You can feel intense physical pain in the background and laugh at someone's joke, so I tend to agree with this claim. — schopenhauer1

Interesting example. It still sounds contradictory on its face, but I shall have to think about it.

I wouldn't say you're a suffering-focused ethicist, more like a suffering-prioritizing ethicist. I agree that compassion is the source of morality, in addition to the fact that eudaimonic individuals are self-sufficient and therefore not in need of our assistance. — darthbarracuda

Hmm, so what are you proposing eudaimonia as, if not an ethic?

since pleasure and pain can exist simultaneously. — darthbarracuda

I don't know about that....

I'm wary of suffering-focused ethics, those in which the elimination/prevention of suffering is the only acceptable course of action and intention. According to negative utilitarians, for example, it would be better to avoid a pinprick than to allow this tragedy alongside an unfathomably large amount of pleasure. To negative utilitarians, the accompanying pleasure is not important.

Suffering-focused ethicists might accuse me of being empty of compassion or any number of things, but I find that suffering-focused ethics is far too narrow-minded to be even reasonable. It is clear, to me at least, that there are legitimately good things that are not simply the absence of suffering - in fact I'm rather skeptical that the absence of suffering can be a good thing simpliciter. — darthbarracuda

It's clear that suffering can be instrumentally good. I wonder, though, what other ethic than utilitarianism is "suffering focused."

Eudaimonia, or flourishing, can only occur when someone is not suffering. — darthbarracuda

Eudaimonia as happiness? Sure. But I deem compassion, not happiness, as the basis of morality, and compassion can sometimes only occur when someone is suffering. Perhaps this makes me a suffering focused ethicist (though I am no utilitarian). More specifically, fellow-feeling is the condition for compassion, and the latter does not always result unless one feels another's suffering as they do. This finally breaks through the I-thou relation which otherwise prevents compassion. Happiness is quite irrelevant in this situation.

Your suggestion is simply to keep human beings on the hedonistic treadmill, it seems to me. That's fine, but I just don't think that has anything to do with morality.

This means that a good state of affairs can only be so if it is a perfect state of affairs, and a perfect state of affairs is one that has eudaimonic persons, or no persons at all. — darthbarracuda

This is because pleasure by itself is not enough to call a state of affairs good, however pleasure can be a feature that makes state of affairs better than another. — darthbarracuda

And what makes it best/perfect? Not suffering? Perhaps I missed it. If one is feeling pleasure, then one is by definition not suffering, so what, beyond pleasure, is necessary for eudaimonia?

If you think the systemic tendencies of philosophical history are simply refuted by a few counter-examples, then your accusation of naivety is itself hopelessly misplaced. — StreetlightX

I think there is more than one systematic tendency in philosophy, yes. :-|

And like I said, I'm not just talking about idealism in the sense of 'it's all in my head', but any kind of philosophy which would seek to idealize some aspect of reality over others as being the Really True Thing That Does All Of The Stuff Unilaterally, including atoms, spirit, Prime Movers, or, when it comes to the human, DNA and brain. — StreetlightX

In other words, a monumental abstraction that is, likely by design, well suited to damning nearly everything one doesn't like without much need for close analysis or argument.

I see. An assemblage of sources rather than a specific book. I thought it might have been the latter, hence my curiosity.

your claim that you have no moral responsibility for unwanted fetuses is incorrect — m-theory

I don't personally. The state does. This is the distinction I have made three times now, which means your question is not, and hasn't ever been, answerable yes or no. And as I have also said several times now, this means your question, along with most everything else emanating from your keyboard, is inarticulate blather. Now, lest I be sucked further into the black hole that is your method of conversing, I'm done here. Don't expect another reply. I leave other posters as witness to the integrity of my position.

Again you are simply expressing an opinion here — m-theory

My judgment is based on reasoning and I am not in doubt about it, so it is not a mere opinion. Even if it were, saying "you're just expressing an opinion" is utterly asinine. What is it you think you're doing, sweetheart?

I did answer your question. I am personally morally obligated not to harm another human being, while the state is obligated to care for unwanted children. This entails some other individual or individuals caring for said children, but it does not obligate me to do so. Those who do care them have voluntarily chosen to work in the institutions that provide such care. I am not forcing anyone to do anything.

Does it make me moral if I hold the opinion that someone else besides me (you) should be responsible for an unwanted fetus? — m-theory

First of all, the pregnant woman has a responsibility to raise the child. If she reneges, then it is society's responsibility (and specifically the state's, if private means are not available) to care for the child, which is a collective responsibility, not a personal one. Pet owners likewise have a responsibility to care for their pets. If they renege on this, then society must care for these animals, but that doesn't entail that I, personally, am obligated go out and adopt a pet. Whence the obligation? You still have not said. Simply put, I do no wrong in not adopting, which is to say, I have the right not to adopt; and this, in turn, is because the concept of right is negative, which could not have been plainer from my first post. You also falsely assume that everyone who is pro-life is in a position to adopt or would be a good parent. They need not be.

You claim that because you believe someone else beside you should be responsible for a living fetus that makes you pro-life. — m-theory

That's not what makes me pro-life. You never read a word of my first post. Away with you.

Don't pretend to be dumb just to avoid this point...just answer this question. — m-theory

No need to patronize. I'm not pretending to be anything. You shoot these posts from the hip, so they have a stream of consciousness vibe to them that makes understanding and responding to them difficult. I laid out my case for why I am pro-life very carefully in my first post in this thread. I will let that stand and be the judge of my position, and if someone else wants to try and recapitulate what the hell you're trying to say to me, all the better, but I'm done talking to you in this thread.

No idea what you're talking about.

The point is you are not pro-life...you actually believe that someone other than yourself ought to be pro-life by force of law. — m-theory

You can repeat this all you like, but that will not make your claim any more coherent or accurate. You have not shown that I am not pro-life. You have merely asserted this. What you need to do is fill in the missing premise as to why being pro-life obligates one to adopt, or for that matter, why liking trucks obligates one to own a truck. These are very bizarre claims, and that they do not appear so to you is really amazing.

The rest of your comments are simply re-phrasings of the same incoherence above, and so not worth the time addressing. It's a shame you are just as tiring to converse with as on the old forum.

Actually it probably is technological possible — m-theory

:-d

It is not meaningful in any practical sense because you refuse any responsibility for this value.
What you really mean is believe someone else ought to be forced to be pro-life. — m-theory

Again, you're presenting a red herring. The topic at hand is the moral status of abortion itself, not whether one (and here this can mean society as a whole) ought to provide adequate care for the child once born. I have already ceded multiple times that one ought to do the latter. However, that doesn't mean I have a personal responsibility to adopt a child. You have simply created said responsibility out of thin air.

To determine if the person is pro-life in a practical sense. — m-theory

What you say is not practically possible, so no conclusion as to the practicability of pro-lifers can be averred based thereon.

It is meaningless to say you are "pro-life" if you have not actively demonstrated that value in the context of this issue. — m-theory

No, it's quite meaningful to say I am pro-life if I am in fact pro-life, which I am. It has nothing to do with adoption.

I am assuming rights do not apply because nobody exists to benefit from them. — m-theory

A fetus doesn't not exist.

A fetus is not an independent living thing...the mother is. — m-theory

There are no independent living things. See my first post.

The question is whether or not a women ought to be able to decide for herself whom she will procreate with.
I believe that decision is for the individual and not the state. — m-theory

Good for you. I don't.

Atheism assumes there is no God. This is a negative and as such cannot be proven. To prove a negative you would need to search every square inch of the entire Universe in order to be able to report there is no God or that God is dead. — YIOSTHEOY

God in classical theism is separate from the universe, so this makes little sense.

You always seem to have ready to hand a list of relevant and quite specific information for many topics, BC, for which I commend you. Do you know where you got the info for your present post?

Suppose it was possible to transplant the fetus such that the woman could remove it from their body — m-theory

But it's not, so it's meaningless to speculate.

Because a fetus is not yet conscious it is not a person and there are no rights being violated by the termination of that pregnancy. — m-theory

No. You are simply assuming that rights only apply to persons and not living things more generally. I, for example, would wish to extend rights to non-human animals, but not because they're persons.

If you have not adopted a child I will insist that you are not pro-life in any practical sense of what that term means. — m-theory

This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.

You have an interesting story that is not dissimilar to mine in some ways, as well as some keen observations. Of the forms of Christianity that I am drawn to, I am most drawn to Roman Catholicism. It doesn't seem to have a problem with evolution. Perhaps it doesn't "officially" accept it to the degree that some non-believers would like, but it also doesn't reject it either. That's a wise position to take, in my judgment. The hard sciences are constantly amending their theories, such that to definitively declare for one will look bad if and once it's replaced in the future. Evolution was a factor in my turning away from fundamentalism, but science on the whole bores me now. I am interested in existential questions more than anything and am utterly unpersuaded by the kind of materialistic reductionism and scientism that otherwise would make science and evolution more interesting to me.

There is a part of me, a very large part, that doesn't like joining groups or being in a crowd. To this extent, this means I don't care a whit about what my fellow atheists are doing or thinking (though I prefer the term ignostic for myself at the moment), but it also militates against my returning to religion.

That seems to be it, which is precisely backward to me.

If you think all of your examples cannot be met with counter-examples, then you are hopelessly naive. Plenty of philosophical systems overly exalt the body, greatly value sensation, cheer labor, and place women on a par with or even higher than men. And am I really to be told that idealism, of all philosophies, is the great unchallenged majority view throughout history? That is sheer, unadulterated nonsense. From my perspective, which is not a totally uninformed one, it has always ever been an embattled minority position and subject to scoffing "refutations" of the kind provided by Dr. Johnson's foot in response to Berkeley's writings, for example.

These things are not 'political appropriations' - they're written right into the fabric of those philosophies. — StreetlightX

Hogwash. When in your armchair you raise your scepter and cast judgment over "idealism" in smug confidence that such a weighty abstraction is utterly translucent of what it signifies, while assuming that what it signifies cannot but be linked to some nefarious plot to make people lazier, lower their opinion of the female sex, and other bizarre insinuations, then you're merely shadow boxing with me and providing a raft of hasty generalizations.

and see how the focus on the Ideal has came at the price of women, of manual labour, of the entire realm of the aesthetic - on basically the underprivileged and anyone who isn't a well off white dude. — StreetlightX

What a load of crock. First of all, whatever effects the political appropriations of philosophical or other ideas may have, that says nothing whatever as to their truth or falsity, except insofar as these ideas are intrinsically political to begin with. Social Darwinism, for example, is to genuine Darwinism as fool's gold is to real gold. It's not an intrinsically political idea to begin with, so to blame Darwinism for whatever deleterious political effects are done in its name would be absurd. Second, the kinds of oppression you cite are found throughout history and across the globe. Might there have been a fanciful utopian notion in the heads of those white Christian slave traders who enslaved by the thousands "black dudes" and others? Yes, but so too might there have been a similar idea at work in the minds of Muslim North African slave traders who enslaved by the thousands "white dudes" and others. I repudiate all progressivist and utopian projects, but to suggest that this is also to repudiate certain other philosophical ideas which may stand, unjustifiably, at the base of such projects is to fallaciously impute guilt by association. There might truly be an eschaton, but if so, the point would be not to immanentize it.

I grew up as a lukewarm mainline Protestant and then starting in high school had a brief flirtation with Christian fundamentalism. Then I followed Kierkegaard and subsequently Spinoza as my theism gradually became more attenuated. Finally, one day not long after finishing high school I realized I had ceased being a Christian, and perhaps never really was one. A little while later I discovered Kant and Schopenhauer, who have ever since then had a profound effect on me. I would still call myself a Schopenhauerian, as no other system of philosophy than Schopenhauer's most closely resembles to such a startling degree my experience of the world. And yet, the implications of his philosophy have recently led me to reconsider religion. Most of all Christianity, and in particular its mystical tradition, as well as Buddhism and Hinduism are highly attractive to me. Formal conversion is at least in the realm of possibility, but for now skepticism holds me back. That, and I have yet to complete my book collection of philosophical and religious texts, which will better inform me.

>:O

I find Cox irritating at times as well. The current crop of science popularizers is pretty poor, in my opinion. There's too much ass kissing of pseudo-science like string theory, parallel universes, and the like. That and I find it hilarious the patently absurd claims so often made about the big bang. These guys need to take a basic logic course something ferocious.

What is evidently real may not be what is really real. — jamalrob

Inasmuch as materialism is a realist metaphysic, I see this claim as advancing some sort of phenomenalism or idealism, so we can no longer be talking about materialism. My claim is that, according to it, there should be no "evidently real." In saying that, we're still presupposing something other than what is alleged to be real, which simply will not do. Nothing could appear to be anything other than what it is were materialism, as realism, true. To admit the existence of appearances is to be a phenomenalist/idealist of some kind.

And the same would then go for Moby Dick and the mind: they exist, but they are nothing but their material parts (and processes?). — jamalrob

Moby Dick has no material parts, though.

Of course. I take a certain philosophy to be true and so try to act in accordance with it. To do otherwise would be completely irrational.

I think people avoid this contradiction by deferring authority. — swstephe

People do, but not me. I agree the mother and child need adequate care. But that's a separate issue from the moral status of abortion itself.

>:O

To even ask the question is already to give too much credit to the anti-vaxxer wingnuts.

"If men got pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament." Gloria Steinem. — Bitter Crank

I think not and find this to be a fatuous remark. Even if they did, they would still be open to the same arguments against abortion that I and others have presented. Most ironic, however, is that Steinem undermines her own position by effectively admitting, as I pointed out above, that women obtain abortions for self-interested reasons. The appeal she is making is to the perception that men are even more selfish than women and so would, by virtue of this fact, choose to have even greater numbers of abortions and minimize the number of restrictions on them. If that's the best she can do, that's the best she can do.

I even see a kind of paradox that many people who are "pro-life" don't see any problem with being virulently "pro-gun". — swstephe

I wish to interject here that I am pro-life, but not virulently pro-gun, if only to confirm that such individuals do exist, despite your having implied that they might. I would not be much distraught if all guns were banned tomorrow. On the other hand, I am persuaded as to their effectiveness as a means of self-defense in certain limited circumstances, so long as one is threatened to the extent that a gun is the most prudent means of said defense. I also believe that there are just wars, on account of the same principle of self-defense. But I am not in favor of guns per se or of hunting and the culture surrounding the ownership of guns.

then we should ban anything that might unnaturally end human life, like guns, wars or pollution — swstephe

Which we already do to varying degrees.

like free health care or wealth redistribution to end poverty — swstephe

These things are vague enough to be open to dispute. It was a clever attempt at inserting your political opinions on these matters by assuming them, though.

Modern life is one long struggle against boredom.

This and other fora make the need to be on the Internet less tedious and boring for the time being.

I agree that porn is a scourge but I know from hard experience that criticizing porn on an internet forum is like criticising beer in a pub. — Wayfarer

Zing! I might have to use this one....

Make child benefit equal to the living wage first, and then start to talk about the sanctity of life. — unenlightened

Sounds like a red herring to me. I wasn't talking about child care. Simply because I oppose abortion doesn't mean I oppose providing adequate childcare or that I must somehow choose between the two. Such a dichotomy can go to hell.

One does not simply join a monastery. One has to join a Catholic or a Buddhist or an Eastern Orthodox monastery. I am not ready to accept the doctrinal commitments incumbent on me were I to join one of these. I also have the temperament of a scholar, not a monk. In the Middle Ages, monks were the scholars, so that's partly why I said I would have been one. One must give up all of one's possessions to join a monastery, including one's books. I haven't even completed my book collection yet, so I couldn't join one anytime soon. Additionally, some of the books on my list would better inform such a decision, such that I would want to read them first. Lastly, I have a good bit of student debt, and most monasteries do not accept one with debt, and even if they do, I wouldn't feel comfortable burdening them with it.

They find them pleasurable, but not so compelling that they become addicted. — Bitter Crank

I find this dubitable. What counts as addiction? Some shrink putting a stamp on your forehead? I think we're living in unprecedented times, when adolescents and adults, mostly males, and virtually all of them, can and do view as much sex and, from a biological perspective, potential mates as they want, something which they haven't been able to do in the 100,000+ years of our evolution. How many who look at porn would be able to go cold turkey at the drop of a hat? Not many. Head on over to the reddit NoFap page to understand just how difficult that is for many people. They are slowly realizing that pornography addiction is much more powerful, widespread, and insidious than they first realized.

If everyone is an addict, then no one is an addict. The standards of sexual addiction have dropped to such an extent that it is not difficult to come across soft core porn on television ads for general audiences.

How do you suppose the people of the middle ages carried out their lives — Bitter Crank

I didn't say I wanted to live in the Middle Ages exactly as it existed.

I mean... you don't have to use the internet... — darthbarracuda

And I'd rather not, and in fact, my plan for the future is to be independent and financially stable enough so that I can drop kick this stupid machine out the window. At the moment, however, I have to use my computer and the Internet.

you would either have been (likely unimportant) priest or a serf/peasant on the estate of your lord, tilling the land, or maybe a liege knight of a petty king — darthbarracuda

No, I would have been a monk.

All in all the Dark Ages would not have been like an extended camping trip in the wilderness. — darthbarracuda

Ditto my reply to BC above.

We all need to get out more to mingle, mix, socialize, gossip, agitate, organize, argue, make love, make war, make peace--real stuff — Bitter Crank

No we don't. Everything you mentioned is superfluous garbage. People need to read, think, and be compassionate. All else is howling in the void.

As far as porn goes, I think it is healthy. — Cavacava

Bullshit.

I would add pornography to the list of the Internet's ills. Its effects, especially on young people, I think are being greatly understudied and underestimated.

I would rather a world without all this technology, to be honest. A world perhaps not too dissimilar to the Dark Ages.

So like the Order of Leibowitz, I see our role at TPF growing into nothing less than the preservation of civilization. — jamalrob

You have my sword.

Over the last couple of years I have become more pro-life, whereas before I had no strong opinions either way, although I leaned toward being pro-choice. It seems destined that one will find leftist and progressivist views attractive as a young person for at least a brief spell.

The argument that one has the right to do whatever one wants with one's body now rings hollow to me. It's first of all not true. One does not, for example, have the right to detonate one's body in a crowded area. That's called a suicide bombing, and it's very illegal, not to mention immoral. Why is it illegal and immoral? Because it harms other human beings.

Secondly, in the case of abortion, it too ought to be illegal and already is immoral on account of the fact that it harms a human being in the womb. What other kind of being could a fetus growing inside a human mother be? Those who value human life ought therefore to value the lives of human beings in the womb. Is the fetus dependent on the mother for its survival? Of course, but so are all humans dependent on each other for their survival, whether fetus, child, adolescent, or adult. No man is an island. Indeed, life in general is dependent on itself for its survival. Some may find this heartening; I find it tragic, but in any case it's the truth.

Harm does not depend on physical pain. One can be harmed psychologically or by the theft of one's property, for example. This is because harm refers to the frustration of the will's striving. The fetus is harmed in that it has the desire to live, which is then frustrated when aborted. To privilege humans who have already been born as deserving the right to life is utterly arbitrary. What is the relevance of one's spatio-temporal position in relation to this right? What magic, life granting fairy dust is sprinkled on the babe's brow upon exiting its mother's birth canal? There is none. Humans inside the womb have as much a natural right to live as those outside it.

Are there any exceptions? There is but one. When the life of the mother is at stake, an extremely rare occurrence I might add, she is justified in terminating her pregnancy. But this is because she is acting in self-defense. The same cannot be said in the case of rape, for example, for the fetus is not at fault for what happened, the rapist is. To punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is unjust.

There is a connection here with anti-natalism. I do not like using this term as it is currently defined, but I do hold to the view that one ought not to procreate. My reasoning is two-fold: 1) one's individual existence is an imposition and 2) I have compassion for my fellow creatures. One common anti-natalist complaint is that no one ever chooses to exist; one is simply thrown into this vale of tears by powers outside of one's control. Well, if the inability to choose to exist is a reason not to have children, then by the same logic, the inability of the fetus to choose to be born is a reason not to terminate it. The concern in both cases is the same: arbitrary imposition. Parents make a decision that affects the life of a being who has no say in coming to be. A mother who chooses to have an abortion affects the life of a being who has no say in ceasing to be.

Secondly, I have chosen not to have children not out of misanthropy, or hatred of life, but out of philanthropy, or love of life. Love entails willing the good of the other as other, the obverse of which entails never harming another. The awareness of suffering in my fellow creatures causes me to feel sympathy and compassion for them, which in turn causes me to choose not to subject another creature to such a miserable fate. In my taxonomy of moral terms, selfish actions are amoral, harmful actions immoral, and compassionate actions moral. Why do women terminate pregnancies? They do so because having a child is in some way an inconvenience for them. They do not act in the interest of the fetus, since the interest of the fetus is, by default, to live. They rather act in the interest of themselves. Consequently, their action can have no positive moral worth and is in fact positively immoral due to forcibly denying the fetus's natural right to live.

The tyranny of wanting to keep a society with a diversity of thought, just doesn't seem very stifling. — schopenhauer1

You must distinguish between "wanting" to have a diversity of thought and "allowing" for a diversity of thought. I'm all for the latter, but not the former.