Freethought & Rationalism Archive

God Fearing Atheist · 01-25-2002, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


I agree there is a difference, but how does this justify the killing of the infant? The fact that the victim is defenseless is usually taken to mean that the act of killing was even more abhorrent. Are you saying that the fact that the victim is defenseless actually makes the killing moral?

Normative theories aim to give coherent, universal reasons to adopt restrictions on ones behavior vis-a-vis other people. If we cant give the reasons, we cant posit morality in that situation.

What im saying is that there are no reasons (as far as i can see) why a society ought not, as a general practice, kill unwanted infants. It doesnt make it *moral* anymore than it makes it immoral. It simply makes it a matter of personal of societial preference.

Its effectivly *amoral*.

God Fearing Atheist · 01-25-2002, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


What is the difference between an "aesthetic prefernce" and morality?

Value: the extent to which one state of affairs is prefered to another. It is ascribed and ranked in such a way that we can infer an agents preference vis-a-vis different outcomes. It synonymous with "utility". Aesthetic values are a certain type of this general form.

Morality: impartial rules or constraints on individual behavior which override my inclinations to better myself at your expense.

God Fearing Atheist · 01-25-2002, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BK:
I believe it was Emerson who said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." GFA, I don't believe for a second you find nothing immoral about killing infants. I strongly suspect that you are merely taking this position because you are fully aware that agreeing that infanticide is immoral is a tacit admission that such a thing as absolute morality existing--which of course it can't if there is no God. In following this fallacy, you have stated something that I doubt any neutral observer would doubt, even for a moment, was a monumentally stupid thing to say.

Infanticide is simply an aesthetic preference? If you really believe that, I have two words for you: get help.

BK

BK, i refuse to dignify that tripe with a thoughtful response. From this point further, attempt debating my position from what i actually believe, as opposed to the nonsense you assume i do.

Layman · 01-28-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist:
Normative theories aim to give coherent, universal reasons to adopt restrictions on ones behavior vis-a-vis other people. If we cant give the reasons, we cant posit morality in that situation.

So it is "immoral" to strike an adult because he might strike you back? But it is not "immoral" to kill in infant because it is helpless? That is the product of a "normative theory" of morality? How so. How does "universal reason" demonstrate that the fact that your 'victim' will fight back renders your attack "immoral?" You are using big words, but not really explaining anything yet.

Quote:

What im saying is that there are no reasons (as far as i can see) why a society ought not, as a general practice, kill unwanted infants. It doesnt make it *moral* anymore than it makes it immoral. It simply makes it a matter of personal of societial preference.

I know what you are saying, but it's not coherent, yet.

Layman · 01-28-2002, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist:


Value: the extent to which one state of affairs is prefered to another. It is ascribed and ranked in such a way that we can infer an agents preference vis-a-vis different outcomes. It synonymous with "utility". Aesthetic values are a certain type of this general form.

Morality: impartial rules or constraints on individual behavior which override my inclinations to better myself at your expense.

Taking this definition of morality, why is it immoral to strike another human being? Especially since your only justification for such a label is one of self-preservation--the "victim" could fight back. That is acting in conformity with your incliation to better yourself.

Unless of course you can sucker punch the guy and get away clean.

BK · 01-28-2002, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist:


BK, i refuse to dignify that tripe with a thoughtful response. From this point further, attempt debating my position from what i actually believe, as opposed to the nonsense you assume i do.

Then clarify your position because it sure appears that you are saying that infanticide is okay if the society that allows it finds it to be acceptable.
BK

Layman · 01-28-2002, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BK:
Then clarify your position because it sure appears that you are saying that infanticide is okay if the society that allows it finds it to be acceptable.
BK

Unless, of course, he believes that it is proper for a society to use the force of law to enforce some of its member's "aesthetic preferences."

Interesting question.

echidna · 01-28-2002, 05:08 PM

I hope I�m not the only one confused by GFA.

Are you simply saying that I cannot derive morality ex nihilo without presupposition ? Of course, I presuppose that life, freedom and compassion are virtuous ideals, therefore I find that arbitrary killing infants is immoral.

Do you have other conflicting presuppositions ?

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

God Fearing Atheist · 01-28-2002, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BK:
Then clarify your position because it sure appears that you are saying that infanticide is okay if the society that allows it finds it to be acceptable.
BK

Ive done so a number of times now, BK. Please try rereading my posts.

God Fearing Atheist · 01-28-2002, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:
I hope I’m not the only one confused by GFA.

Are you simply saying that I cannot derive morality ex nihilo without presupposition ? Of course, I presuppose that life, freedom and compassion are virtuous ideals, therefore I find that arbitrary killing infants is immoral.

Do you have other conflicting presuppositions ?

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

Try: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000019" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000019</a>

Perhaps, if I get the time, i'll articulate why i dont believe we can arrive at morals in regards to infants in some more detail.

01-28-2002, 05:08 PM	#28
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	I hope I�m not the only one confused by GFA. Are you simply saying that I cannot derive morality ex nihilo without presupposition ? Of course, I presuppose that life, freedom and compassion are virtuous ideals, therefore I find that arbitrary killing infants is immoral. Do you have other conflicting presuppositions ? [ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.