Total posts: 827
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The ultimate reality that you haven't shown to exist and you arbitrarily call god.
The ultimate reality is simply the first cause. Either the Big Bang has no cause, which makes acausality the first cause, or something is the first cause. The choice of calling it god is not to prove a point, it is to speak clearly. Please tell me which other word that you would prefer to be used to describe the first cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
If the big bang model is true,
Then the first cause necessarily exists. Something must have caused our universe if the universe has a cause.
If eternal Universe models are true
Our universe would be indistinguishable from God: eternal, uncaused, a closed system.
If models of Cyclic Cosmology are true
That would be indistinguishable from the eternal universe.
Again, we are left with two choices:
- Our universe, God, the multiverse, or something else is eternal and uncaused.
- Our universe exists but has no cause
I want to take a closer look at the latter. For it to be true, then events can happen without a cause -- which establishes acausality and undermines causality. If events can happen without a cause, then all possible events will happen. Since Time doesn't exist in the absence of causality, all uncaused events would happen simultaneously. Therefore, if our universe has no cause but still has a beginning, we can assume that everything imaginable share the same faith. In other words, if something begins without a cause then nothing makes sense anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
It's not a God of the gaps fallacy. I am simply using "God" to refer to the ultimate reality, the thing which would be eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Spacetime had a beginning. But events could have happened outside of our universe, thus, time could still exist if we define it as the order in which events happen. I don't think all events that ever occurred exist only within our universe. No theory allows for that to be the case. If the universe has no cause then uncaused events probably happened in other places too, and if the universe has a cause, like God to the multiverse, then those causes would present a new row of causes.
It is interesting how certain things, like laws and energy, are considered indestructible. They kind of require a cause to be explained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Time and causal relationships are connected. Time is often defined as the order in which events happen, described by the laws of causality. We know that causality exists today. If we accept that time had a beginning then we assert either a first cause or no cause for the creation of causality and time. But can we know that time has a beginning? I mean, as long as causality exists then time would exist, and without a first cause, time would never start to be. I have problems accepting that things can have no cause. If so was the case, then all possible events should happen without a cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
@Sum1hugme
@Theweakeredge
@Wagyu
I think you might be interested in this topic.
Created:
Posted in:
P1: Every event has a cause
P2: An endless chain of causes is impossible
C: There exists a first cause
This is a standard argument for the ultimate reality or the first cause. It might often be called God, but the theories range from a multiverse to a cosmic force to Allah. What they all have in common is that they themselves have no external cause, but they caused other things. In other words, the first cause would be the only reason why other things exist. The reasoning behind them is that of causality, and the impossibility of something starting to exist with no cause. The argument concludes that God, or something similar, must have been the first thing in existence - it must have been both uncaused and eternal. The first cause would, by definition, be static and unchanging.
Since the first cause is eternal, and cannot change, the universe would be created an infinity ago. The only logical option other than an eternal universe is if the first cause CHANGED from a state where it didn't want to create a universe to the state where it wanted to create a universe (like God did according to theology). But such a change in the status of the first cause would contradict its static nature. If the first cause can change its status then it cannot be called the first cause. We can do some logical shenanigans and we end up with a paradox, namely that one of the following options must be true:
- No first cause exists
- The first cause is both static and dynamic at the same time
But both alternatives violate the laws of logic. Therefore, something must be wrong with the first-mentioned syllogism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no cure for kidney failure, but with treatment it is possible to live a long life. Having kidney failure is not a death sentence. People with kidney failure live active lives and continue to do the things they love.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Somebody already did:
Might be, but they have not changed the declaration of human rights to use the word "person".
This is not even considering the fact that it is not moral to force a woman
P1. IF a fetus is a human it has moral value just like the mother
P2. The right to life is more important than the right to privacy.
C. IF a fetus is a human then we must choose the lesser evil - banning abortion (exceptions being when the danger is too high)
I am saying that if abortion is immoral then it doesn't matter that women's rights are broken, as the right to life is more basic and fundamental. Also, we are prohibiting an industry, we will not in any way directly apply force on the mother. If abortion (exceptions excluded) are banned that is not "forcing" the mother to carry to term - nature forces her, we simply don't allow society and science to defy nature in an immoral way.
I do not think humans have intrinsic value
Still, society must ACT like humans have intrinsic value. If not, we get slavery, holocaust, oppression of women and children and lastly persecution based on religion.
a speciest lens that made us only care for humans and not every species equally
Interesting question. But it is survival of the fittest, isn't it? Since animals can't really agree to a moral contract, AS A SPECIES, they cannot have the same moral considerations by your own definition, as they cannot respect the well being of others. Also, they are not part of society but live in the wild.
Are people not allowed to change their mind regarding such a huge decision and future impact on their own well-being?
Yes, they can change their mind. But action is not the same as though. I cannot be arrested for "wanting" someone to be dead, but I can from killing.
it is not moral to force a woman to donate, their body, mental state, and possibly their life if they do not agree to have a child.
Agreed. No force should be applied to her in addition to the burden she already has. And when she gives birth she is free to leave the child to be adopted or taken care of, as such, we can compensate her and also help the innocent child. This is, at the very least, the only moral choice in the 10% of cases after your 13 weeks brain-idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
not helping a child is not the same as actively harming it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
P1 rebuttal: non-actions are not in the same category as actions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
P1. Killing a human is morally wrong
P2. A fetus is a human
C. Abortion is morally wrong
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Tell that to the UN human rights counsil
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Wow abortion is not illegal therefore it is not immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not advocating for a specific policy. I am simply pointing at the fact that abortion is unethical. Which you have yet to reject.
I do not care which banner supports it, the government, FBI, PP, capitalism, whatever - as long as it is immoral it cannot be just.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Similarly, the National Abortion Federation (NAB) features soft-toned colors and photos of warmly smiling, invariably attractive, and oddly joyous-looking young women. Again, the descriptions of abortion offered range from the clinically technical to the soothingly mellifluous.
If such a thing exists then your claims are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, everyone knows that the FIRST link in a google search is just clickbait. Also, this is it's address:
Please debunk the information on the site instead of claiming your baseless assertions to be reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The Abortion Industry: A Study in Predation
Title of this article from Family Research Center.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The abortion industry: all organisations focused on providing abortion service
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
if these similarities exist between my views and those of Nazi Germany, then they also are similarities with your position.
Not necessarily. I am not arguing that gametes can be justly killed, I am arguing that a fetus cannot be justly killed.
If gametes are human beings they should not be killed. But since I have defined moral value on being human, no human will be stripped of moral value
I also want to repeat that the UN universal human rights support my claim that moral value cannot be restricted to any type of humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
So, let's be clear about this first: your case also designates some "humans" as not worthy of moral value.
No. My real case is that ALL HUMANS are worthy of moral value. I said that the distinction between human and person is completely arbitrary and therefore not valid. My point is really that no human should be intentionally killed. The only reason that I used DNA was to show that abortion was immoral EVEN IF "personhood" is a real standard for moral value. How? Like this:
- If all humans have moral value then abortion is immoral
- Assume personhood grants moral value:
- If Personhood is granted all humans - abortion is immoral
- If personhood is granted when one has human DNA - abortion is immoral.
- If personhood is granted at birth, then killing a baby after birth is not really immoral if the baby is born too early
- The only alternative which allows abortion is a relativistic one: after "arbitrary" time you cannot do it any more.
- The idea that personhood is granted during pregnancy is way to unclear and arbitrary to even compete with the other definitions of personhood
- Conclusion: abortion is immoral under both ethical system.
My point is that since NO system can justify abortion non-arbitrary, and that the real non-arbitrary points condemn it, abortion is immoral.
You might be right that it should not be made illegal, but in any case, it is unethical.
necessarily excludes gametes, you leave out some non-zero subset of what could be referred to as humans.
gametes COULD be referenced to as humans. But biologically speaking they aren't. Just like an unfertilized egg is not the same as a chicken. I said that novel DNA made one a person because all zygots are humans. But if a gamete is a human, like you claimed, then we should not kill it either. As for the example with twins, they are humans - biologically speaking. So is a clone. A fundamental part of my point is that no humans should be killed intentionally. The only reason that I used DNA was that many people do not consider a fetus to be a human. But since you accept the fact that a zygote is a human then we already have to grant it moral value according to my view.
what we should be doing is deciding whether it makes sense to try to designate whether someone is due rights based on some arbitrary selection of traits
No, it doesn't, I agree. There is no reason to make a distinction between a person and a human. Therefore, we should grant everyone moral rights. Or maybe grant nobody it.
I understand your point:
- Personhood is arbitrary
- Politics are not arbitrary
- Therefore, politics can decide what is "best" for society - even if it includes killing humans
My point is:
- If one wants to kill something, you must prove that thing is not a human. It is not the opposite way around.
...But your moral views have clear loopholes. I pointed them out, extensively. Your system could, therefore, similarly be misused.
Even if that was true, which I disagree with, it still doesn't make it as bad. Who would actually care to kill their gametes? They die on their own, no need for intentional killing.
summary:
- I believe all humans are entitled to moral value and human rights
- I think abortion is immoral and should be abandoned since nothing tells me why a fetus is not the same as a human
Do you agree or do you think that
defining what a person is is replete with problems
Either way, "personhood" as a term should be abandoned, and moral value be granted to all humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Just to be clear, your opinion does in no sense comparable to that of the Nazis. It is just that abortion is supported by the same type of ethical argument the Nazis used.
-- It excludes someone for no apparent reason other than the opinion of the society/state (aka "public interest"). It puts society over human rights, invalidating the latter.
If you will, this is our problem:
- All "persons" are worthy of moral value
- My definition of "person" includes adults but also includes zygotes and fetuses
- You have not provided another definition
- Thus, abortion is immoral if killing adults is immoral
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not morally justifying it. I'm legally justifying it.
Ok, but it is already legal. You are not making an argument "x is legal because of laws y and z" - but you are making the argument "law x is not morally unjust because y and z"
it is undeniable that societies legislate morality.
The important thing to note here is the word legislate. The word means: Make or enact laws. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/legislate]. I am not denying the fact that any society could choose arbitrarily what laws to pass. But when it comes to ethics, the principles on which morality is deducted, they are clearly not under the power of society. Yes, a society can choose which ethical principles to abide by, but they cannot directly contradict those principles. Or rather, they could, but that would be considered unethical. A Christian nation could not claim to abide by the ten commandments and at the same time persecute Jews - that is objectively unethical by their standard.
Going back to the Nazi's (sorry - I know you completely disagree with them), they obviously upheld standard morality and ethics. But they contradicted those ethics by viewing certain groups of people as not worthy of moral value. We call those actions immoral and unethical - despite the fact that it was seen as acceptable by those that knew about it. If one wants to condemn nazi Germany, one must believe those objective ethics are superior to societal opinion. If ethical principles can condemn societies like Nazi Germany, your view that "society" is the deciding factor is inaccurate: because ETHICS would be the deciding factor.
If we are simply discussing the legal problems with prohibiting abortion then that is fine, but I expected us to talk about ethics. If we do the former then your view is certainly a good one, but if we do the latter I would argue that calling abortion "ethical" while calling the murder of 6-year-olds "unethical" is inconsistent and, in a way, contradictory. That is unless we find an ethical system that allows that. Again, only two ethical systems can allow abortion:
- Personhood grants moral value - and it happens after birth
- Moral value is calculated by analyzing the individual's traits - for example age, genes or development.
My point is that any of these create other problems. Obviously, the problems would not be "legal", but ethical.
this notion that we are simply killing the unborn because we view them as lesser is problematic.
A basic principle of ethics is that moral laws should be designed with a devil in mind. Our moral laws should not contain any loopholes that can be exploited, neither by an individual or society as a whole. Therefore, when making moral laws, we must assume that people have the worst intentions at heart. We must assume that people want to kill each other - so that we do not make it possible to kill and then say: "I am smart and I found this loophole, so my action was just". This means that we must take as a given that people want to kill Jews, Christians, lesbians, children, old people, fetuses, and every other group. If we grant moral value based on "what's most beneficial for society" then that can be subjective, as there are no ways to predict the future harm/benefits of each action. Stalin might have thought that his actions were beneficial in the long run, so how would you condemn him? Your argument of course was that we MUST grant moral value before birth. First of all, I think that as I am sure you would condemn the killing of a 16-year-old, even if society considered it "least harmful". Secondly, I doubt that one could even claim that killing babies is immoral when one has already deemed the killing of a fetus moral.
laws should be enacted that do the least possible harm to the population as a whole.
Yes, the government has a duty to serve the country, but they have no obligation to put their "best solution" onto morality rather than applying ethics. My view is that society should prioritize justice and ethical treatment of the individual rather than focusing on appeasing the population. That's called human rights:
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. [https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]
Since you have not defined "person", I demand that we use the word "human" instead. Or you can provide a sufficient definition of personhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I don't necessarily want people to steer clear of Nazi comparisons just because they're trying to handle me with kid gloves
What an attitude. RESPECT!
I would never get into this specific example if I knew that you were a jew, but now I kinda have to.
I'm unclear on how my system and Nazi Germany's are similar in even this regard.
- Saying that society can strip a certain group of humans of moral value since they are the ones granting moral value
- Justifying said action by claiming that the group is not necessarily persons, but just living organisms
- You claimed that you did not put the unborn as just animals, please explain why you can kill something that is not an animal.
- Saying that the government should put the "most beneficial for society" option above the "fairest to each individual" option
- I would like you to dispute this claim by proving why your view doesn't result in such a state
The philosophy is different, but the ethical implications are the same.
I'm not dismissing the moral implications of any choice, but this is not personal whim
It's a personal whim to let an individual woman kill her offspring if she sees fit. That's like saying: "yes, parents can choose to beat their children if they think it is best".
I don't see how that relates the two stances in any way.
Summary: Saying that society can override human rights - by creating an extra category of non-person humans - who can justly be killed if one deems it beneficial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I'm not morally justifying it. I'm legally justifying it.
Ok, but it is already legal. You are not making an argument "x is legal because of laws y and z" - but you are making the argument "law x is not morally unjust because y and z"
it is undeniable that societies legislate morality.
The important thing to note here is the word legislate. The word means: Make or enact laws. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/legislate]. I am not denying the fact that any society can choose what to see as immoral. But when it comes to ethics, the principles on which morality is deducted, they are clearly not under the power of society. Yes, a society can choose which ethical principles to abide by, but they cannot directly contradict those principles. Or rather, they could, but that would be considered unethical. Going back to the Nazi's (sorry - I know you completely disagree with them), they obviously upheld standard morality and ethics. But they contradicted those ethics by viewing certain groups of people as not worthy of moral value. If one wants to condemn nazi Germany, one must believe in objective ethics. We do not call their actions "harmful for society as a whole", we call them immoral and unethical - despite the fact that it was seen as acceptable by those that knew about it. If we are simply discussing the legal problems with prohibiting abortion then that is fine, but I expected us to talk about ethics. If we do the former then your view is certainly a good one, but if we do the latter I would argue that calling abortion "ethical" while calling the murder of 6-year-olds "unethical" is inconsistent and, in a way, contradictory. That is, unless we find an ethical system that allows that. Again, only two ethical systems can allow abortion:
- Personhood grants moral value - and it happens after birth
- Moral value is calculated by analyzing the individual's traits - for example age, genes or development.
My point is that any of these create other problems. Obviously, the problems would not be "legal", but ethical.
this notion that we are simply killing the unborn because we view them as lesser is problematic.
A basic principle of ethics is that moral laws should be designed with a devil in mind. Our moral laws should not contain any loopholes that can be exploited, neither by an individual or society as a whole. Therefore, when making moral laws, we must assume that people have the worst intentions at heart. We must assume that people want to kill each other - so that we do not make it possible to kill and then say: "I am smart and I found this loophole, so my action was just". This means that we must take as a given that people want to kill Jews, Christians, lesbians, children, old people, fetuses, and every other group. If we grant moral value based on "what's most beneficial for society" then that can be subjective, as there are no ways to predict the future harm/benefits of each action. Stalin might have thought that his actions were beneficial in the long run, so how would you condemn him? Your argument of course was that we MUST grant moral value before birth. First of all, I think that as I am sure you would condemn the killing of a 16-year-old, even if society considered it "least harmful". Secondly, I doubt that one could even claim that killing babies is immoral when one has already deemed the killing of a fetus moral.
laws should be enacted that do the least possible harm to the population as a whole.
Yes, the government has a duty to serve the country, but they have no obligation to put their "best solution" onto morality rather than applying ethics. My view is that society should prioritize justice and ethical treatment of the individual rather than focusing on appeasing the population. That's called human rights:
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. [https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]
Since you have not defined "person", I demand that we use the word "human" instead. Or you can provide a sufficient definition of personhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I wouldn't say there's much relation, if any, between that and my argument.
No there is none - except the very idea that being human does not automatically grant you human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I understand that it is a straw man, of course. Your moral view is completely contrary to these actions.
I accept your complaint that arbitrary has different degrees.
But it is undeniable that giving the power of morality to society is wrong if one believes in a philosophical or religiously based ethics. If a certain act, like abortion, segregation or a specific war is not clear cut morally justified that thing should never be performed. Unless there is a clear cut definition of "person/human" universal human rights lose their meaning. Therefore, one could just as easily justify the act of abortion as any other "immoral" act - one just needs to be evil enough.
I never meant to say that you stood for allowing any of the evil acts pointed out. But there are loopholes in the system, allowing someone evil to justice their evil deeds. There are no loopholes in a clearly defined standard like DNA - because every single thing considered a person has human DNA. This ensures that equally moral rights are justified.
I haven't argued that there are groups - and yes, I'm including the unborn in this - that should be reduced to the status of animals.
Why can we then morally justify killing an unborn? If a fetus is not a person it is an animal. Why would you differentiate between animal and human if the difference is solely name, not in their moral value? Abortion is no different from the killing of a dog, it is a decision to kill "your own" property based on a personal whim (or necessity), and it is treated as not moral or immoral - but amoral. The only difference is that an unborn is human. But if being human, as opposed to being human AND a person, grants no moral rights why even include that as a category? If a human can be killed like an animal before becoming a person, why is it not merely an animal?
In short, "human" is still the only applicable term unless a clear cut definition of personhood is made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Not saying this against you personally, but the rise of human rights happened exactly because people started to oppose your view. Judaism and Christianity, Philosophy and later Human Rights claimed that all humans are persons - not only those close to you or that society deems as "not harmful" to kill. Abortion as a concept is a violation of basic human rights by definition, and if incorporated into the rule, why stop there? We justify the killing of animals much smarter than a born baby, so why not kill 1-year-olds? If humans are to be treated good because of the harm it would cause to not do that, why cannot we treat poor people badly? It would not harm society to kill poor people and take their money if the result is a better health service for the middle class, right? This and a myriad of different scenarios can be thought of which will objectively destroy universal human rights if implemented.
I am not attacking you personally, but your idea is not a worthy basis for who is included in morality. Therefore, abortion is still immoral - until you provide a better "point".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I could give you a definition of personhood
You must. Else wise not even adults have moral rights. Remember that you insisted on granting moral value based on personhood.
we can't use an arbitrary designation of personhood based on our perception of the stage of development
So we, representing "the experts", cannot just decide where moral value is granted based on philosophy or science.
selecting the stage of development where enforcement of legal policies surrounding the unborn do the least possible harm.
In other words: SOCIETY can choose to grant moral value to anyone and take it from anyone - as they see fit or "least harmful".
Why should society, (aka public opinion), get to decide which humans are a "person" - based on their own self-interests? The name "personhood" is not reflective of any non-arbitrary definition, as this debate has clearly shown. The public opinion is not less arbitrary than our personal beliefs if nothing else it is even more arbitrary as the general population is easier swayed by emotion rather than logic. Last but not least: a society can remove the moral value of any group they want.
What did the Nazi's do?
- They blamed a lot of problems on the Jews - making it seem like killing the Jews would not be "harmful"
- The claimed that the Jews were "just" animals - which is precisely what today is happening to the fetuses.
- They stripped them of moral value and then brutally killed them, legally and morally justified
This argument "that a specific group of humans are not persons - they are animals" was used in every war known to man. It is the slogan of injustice and immoral deeds throughout history, and anyone can justify anything by simply tweaking the definition of "person". How can one not justify war to gain power if one measures morality by what benefits society, and not what is objectively true? After reading this, do you still believe that society can freely choose which humans are persons, regardless of scientific and philosophical evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Also why is this called Abortion 2? Is there a sequel to abortion?
Yes.
It is a debate moved into the forums due to the massive amounts of back and forth questioning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I understand your position. But let us take this slowly and calmly.
My argument is that we cannot know when personhood is acquired
Earlier you insisted on "personhood" being what grant's us moral value, but now you do not know what the word means.
Please define "personhood". If you cannot, I suggest we take a step back and start using the term "human" instead.
Created:
Posted in:
I disagree. However, I will accept the criticism.
I declare: Conception is not the point at which one is granted moral value.
Now, your turn:
- Present a better point
- Accept that there is no point in time where moral value is not present
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Why is DNA "undoubtedly the only thing that can be called "the core/base" of a human"?
Have another suggestion?
DNA isn't created
That's exactly why it is the core. It is constant, which makes it a perfect measure of constant moral value. Attaching moral value to anything relative would render moral value relative. But we both agreed that "Moral value is granted at the point when one becomes a person". - meaning that every person has equal value throughout their lives.
How do you know this? Aren't you arbitrarily selecting a trait and saying that it's first?
No it's not.
Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
This is the reasoning behind my choice.
DNA is the only thing that:
- Can single-handedly identify a specific human s consistent throughout a human's entire life
- Dictates all characteristics of said human, including the mental abilities
- Is what starts a human's life at conception (a lone egg cell will NEVER become an adult)
- Keeps it alive by dictating its functions and processes
- When a cell gets a different DNA, we no longer consider it human (cancer for example)
Certainly, DNA is the core of a person as explained above. Think about this:
- DNA is formed before the cell splits
- Before the cell splits, the cell is not a person (according to you)
- Therefore, DNA is the first part of a person
It is not random to chose DNA as the first trait of a person, all traits are based on the DNA - making it the core.
why is its immutability a trait of personhood?
Seriously? Are you suggesting that personhood is not immutable? Then moral value is not immutable, destroying the idea of condemning "immoral" actions.
Scientifically, in part, I suppose this is true.
So you have conceded that anything with unique human DNA is a human.
why this trait over any of the others?
Because scientifically DNA is what defines a creature, period.
Each of these things — along with every other organism on Earth — contains the molecular instructions for life, called deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA.[https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-a-structure-that-encodes-biological-6493050/]
For your argument to be true, there must be a singular moment when a zygote becomes a person.
If by "singular moment" you meant: a point in time with 0 length, then no - by definition. If you meant: "incredible short period with an OBVIOUS START AND END", then yes.
Would you consider a working nervous system to be a small change?
The nervous system is developed throughout your entire life, so even if it is a fundamental change it is not sufficient to give a nine-year-old child moral value as it has not yet been fully developed. DNA is fully functional after some seconds at most and will stay constant throughout your life. Also, DNA is the basis for neural systems, which makes it more fundamental.
Your arguments about "uncertainty" will hit your own position much much more than mine. I will address them by simply saying: since DNA = your future traits, then a fully-fledged DNA, regardless of any alternative universes, is necessarily the start of being a human.
I will end with a syllogism:
- All persons equally human DNA - this is not shared with any other trait
- All persons have equal moral value
- DNA is the immutable trait on which to grant immutable moral value
Tell me, do you deny that human DNA is what makes an individual cell, or a larger organism, human instead of lets say, chimpancee? If not, accept this biological fact.
human =/= person.
I have succesfully shown why one becomes human at conception.
Now you can start your own argument. Tell me why a human and a person is not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"would you rathers" do not matter in ethics.
I suspect that ethics is precisely where such a theorem would be useful and justified.
Pain and suffering do not equate.You can still suffer while sleeping or in a comamy base life does not meet that criteria
I am afraid your definition of "suffering" is unorthodox. Take a look at the official definition from oxford.
Suffering: The state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/suffering]
You are setting up a quite relative standard for morality. In it, murder is only "sometimes" immoral. you are removing the foundation of ethics: objectivity, by making morality based on a calculation of pain and suffering vs pleasure and well-being. Your theory would never work in the real world. I cannot murder you and tell the judge that the act was justified because your life was miserable. We need precise and coherent ethics, one that can create objective standards and laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So killing is never bad unless you inflict pain. Could I kill an unconscious person if the death would be painless?
Would you rather be tortured for 50 years or die right now
So I could kill you if doing it painlessly. I would prevent your future joy but also the pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Why is DNA/genetic exchange a fundamental change
Fundamental: Forming a necessary base or core; of central importance. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/fundamental]
DNA is undoubtedly the only thing that can be called "the core/base" of a human. The cells themselves are generic animal cells.
Why is DNA/genetic exchange the fundamental change that yields personhood, distinct from all others?
Because:
- The DNA is the first part of a person that is created
- The DNA is never changed on purpose after that moment
- DNA is how we identify a human - having only a few cells to judge from
- Without DNA the zygote will never become an adult, not even a fetus
- DNA is how we divide animals into species and families
How much genetic information must be exchanged before one achieves personhood?
All of it. A 1% difference in DNA decides whether something is a human rather than a chimpanzee. The only part of conception that is necessary is DNA exchange, and then pregnancy starts, and changes happen with rapid speed. Your argument is the classical "a point has 0 lengths, therefore we should ignore it" argument. It is like saying: why is pushing a rock the DE FACTO start of it's trip rolling down the mountain. It is a valid point until you apply common sense. You could put a different DNA into a zygote and you would get a completely different result - potentially even an animal. Your DNA is what defines your traits - like personality, mental abilities, and basically everything else.
How do we know when one achieves a change in category? What distinguishes that from "a small change within the current category"?
What is the difference between 1 cell and 2, if they share the exact same properties and the exact same intentions: becoming an adult? Nothing but quantity. It is a small change, not a change in category. The same goes for the rest of growth, it's either a change in quantity or a minor change in quality.
Think about height, is a person 2 times higher than me in another category, requiring a different value? What about intelligence, neural system, strength, age, and so forth. People are so different in regards to those "relative traits" that if we applied moral values based on them we could not justify giving everyone the same value.
HOWEVER, all humans have equally human DNA. Therefore, if we grant moral value based on DNA we can be both ethical to everyone and still not intellectually inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because death is just a form of suffering
No, it's not - it's way more.
Death: The action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/death]
Because death is just a form of suffering, but with death there is no more suffering, therefore something which perpetuates life and suffering is worse than something which only kills, being tortured for example.
What do you even mean. Would you rather be tortured for one hour and live or die right away instead of 50 years in the future? Your statement ignores reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
A. Why is fusion a fundamental change?
- Your DNA and subsequently your traits are decided at that moment - dependent on which combination is made
- It's the de facto start of pregnancy
B. Why is every step before fusion not a fundamental change?
The creation of sperm and eggs is obviously fundamental steps - that's why they are not "part of a human" but rather carriers of DNA
C. Why does the first fundamental change have to be considered the start? Why can't subsequent steps be considered the initiating step to a new person?
Your second argument is explained by the first statement: conception is a FUNDAMENTAL change, minor steps afterwards are not as important.
Remember, YOU were the one that said:
I already provided my view: that there is no way to know the moment at which a fundamental change occurs.
I replied by saying that we know of at least one fundamental change, conception.
Then you said:
I think the pro-choice view is that other fundamental changes are what is necessary to form a person.
So we both agree that a fundamental change is necessarily the moment of granting moral value.
My claim is simple:
- That point is a change in category, not simply a small change within the current category.
- A fundamental change is a change in category
- Therefore, moral value is granted in a fundamental change
To argue that we should ignore the defining feature of "category", "fundamental changes", in favour of arbitrary thresholds of traits is absurd.
We know that a fundamental change is necessary.
But we can discuss WHICH fundamental change initiates moral value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Suffering" is just some chemical reactions. "Death" is a much larger and impactful set of chemical reactions. I can't see why you put "suffering" as being worse than death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Because fusion IS a fundamental change - so regardless of whether or not another fundamental change happens afterwards we can know that sperm is not even a mammal.
You must admit that the only reason to dismiss this "fundamental change is a necessary" idea is that pro-choice has no sufficient alternative fundamental change.
If we accept the obvious fundamental change that is fusion -- then there is no uncertainty, and we can coherently and non-arbitrarily apply equal moral value to everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF something is capable of suffering, THEN it will have moral value
Interesting Idea.
I see at least 3 problems:
- Most animals, if not all, can feel pain as well
- "Pain"s only purpose is to make the organism try to survive by avoiding danger. So pain in itself is not necessarily bad, but death is the real problem
- It supports pro-life
Why is the third point correct?
Suffer: Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant) [https://www.lexico.com/definition/suffer]
So since all living things have the capacity to die, and dying is a bad thing, all life is capable of suffering.
If you solely mean "pain" then 1 and 2 are still true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
If we do not know when something becomes a person, then let us start by what we know:
- No sperm cell, regardless of what stage, is a person
- A fetus right before birth is a person
Unless there exists a "fundamental change" between the two things, the difference is arbitrary. If we cannot know when you become a person we should let the doubt benefit the fetus, since at least we know that it is a person later on. We would never kill a thing unless we were certain that it was not a person - therefore, fetuses should never be killed. But you do not condemn abortion, so I conclude that you must accept the "fundamental change". That is if you want to defend abortion as morally permissible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Without a fundamental change then a person is just a "better animal" and should not be granted moral value. Therefore, we must discuss what such a fundamental change is, please do not force me to try to put my view as the definition - we already have the official definition. In other words, go ahead and explain when the fundamental change happens and then I will present my case afterwards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Fundamental: Forming a necessary base or core; of central importance. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/fundamental]
This is the oxford dictionary. The core is the basis for personhood - so all persons must have an equal or almost equal core.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I expect it to at least not be an arbitrary decision. There should at least be a fundamental change in the organism.
Created:
Posted in:
POINT 3 - WHAT IS A PERSON?
We will try to find a moment at which a non-person-thing fundamentally changes and becomes a person.
Who wants to be the first to present their view of when this moment happens?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Let it be noted that:
- there is a change in category that happens at some point
- this change in category is not arbitrary or small - but fundamental (because a "person" and a nonperson are viewed and treated as fundamentally different)
- the term "person" is not explicitly stated to not be synonymous with "human", this is up for debate
- By the same quality/category we grant moral value, the differences of said quality is not major between individuals - ensuring ALL "x" get equal moral value
Created: