Abortion and covid

Debates: 20

Posts: 855

08.16.2021 04:16PM

-->

@Athias

I noticed I forgot to tag you in post #313

#363

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

08.16.2021 04:49PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

The responsibility of the government is given by God to the governing authorities, and that includes making laws and enacting justice. Since it is specifically given to those authorities, I wouldn't consider it a "divine prerogative." And corruption does not remove this responsibility. However, it usually leads to the judgment of that authority or nation. This happened to Israel (2 Kings 17:6-7).

But how can a corrupt government extend God's will? You can argue that all governments have a responsibility to do as God instructed but they don't. I'm not attempting to argue the merits of execution--that would be an argument for another thread--I'm arguing that the governments as they are and their discretion in practicing execution is not an extension of God's will because they are corrupt.

If we were talking about a newborn, I personally don't see the difference other than how long "physiological underdevelopment" will result in the death of the newborn.

That's an important distinction. Because one results in the initiation of aggression toward the newborn and the other doesn't. The initiation of aggression serves as a metric for moral culpability. By placing a newborn in a ditch, I am initiating aggression towards it. I have acted in a violent manner. On the other hand, if I leave the child to its own devices, despite the consequence being the same, i.e. the child's death, I have not initiated aggression. I have only not given it my help. Now forgive me for citing movie quotes, but I think this scene from the Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman Begins, best illustrates this point:

Ra's Al Ghul: Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?

Batman: I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you.

Batman would ultimately leave Ra's to die on the runaway train. The moral dilemma with which Batman was faced was resolved in his not "killing" Ra's, leaving Ra's to bear the consequences of his own machinations. In saying this, we should make two things clear: (1) I am in no way arguing that babies (born or unborn) are Machiavellian villains using high powered microwave emitters to evaporate Gotham's water supply in order to cover the city in a poisonous mist, and (2) I am in no way stating that a child's necessity in its parents providing it resources is akin to some evil plot. My point is that there's a clear distinction in moral culpability between killing (abortions which maim, destroy, and harm the zygote/embryo/fetus) and not saving/helping (abortions which merely expel the zygote/embryo/fetus) even if the consequence is the same.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument. So where is it morally acceptable to leave a newborn if you decide you no longer want to expend time and labor to feed and shelter it? The ditch is obviously off limits.

The where isn't my focus. The point I'm attempting to illustrate is that no one is owed help--not even a baby. Any claim which attempts to establish an entitlement to the assistance of another will inescapably result in the coercive conscription of another into one's service. And I categorically reject this claim. (*Note: this is also one of the reasons those who identify as politically "left" or "democrat" are complete hypocrites.)

But our contention is stemmed from our conflicting moral philosophies. Your subscribed moral philosophy as it pertains to this issue is premised on, presumably, Biblical text--notably the Old Testament. While my subscribed moral philosophy as it pertains to this subject is based on individualism. The Bible is lousy with collectivist notions, so it's only natural that an adherent will propose arguments which are at odds with my individualist ones, and vice versa.

#364

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

08.16.2021 04:51PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

I noticed I forgot to tag you in post #313

It's all good. I was still able to notice that your post was a direct response to my previous statements.

#365

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 04:59PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

Because one is a direct teaching of Jesus that takes the Old Testament ("the Law and the Prophets") into account. The other is a vague sentiment that can mean whatever a person wants it to mean based on their definition of "fairness."

They're both equally vague.

#366

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 05:04PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

I treat my neighbor like I treat all humans, not necessarily with "love" but with fairness and respect.
I don't necessarily know the contents of your mind. But if you tell me you adhere to the golden rule, and that you seek to treat all humans with fairness and respect, that tells me that you are picking and choosing values from the Bible while rejecting others like Leviticus 24:17, “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." So to rephrase the question: If you are trying to use the teaching of Jesus to treat your neighbor as yourself which is drawn from the Old Testament, why do you reject the teaching of Leviticus 24:17?

I believe the "golden-rule" is a concise expression of our "better-instincts".

I do not believe that all the Jewish teachings are logically coherent.

#367

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 05:06PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

Depending on how you define deportation, no.
Let's say some people show up at the border of your country and say that they are fleeing for their very lives.

You ask them to present evidence, and they only have eye-witness-testimony (which is considered solid-gold in a civil court).

You tell them they need better evidence, like corroborating testimony and or photographs or video or something.

They don't have any evidence other than their own eyes and ears.

So you reject their application and send them back to where they came from.

AND THEN THEY ARE MUTILATED AND OR KILLED.

It almost seems like "murder" to me.
That's not a definition.

IT'S EVEN MORE PRECISE THAN A DEFINITION, IT'S A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

#368

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 05:07PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

You know why you pick and choose ?

Can you perhaps link to some source that supports your cherry-picking ?

I've quite honestly been trying to find a coherent moral theory of the old testament ever since I was a small child (when my questions were ignored).
There are a great number of Christians who have put little thought into what the Old Testament Law means for Christians today. I will answer the question but I would first like to hear your answer to my previous question: If you are trying to use the teaching of Jesus to treat your neighbor as yourself which is drawn from the Old Testament, why do you reject the teaching of Leviticus 24:17?

Because Leviticus 24:17 is incoherent.

#369

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 05:24PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

Forget about god for a second.

Would you blame me if something I made catastrophically malfunctioned ?
That depends on what you made. Did you make a moral agent or an automaton? If you made an pre-programmed automaton with no moral agency that only did what you programmed it to do, then I would blame you. If you made a moral agent that willfully violated its intended purpose, and that violations caused a catastrophic malfunction, then I would blame the creation.

Let's use GPT3 as an example of a "moral agent".

Nobody "programmed" GPT3 to perform any specific task.

GPT3 was designed to comb the intarwebz and identify patterns in human language and interactions.

You can ASK GPT3 to perform certain tasks, and set a dial from ZERO "literal" to ONE HUNDRED "insane".

The ZERO setting gives you pretty boring and predictable results, not much of what we humans might call "creativity".

Around TWENTY or THIRTY we start to get "interesting" results.

At these mid-range levels, the GPT3 shows signs of creative problem solving functionally-indistinguishable from that of an "intelligent" human.

THIS SEEMS TO BE AN EXCELLENT PROXY FOR FREE-WILL.

DIAL TOO HIGH AND WE GET INSANITY.

DIAL TOO LOW AND WE GET AN AUTOMATON.

So, back to the example.

If I tasked the GPT3 with controlling a number of robots and taking care of the elderly in a retirement facility or a hospital for example, and I dialed up the creativity to say TWENTY-NINE and watched it for about a week and everything seemed to be working great, and then three months later a robot ended up causing the death of one of the residents, WHO WOULD YOU HOLD RESPONSIBLE ?

#370

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 05:33PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

But you still haven't answered the question: Did God create humans as automatons?

(IFF) GOD CAN PREDICT ALL POSSIBLE FUTURES (AND) GOD CAN CHANGE ANY AND OR ALL VARIABLES THAT LEAD TO THOSE FUTURES (THEN) GOD CAUSED EVERY ACTION YOU BELIEVE YOU "CHOSE" FOR YOURSELF

the other option would be that god is NOT able to predict all possible futures and or NOT able to change any and or all variables that lead to those futures.

the only way for humans to have hypothetical free-will is for god to NOT KNOW what we are going to do.

only gods IGNORANCE and or INCOMPETENCE can absolve them from responsibility.

ALSO,

If edward bernays proved anything at all, they proved that humans are ridiculously predictable.

#371

Debates: 20

Posts: 855

08.16.2021 05:33PM

-->

@Athias

I'm arguing that the governments as they are and their discretion in practicing execution is not extension of God's will because they are corrupt.

From Jeremiah 27:6-8:

“Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I have given him also the wild animals of the field to serve him. All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will make him their servant. “It will be, that the nation or the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and which will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine and with pestilence,” declares the Lord, “until I have destroyed it by his hand.

Was the government of Babylon corrupt?

Did the government of Babylon serve as an extension of God's will?

That's an important distinction. Because one results in the initiation of aggression toward the newborn and the other doesn't.

So if I leave my newborn baby in an empty house with some money for groceries and no intention of aggression, that is morally acceptable?

The point I'm attempting to illustrate is that no one is owed help--not even a baby...The Bible is lousy with collectivist notions, so it's only natural that an adherent will propose arguments which are odds with my individualist ones, and vice versa.

The Bible is not purely collectivist. If we consider collectivism and individualism on a spectrum, a biblical worldview would fall somewhere in between. But either end brings one to an extreme view - which ultimately removes the inherent value of others. The collectivist values the group rather than the individual, meaning no individual has rights or value in and of themselves. Their rights and value comes from their identify with the group, and can be removed for the good of the group.

Your form of individualism removes inherent value from others because the only value they have is ascribed by the individual. The only obligation I have is to myself; everything else is coercion. And I don't see any other conclusion if you can argue that parents have no obligation to keep their children alive.

#372

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 05:36PM

-->

@Athias

You can argue that all governments have a responsibility to do as God instructed but they don't.

At what point is "revolution" justified ?

#373

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 05:43PM

-->

@Athias

(2) I am in no way stating that a child's necessity in its parents providing it resources is akin to some evil plot.

Well stated.

#374

Debates: 20

Posts: 855

08.16.2021 07:06PM

-->

@3RU7AL

They're both equally vague.

No, they're not. One has its foundation in the Old Testament. The other means whatever you want it to mean because there is no foundation to work from.

I believe the "golden-rule" is a concise expression of our "better-instincts".

I do not believe that all the Jewish teachings are logically coherent.

So you cherry-pick based on your opinion of which teachings make sense to you while rejecting those that don't.

If I tasked the GPT3 with controlling a number of robots and taking care of the elderly in a retirement facility or a hospital for example, and I dialed up the creativity to say TWENTY-NINE and watched it for about a week and everything seemed to be working great, and then three months later a robot ended up causing the death of one of the residents, WHO WOULD YOU HOLD RESPONSIBLE ?

The analogy doesn't work because you are talking about a computer program, not a moral agent.

But you still haven't answered the question: Did God create humans as automatons?
(IFF) GOD CAN PREDICT ALL POSSIBLE FUTURES (AND) GOD CAN CHANGE ANY AND OR ALL VARIABLES THAT LEAD TO THOSE FUTURES (THEN) GOD CAUSED EVERY ACTION YOU BELIEVE YOU "CHOSE" FOR YOURSELF

the other option would be that god is NOT able to predict all possible futures and or NOT able to change any and or all variables that lead to those futures.

the only way for humans to have hypothetical free-will is for god to NOT KNOW what we are going to do.

only gods IGNORANCE and or INCOMPETENCE can absolve them from responsibility.

ALSO,

If edward bernays proved anything at all, they proved that humans are ridiculously predictable.

That wasn't a clear answer. A yes or no will suffice. Did God create humans as automatons?

#375

Debates: 20

Posts: 855

08.16.2021 07:20PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Depending on how you define deportation, no.
Let's say some people show up at the border of your country and say that they are fleeing for their very lives.

You ask them to present evidence, and they only have eye-witness-testimony (which is considered solid-gold in a civil court).

You tell them they need better evidence, like corroborating testimony and or photographs or video or something.

They don't have any evidence other than their own eyes and ears.

So you reject their application and send them back to where they came from.

AND THEN THEY ARE MUTILATED AND OR KILLED.

It almost seems like "murder" to me.
That's not a definition.
IT'S EVEN MORE PRECISE THAN A DEFINITION, IT'S A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.

The question you are asking about the specific example is not asking whether "deportation = murder" because that is a question of definitions. So, you are asking two distinct questions. Here are the two questions you are asking:

Would you say that deportation = murder ?
Would you say that deporting a specific group of people who are claiming they are fleeing for their lives, which ultimately ends up with them being killed = murder?

My answers:

This is a question of definitions. "Would you say that [the lawful expulsion of an alien or other person from a country] = [the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought]?"

To this question, my answer is no. The definitions are absolutely not the same.
The second question is dealing with a particular situation. Since I would not define deportation as "a specific group of people who are claiming they are fleeing for their lives, which ultimately ends up with them being killed," this question is deciding whether the particular actions of an individual or group can be considered murder.

To this question, my answer is probably not with the given information. It could be considered negligence with dire consequences, perhaps even punishable by law, but probably not murder.

#376

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

08.16.2021 07:21PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

From Jeremiah 27:6-8:
“Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I have given him also the wild animals of the field to serve him. All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will make him their servant. “It will be, that the nation or the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and which will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine and with pestilence,” declares the Lord, “until I have destroyed it by his hand.
Was the government of Babylon corrupt?

Yes.

Did the government of Babylon serve as an extension of God's will?

No. This does not tie to how a corrupt government can extend a divine prerogative. It's one thing to state that it's in God's plan to have a corrupt government destroy itself; it's another to say "King Nebuchadnezzar's practice of execution is just and sanctioned by God."

So if I leave my newborn baby in an empty house with some money for groceries and no intention of aggression, that is morally acceptable?

It isn't necessary to leave any money, but yes, that would be morally acceptable.

The Bible is not purely collectivist. If we consider collectivism and individualism on a spectrum, a biblical worldview would fall somewhere in between.

No such spectrum is logically justifiable. There's collectivism; there's individualism. Sustaining this notion of "spectrum" is an oft used device for those who have no intention of resolving their logically dissonant notions. For example, when I read of those who claim that they're "mostly Libertarian," I make sure to highlight that no such description is consistent within the framework of Libertarian philosophy. In other words, one is either "all" Libertarian, or one is not Libertarian. And the reason is, the philosophy operates on a logically consistent premise which in order to sustain cannot be undermined. Individualism operates on a logically consistent premise. This premise is necessarily undermined by collectivism, resulting in the two being diametrically opposed. There's no nuance to it.

But either end brings one to an extreme view - which ultimately removes the inherent value of others.

Neither end is an "extreme." What you call an extreme is an inevitable and inescapable extension of a consistently maintained premise. The very philosophy that informs my objection, for example, to taxes is the same philosophy that informs my being pro-choice, my being anti-welfare, and even my being anti-government. Maintaining such a view does not ultimately remove the inherent value of others; far from it. It means one's not being reduced to a mere object in someone else's experience; that one can be the subject of his/her own experience and express his/her values as they see fit so long as they afford another the capacity to the same. And there's no greater value than that.

Your form of individualism removes inherent value from others because the only value they have is ascribed by the individual.

First, it isn't "my form." Every argument I render which expresses individualism is a logical extension of individualist premises. I haven't in any way transmuted them.

The only obligation I have is to myself; everything else is coercion.

Yes, and the obligation to do others no harm (as harm to another would undermine the very framework which informs one's "obligation to oneself.") Anything that would undermine the aforestated would be coercion.

And I don't see any other conclusion if you can argue that parents have no obligation to keep their children alive.

Obligation to and sustained by whom? I know you argue that God demands parents take care of their children, but despite my having a respect for religion, the belief in God, and the argument for God's existence, I am not particularly religious. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept my premises; nevertheless, I thought it useful to present a consistent secular argument which wasn't filled with attempts to undermine a zygote's/embryo's/fetus's being either a human or "a life" that is also based on a moral framework.

#377

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 07:27PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

They're both equally vague.
No, they're not. One has its foundation in the Old Testament. The other means whatever you want it to mean because there is no foundation to work from.

"foundation in the Pentateuch" means nothing to me.

What does that mean exactly to you ?

It's not obvious what you think the difference is.

Please be slightly more specific, perhaps with an example from real-life or something.

#378

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

08.16.2021 07:27PM

-->

@3RU7AL

At what point is "revolution" justified ?

Exactly. If we're to operate on that premise, Revolution, even based on religion, would be unjustifiable.

Well stated.

Yeah, I wanted to preempt anyone who couldn't make a distinction between my analogizing the logic and my analogizing the events.

#379

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 07:39PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

2. Would you say that deporting a specific group of people who are claiming they are fleeing for their lives, which ultimately ends up with them being killed = murder?

This is the more interesting question.

#380

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 08:00PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

If I tasked the GPT3 with controlling a number of robots and taking care of the elderly in a retirement facility or a hospital for example, and I dialed up the creativity to say TWENTY-NINE and watched it for about a week and everything seemed to be working great, and then three months later a robot ended up causing the death of one of the residents, WHO WOULD YOU HOLD RESPONSIBLE ?
The analogy doesn't work because you are talking about a computer program, not a moral agent.

Let's not "skip ahead".

Forget the analogy aspect for a second.

How would you answer the question as it is presented, at face value ?

#381

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 08:03PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

To this question, my answer is probably not with the given information. It could be considered negligence with dire consequences, perhaps even punishable by law, but probably not murder.

Manslaughter perhaps ?

#382

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 08:05PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

That wasn't a clear answer. A yes or no will suffice. Did God create humans as automatons?

THE ANSWER DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD.

OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT GOD CREATED AUTOMATONS.

SEMIPOTENT SEMISCIENT GOD CREATED MALFUNCTIONS.

#383

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 08:13PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

I believe the "golden-rule" is a concise expression of our "better-instincts".

I do not believe that all the Jewish teachings are logically coherent.
So you cherry-pick based on your opinion of which teachings make sense to you while rejecting those that don't.

All humans begin their journey to their moral outlook with a blank slate.

The starting point is you.

You (either intentionally or unintentionally) look for external codes and guideposts and traditions and systems that MATCH your internal conscience.

You evaluate the data available to yourself and then you ADOPT an external tradition or system or code (if it feels like a "good-fit").

My internal moral sense tells me "do not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you".

I did not "learn" this from anything outside of myself.

#384

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 08:17PM

-->

@Athias

The Bible is not purely collectivist. If we consider collectivism and individualism on a spectrum, a biblical worldview would fall somewhere in between.
No such spectrum is logically justifiable. There's collectivism; there's individualism. Sustaining this notion of "spectrum" is an oft used device for those who have no intention of resolving their logically dissonant notions.

Well stated.

#385

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,757

08.16.2021 08:20PM

-->

@Athias

Yes, and the obligation to do others no harm (as harm to another would undermine the very framework which informs one's "obligation to oneself.") Anything that would undermine the aforestated would be coercion.

Have you shifted your position on the appropriateness of a "pre-emptive strike" against a perceived threat ?

#386

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

08.16.2021 08:47PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Have you shifted your position on the appropriateness of a "pre-emptive strike" against a perceived threat ?

Haha! Touché.

#387

Debates: 20

Posts: 855

08.16.2021 10:58PM

-->

@3RU7AL

"foundation in the Pentateuch" means nothing to me.

What does that mean exactly to you ?

It's not obvious what you think the difference is.

Please be slightly more specific, perhaps with an example from real-life or something.

The Old Testament presents a comprehensive worldview that answers fundamental questions:

Who/what is man?
Where did we come from?
Why are we here?
What's wrong with the world?
How can what is wrong be made right?

This is not the only way to analyze a worldview, but it makes the point. From a textual standpoint, whatever Jesus meant by, "Treat others as you want to be treated," it must be consistent with the worldview of the Old Testament ("the Law and the Prophets").

There is no such assumption of a particular underlying worldview in the general statement, "Treat others fairly." What is fairness, and who determines that? That depends on your worldview. So yes, one statement is more specific than the other.

Forget the analogy aspect for a second.

How would you answer the question as it is presented, at face value ?

It seems that GPT3 is a form of AI. Since I do not consider AI a moral agent, I would not consider the AI morally culpable. I would categorize the AI as an automaton, making the programmer responsible, intentionally or unintentionally, for the actions of the AI.

Put more simply, the programmer.

To this question, my answer is probably not with the given information. It could be considered negligence with dire consequences, perhaps even punishable by law, but probably not murder.
Manslaughter perhaps ?

Perhaps. I am not familiar enough with the specific laws to say. Was there a specific point you were making here?

THE ANSWER DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD.

OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT GOD CREATED AUTOMATONS.

SEMIPOTENT SEMISCIENT GOD CREATED MALFUNCTIONS.

The idea that God created humans as automatons with no moral agency is unsupported by Scripture. The very first humans were given a moral command which they willfully broke. That is evidence of moral agency.

All humans begin their journey to their moral outlook with a blank slate.

The starting point is you.

You (either intentionally or unintentionally) look for external codes and guideposts and traditions and systems that MATCH your internal conscience.

You evaluate the data available to yourself and then you ADOPT an external tradition or system or code (if it feels like a "good-fit").

My internal moral sense tells me "do not do things to other people that you would not want them to do to you".

I did not "learn" this from anything outside of myself.

Put simply, you pick and choose based on personal preference, correct?

#388

Debates: 20

Posts: 855

08.17.2021 03:54PM

-->

@Athias

No. This does not tie to how a corrupt government can extend a divine prerogative. It's one thing to state that it's in God's plan to have a corrupt government destroy itself; it's another to say "King Nebuchadnezzar's practice of execution is just and sanctioned by God."

We may be missing each other on a key detail. How would you define a corrupt government? Are all governments corrupt?

No such spectrum is logically justifiable. There's collectivism; there's individualism. Sustaining this notion of "spectrum" is an oft used device for those who have no intention of resolving their logically dissonant notions.

I would partially agree that there are core concepts of an -ism that people must hold to to be part of that group. But individualism is not necessarily a monolithic ideology with only a single set of beliefs. From what I understand, it has actually changed over time. I would agree though that there is not an actual individualism/collectivism spectrum. Rather, individuals may embrace certain values from each -ism. This is what I meant to portray with the imagery of a "spectrum," but I will try to avoid that for clarity.

While it is possible for individuals to hold contradictory beliefs from each -ism, it is also possible that a completely different view which holds certain values from both sides is actually correct. For instance, I would argue that the biblical worldview values both individual liberties and the collective good, and this is in no way contradictory. The tension in this position is caused by the introduction of sinful actions by humans, not by a contradiction in the ideology itself.

The main point is that the Bible does not promote Collectivism or Individualism because those are manmade ideologies. But there are certain values from both ideologies that can be found in the Bible.

that one can be the subject of his/her own experience and express his/her values as they see fit so long as they afford another the capacity to the same. And there's no greater value than that.

Would you say that consistent Individualism only considers a person's freedom valuable, but not the actual person? Consider the case with the newborn. It seems you only value the newborn's autonomy, but not it's life. Otherwise, it would not be morally acceptable to leave the baby, knowing that it is not physiologically developed enough to survive on it's own.

#389

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192