echidna

Afraid I tried & I failed.

I’ve come across similar to this (only loosely in conversation) in regards to economic trade modelling. However I don’t see how emotional relationships and moral decisions fall under the same model. And can I say I’d also be worried about complex over-rational modelling of moral issues.

In fact if you disagree with my opinion that killing babies arbitrarily is wrong, then I’d find this to be an excellent example of a neo-religious reliance on science.

I hope I misunderstand.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

echidna

double post

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Layman

I would be very interested to see such an argument. From a utilitarian standpoint at least, it seems that infants--despite the immediate costs of care--offer much more to the future of a society--much longer income stream--than do adults. Of course, you could argue that downs babies and other which will have lesser incomes could be morally killed, such a blanket rule doesn't appear justified by any moral code I can think of. Unless, of course, one refuses to concede that there is any such thing as a moral code.

echidna

This is the second time I remember seeing convoluted versions of Social Contract Theory come up with widely unpopular conclusions, so I can’t say I’m warming to it.

"This orange is a vacuum cleaner."

Given I don’t accept the conclusion, I find 2 possibilities :

1. The logic is flawed.
2. The argument uses non-standard semantics.
"But I was defining ‘orange’ as meaning a powered device using air pressure to move objects."

I suspect that this summarises several lengthy philosophical arguments in fact.

Interestingly in my experience those with Downs Syndrome actually have much to offer modern society, just from the simple happiness which they often exude, and usually happy for no reason at all. It’s a rare quality which few able-bodied people even see as a positive.

(My sister is reading the Dalai Lama's "Happy for No Reason".)

Layman

Let me be clear that I don't believe in infanticide at all and definitely not for downs babies. I was just trying to point out that GFA's arguments weren't making sense to me, and posited an argument I'd seen secularists posit before--utilitarianism as a basis for morality. Of course, as a Christian, I ascribe to a different morality.

And under my morality, those that are less able to defend themselves, such as infants--including and especially, Down's babies--are deserving of heightened protection from our moral code, not less.

God Fearing Atheist

Dont blame the content for your understanding of it.

I was also under the impression that personal incredulty didnt qualify as sound argumentation.

God Fearing Atheist

Im not a utilitarian.

echidna

Don’t worry, I’m not questioning anyone’s morality, even GFA’s. I just think they’ve reasoned themselves into an irrational conclusion. No psychopaths in this thread (I hope).

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Layman

That's all well and good. So what are you? I think that's we want to know. On what basis do you find it immoral to harm an adult and not immoral to harm an infant?

Layman

I might question GFA's morality on this issue, if I had an inkling to what it was. And if he really has no moral quarrel with murdering infants, then that wouldn't necessarily make him a psychopath, just a "true believer." And whether religious or not, "true beleivers" can cause as much, if not more, damage than pyschopaths.