'm not out to "demonstrate" anything — gurugeorge
we are divisible into sub-species by means of both plain observation and more recondite scientific investigations — gurugeorge
Things can be "enforced" as social habits. — gurugeorge
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I'm well aware of Aristotle's theory of ethics, but there is nothing convincing about tying the mere act of sexual reproduction to enhancing one's moral character. — Maw
You state that human are "rational animals"; I would argue that our rationality enables us to be unbounded by the shackles of blind instinct, including the drive to reproduction. — Maw
That an anti-natalist, one who chooses not to have children, or someone who is infertile, one who - regardless of choice - cannot have children, are less of a "person" or less moral - or outright immoral, than a person who does, is outright nonsense. — Maw
When you attempt to make factual claims about the world, but fail to provide any citations, why should I believe what you are saying? — Maw
And there it is! Blatant racism dressed up esoteric science and casual observation. — Maw
As I pointed out in my previous post, monogamy is very much the norm in today's society, and alternatives, e.g. polygamy, are widely disproved of by the general population. — Maw
So what precisely does "enforced" mean here when it's overwhelmingly approved of? You don't actually outline details in your previous post, but when you say things like "women are a protected class" within the realm of sexuality, then that hints at something more nefarious than simple "social disapproval". — Maw
I can't even bother to respond to the remainder of your sexist, racist, and alt-right garbage post. No point in wasting my time with a bigot. — Maw
No I think @gurugeorge, who has fervently — Maw
claimed that there are "7 to 9 sub-species" of humans in addition to "three main races" — Maw
in which Asians are the "most well-behaved" and "less promiscuous", while Blacks are "the least well-behaved" and "most sexually promiscuous"; — Maw
has stated that the increase of (non-Caucasian, non-Asian) immigration and decrease of the white population leads to the increase of crime; — Maw
and who additionally believes that women are essentially reducible to their "reproductive function" — Maw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.