Dr. Retard

Funny enough, I was about to say the same thing about your post. First off, I see nothing wrong with killing infants, so long as they aren't claimed by anyone. After all, you can't reason or strategize with an infant and it's not like we reasoners and strategizers might become infants some day (as is the case with invalids and the senescent). Second, why would GFA shy away from admitting that there is an absolute morality? You seem to think that all atheists are relativists, even those who espouse Gautherian contractarian arguments on behalf of objective morality. Third, you say "of course" an absolute morality can't exist if there is no God. What bluster! What folderol! Where are you getting this? What possible connection can there be between God's existence and the existence of moral truths? Just because religions have traditionally been able to suck morality under their province doesn't mean the topics share any fundamental common ground.

Layman

So the worth of an infant is tied into the worthy of whoever is claiming the infant? Up to what age would you apply this rule?

And I'm not sure I understand your last point. It is likely that us reasoners and strategizers will become invalids or at the very least, substantially impaired in our reasoning and strategizing. Of course, that will not mean we will be like infants. We won't be because we will be at the end of our lives while infants are just beginning their progression.

Gurdur

Personally, I was under the impression that one needed at least a modicum of evidence for one's claims before one can say that they should be accepted.

Since your own unfinished ethics is based on arbitrary choices, GFA, for example the equation of value with utility, then how can you deny others different arbitrary choices ?

Echidna has asked you the question: please answer it.

And under my morality too, and I'm a hard-line atheist, and a secular humanist, without revealed morality, even revealed utilitarian morality.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Dr. Retard

What age? Beats me. It's bound to be a matter of degree. I imagine the best law is going to be based on what policy has the lowest administrative costs within that gray area. I don't see any principled way around this.

All I meant by the parenthetical note was that you can ground rights for invalids and the senescent on contractarian grounds. It's smart to give them rights because we might become them one day, even though they cannot bargain or strategize. The same doesn't apply for infants.

Amen-Moses

All of who? How come we are even having this discussion if some culture somewhere doesn't think otherwise?

If a mother has a choice between trying to support too many children with meagre resources, with the probable end result that none of them will become successful in passing on her genes, or killing off the weakest or least likely to procreate then who are we to say she is wrong or not. Unless we are willing to step in and either provide the resources she needs or take away the unwanted children and care for them for her how can we even claim the moral high ground?

Amen-Moses

Layman

Well, certainly we have to come up with an age. How do you propose doing that? Or will it be a case by case basis? Some 2 year olds are humans worthy of protection while some 2 year olds are not? I suspect any system based on the "costs" will end up being extremely racist and classist.

God Fearing Atheist

You're much to hasty, my friend. Not only am I willing to present said arguments, ive given the outlines of a few.