The king's interest in his subjects, — tim wood
ou are wise stopping because i proved it legally and biologically — Alexandros
↪Antinatalist a psychiatric condition is behind antinatalists, calling for destruction of human life and claiming that it has no value. — Alexandros
. Evidently an inner conflict can create such a profile. May you one day open your eyes and discover how unconscious forces are guiding yourself into the realm where there is no reason. Onthe other side there is a realm of reason. Biology and logic have proven my points. Do not mix the animals here because it was never a point of discussion here. — Alexandros
. The only animal that can give them value is the human being in its dimension of morality. Intellect puts the man in a higher hierarchy in the animal realm. — Alexandros
Yes there is hierarchy and structures and responsibilities. People with trouble accepting that develop their complexes in ideologies and as Jung called them spirit epidemics. Anyway, again, this has nothing to do with the discussion but even there your reasoning is flawed. Evidently you just feel forced to get off the track under feeble arguments, in reality the lack of them. My advice, study, be humble and take responsibilities. — Alexandros
John Donne, Meditation 17.
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/meditation17.php — tim wood
my points were never debunked, just because you say it it isn't magically happening. — Alexandros
I still don't understand what you mean by a 'moral subject.' Please say what you mean by it. Are you using it the way it is used here: ('A moral subject is anything that can be harmed', https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/moral-agent-subject-of-moral-worth), or are using it to mean something else, and if so, what?let's make it concise, in your example there are no moral subjects as morality only exists in human consciousness, there are different degrees of consciousness. Animals are conscious too. Anyway, morality can exist in that dimension only and it doesn't affect the objectivity of it. Objectivity which is going to be attained through intellect. You have an analigy with numbers or ecuation pointing out relations objectively existent outside the realm of the mind, we just discover them through intellect. Regarding morality, it exists only when there are moral subjects and its universal values are objective in logical thinking. We disagree in a point in which discussion cannot go further because you are sustaining ammorality as a basis for every other point you want to make. — Alexandros
↪Antinatalist again, it's not your opinion about what you think it's human life, tgat has already been resolved in biology. Neither is my opinion. It's a fact. From there the rest follows. Regarding your example of an ape being more intelligent, an ape is an ape and it's not going to be more than that. Do not misinterpret me, I value apes, but as apes. And the foetus has a different essence. So it's irrelevant your comparison — Alexandros
I take it you mean some sort of essence that makes humans human. This is a myth, there is no such thing. Humans are composed of matter and energy, like other material objects, and as far as anyone has been able to discover, nothing else.↪Antinatalist not quite, the logic is following the essence not the accident — Alexandros
'Depriving this person' is confused. If there is never to be a conception, then there is no person to be deprived, and so to refuse to conceive a person is not wronging the never-to-be-conceived person, because 'the never-to-be-conceived person' fails to denote anything.In other words, refusing to conceive someone and thus depriving this person of a future of value is perfectly acceptable; — Xanatos
↪Antinatalist Yes, actually you should. If a particular human will never actually exceed an ape in intelligence, then that's an argument in favor of treating this ape no worse than one would treat this human. — Xanatos
not quite, the logic is following the essence not the accident — Alexandros
↪Antinatalist
The essence is that "A human fetus is biologically human" (not "it could be") — SpaceDweller
lack of sentience or intelligence does not make it not-a-human being. — SpaceDweller
I think you need to be more precise. Parturition involves several stages (https://www.healthline.com/health/parturition#stage-3). At which of the following stages do you consider that the woman no longer has the 'unfettered right'?I think a woman should have the unfettered right to do whatever the hell she wants with her "baby" up until parturition. — James Riley
The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being. — Antinatalist
The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being.
— Antinatalist
Why?
Given the fact we are talking about human being then we should give it human rights regardless of it's abilities.
I mean, something either is human being (it exists and is alive) or it is not (does not exist or it is dead) — SpaceDweller
but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being — Antinatalist
is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal. — Antinatalist
but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being
— Antinatalist
I see your point, but current criterias are unfortunately not universally accepted. — SpaceDweller
Ending life is about human rights, so if those criterias are not governed by morality then aren't they exposed to immoral conclusions?
For example, if we exclude morality then we can also say that killing a retard person is favorable vs killing a normal one, or killing a 1 month old baby is favorable vs killing 30 years old person? — SpaceDweller
This is what most people may do if they're forced to death to choose.
Because one have to choose between 2 evils, so he chooses lesser one.
Morally they are all equal human beings regardless of their abilities, so I think the choice above should be random to be morally acceptable.
Same way if exclude morality, and human rights don't apply to non sentient being, a fetus, then what makes this morally acceptable? — SpaceDweller
is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal.
— Antinatalist
I would not dare to compare human fetus to animal fetus and then draw conclusions based on perception or differences between 2 fetuses. — SpaceDweller
If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level? — Antinatalist
Because it's natural for one kind to protect it's own kind rather than other kind.What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus?
But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life. — Antinatalist
In moral philosophy is a concept of "a person". A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person. — Antinatalist
If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level?
— Antinatalist
Yes, I unless you don't have to choose between 2. — SpaceDweller
Because procreation (and protection of it) is natural to all known life, stopping procreation is not a natural thing, I think nowhere in the nature we can observe such behavior?
Except for us humans ofc, that would likely be very unusual or not a normal thing. — SpaceDweller
Because it's natural for one kind to protect it's own kind rather than other kind. — SpaceDweller
I understand, same problem as with current "criterias" that we currently have.
One may also ask. what is life and when does it begin?
Does sentience define life? — SpaceDweller
Having chosen one of these, please explain why you chose that stage rather than any of the others. — Herg
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.