Frequent commenter AD Graham on the Abolitionist Society blog left some interesting comments on a post that deals with the question of the justifiability of aborting babies that have Downs Syndrome.
They begin here.
I respond:
With respect to AD Graham's system here:
Section 1:
my system takes into account is whether a decision a) is done with consideration of utilitarian consequences and b) is done with reasonable consideration of the relevant information.
I have a few objections. How much is reasonable? Does his system define it? If so, is that not circular? If not, how is his system helpful?
How is it possible to define the good/bad value of the consequences without a circular appeal to his ethical system?
the goal of utilitarian ethics is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in order to obtain lives with more pleasure than pain.
How does he know that maximising pleasure and minimising pain are good things?
if a disease is awful enough to preclude any possibility of a pleasurable life
How does anyone have any "relevant information", as he put it, about the future of a given human being? Citing averages and previous occurrences does nothing to inform us about the future.
While Down syndrome children do not live a life of anguish, they may still be candidates for abortion in a utilitarian system
Candidates for abortion. He makes it sound like they're lining up to sign up to be forcibly dismembered.
Speaking for myself, I don't appreciate his treating me like I'm a child. I recommend he tell it like it is so we can all be assured he is actually giving this issue the consideration it merits.
Utilitarian ethics require the practitioner
I pause here to note that "utilitarian ethics" don't 'require' anything. They have no authority; one can choose to accept them as DESCRIPTIVE...or not. Without any consequence.
Contrast that with the God of the universe creating all that exists, with moral laws and their due punishments in place and clearly communicated to mankind. All that, versus AD Graham and his sort of obscure ethical hypothesising, talking about 'requirements' without authority.
While giving birth to a baby with Down does not harm anyone, it does curb the parents ability to care for others.
A naked assertion, bereft of argument.
And even with an argument, AD Graham would still need to let us know how he knows that's a bad thing. How he measures pain and pleasure such that we can know they're being maximised and minimised. What instrumentation he uses to perform the analysis. How he makes sure his analyses have statistical significance.
Yes, that would require omniscience, so that puts him in a difficult spot. How can he know that he has sufficient relevant information so as to enable him to perform the "reasonable consideration" he recommends?
People with Down’s are not able to reciprocate this level of care.
A cold, heartless statement if ever there were one. AD Graham has committed a Freudian slip. It's doubtful whether he really cares about maximising pleasure/minimising pain. He really just wants it to be OK to put people to death that he thinks it's OK to put to death. Where is his detailed analysis of the question to demonstrate that he's got this nailed down?
I am saying that they are not able to provide support to the lives of others in the same way.
AD Graham needs to clarify here. How does he know that reciprocation of love and help must be of exactly the same kind? What is his argument to that effect? Does he consistently apply this argumentation to all other arenas, not just Downs syndrome people?
people with Down syndrome often provide an inefficient benefit to society
It should be coming clear to anyone that AD Graham has a very physicalistic view of the value of people. People have value insofar as they can do tasks that AD Graham finds valuable.
What's to stop AD Graham from taking that even further and attempting to create the ubermensch, the perfect superman? I mean, if it's ethically justified, we shouldn't even ask "why not?"; we should do it. By his ethic, why would we not be led to precisely that conclusion? Is not efficient benefit to society a virtue? If one is not efficient, AD Graham says other more efficient benefiters are justified in killing them.
(i)f the opportunity arose in which one could painlessly terminate this life in favor of a more efficient life
Another example demonstrating that AD Graham is so far not engaging the topic seriously enough.
1) A huge number, if not the majority, if not the vast majority, of abortions are performed without anesthesia.
2) And they're carried out in violent ways. We put dogs down with sedative injections. Human babies get their heads ripped off by scissors, or their skin scalded by chemical weapons.
3) Even if anesthesia were applied, how could we know that it worked on the babies? We can't ask them. Probably better off not killing them, no?
4) Since abortions are very, very rarely painless, wouldn't that mean that killing 53 million babies would be MAXIMISING PAIN? And that AD Graham should thus be an abolitionist?
How does AD Graham know that the pain of the death of the child does not outweigh the avoidance of pain from his life lived with Downs?
Does AD Graham take into account the large number of women who experience difficult psychological and emotional problems post-abortion b/c of their abortions in judging his maximise pleasure/minimise pain matrix? How, where, and when?
"How does he know that maximising pleasure and minimising pain are good things?"
ReplyDeleteHow do you know a triangle has three sides? Surely the meaning is built into the words themselves.
"…an important aspect of slavery… has been all too often ignored: slaveholders expected to appropriate and exploit the reproductive lives of enslaved women. Control of one’s body was not a fundamental right of slaves. Emboldened by law and custom to do with human chattels as they wished, (slave) owners felt entitled to intervene in even the most intimate of matters."
ReplyDeleteThe irony of your misappropriation of the label "abolitionist" is obviously lost on you.
merkur,
ReplyDelete"Tri"angle...the "tri" = 3.
How do you know pleasure=good? I could easily just point back to you and say "yes, that's right. Pain=good. The meaning is built into the word itself."
This is partly b/c we have to answer WHOSE pleasure?
Control of one’s body was not a fundamental right of slaves
Yes, b/c an external agent controlled them, and had power over them to deny their rights.
That sounds, actually, a lot more like abortion.
Your irony meter needs a tune-up.
"How do you know pleasure=good? I could easily just point back to you and say "yes, that's right. Pain=good. The meaning is built into the word itself.""
ReplyDeleteYou could point back to me and say that, but it wouldn't advance your argument, would it? You would still have two words, pleasure and pain; and you would still have two meanings attached to the words; but you would simply have swapped the meanings around. So his argument would still stand in exactly the same way; you could substitute any words you wanted (for example, garglefrax and elumptimum) and as long as there two opposed meanings behind those words, his argument still stands. That you don't see this is testament to your poor reasoning skills.
"Yes, b/c an external agent controlled them, and had power over them to deny their rights.
That sounds, actually, a lot more like abortion."
I also think you don't understand what the word "irony" means. I'm not denying that the same argument may apply to foetuses; I'm pointing out that you are guilty of exactly the same offenses that you are accusing women of. That's why it's irony, see?
You exploit the reproductive lives of women; you don't believe they should have control over their bodies; you feel entitled to intervene in the most intimate of matters. That's why it's ironic that you so vehemently object to women doing exactly the same thing.
merkur,
ReplyDeleteYou could point back to me and say that, but it wouldn't advance your argument, would it?
Sure it would. It would show that your objection was toothless.
You would still have two words, pleasure and pain; and you would still have two meanings attached to the words; but you would simply have swapped the meanings around
No, back up; you're still operating according to your assumption.
Not everyone thinks that pain=bad and pleasure=good. That's what I'm asking you to prove.
I'm not denying that the same argument may apply to foetuses; I'm pointing out that you are guilty of exactly the same offenses that you are accusing women of. That's why it's irony, see?
Are you willing to use the same language to describe those who would make laws outlawing murder?
you don't believe they should have control over their bodies
Yes, I do. You're ignorant of my position. I recommend more reading on your part.
You exploit the reproductive lives of women
That's just foolish talk. You don't know me, or anything about me.
Insisting that women not be allowed to murder the innocent child in their womb, whose body IS HIS OWN AND NOT PART OF THE WOMAN'S BODY, is hardly "exploitation". You want exploitation, how about the many aborticians around the country who refuse to educate women fully about abortion and the life of the baby and what is done during an abortion, who refuse to provide sufficient medical care to women injured during abortions, and who take sexual advantage of their patients?
“No, back up; you're still operating according to your assumption. Not everyone thinks that pain=bad and pleasure=good. That's what I'm asking you to prove.”
ReplyDeleteEverybody approaches pleasure and avoids displeasure. The use of the word 'pleasure' is misleading if you think it simply means material pleasure: you get 'pleasure' in the utilitarian sense through worshipping God. (The use of the word pain is common even in utilitarian philosophy, but is really a substitute for displeasure.) So I don't have to prove anything since, as I said, the inherently positive nature of pleasure is built into the concept itself.
“Are you willing to use the same language to describe those who would make laws outlawing murder?”
ReplyDeleteI normally use the word “ironic” to describe something that's ironic, and that isn't ironic. Perhaps you meant something else?
“Yes, I do. You're ignorant of my position. I recommend more reading on your part.”
I'll be happy to do more reading on your position if you can give me some references.
“Insisting that women not be allowed to murder the innocent child in their womb, whose body IS HIS OWN AND NOT PART OF THE WOMAN'S BODY, is hardly "exploitation".”
I didn't say that it was. This is easy to settle: you clearly “feel entitled to intervene in the most intimate of matters”, otherwise you wouldn't be part of a campaigning group that seeks to intervene. I would argue that you exploit the reproductive lives of women to advance your cause, and I would further argue that “you don't believe they should have control over their bodies” since you would deny them the right to access the full range of reproductive health services, up to and including abortion. You might want to contest the “exploitation” accusation, but the other two are undeniable.
We are unlikely to agree about the status of the foetus since you have a religious commitment to it which I do not share.
merkur,
ReplyDeleteEverybody approaches pleasure and avoids displeasure.
How do you know that? Have you asked everyone?
The use of the word 'pleasure' is misleading if you think it simply means material pleasure: you get 'pleasure' in the utilitarian sense through worshipping God.
That just promotes my point. Everyone would get pleasure from worshiping God but few actually do it. Thus few actually seek the highest pleasure.
So I don't have to prove anything since, as I said, the inherently positive nature of pleasure is built into the concept itself.
So because you think most people equate the two, ergo they are the same.
Interesting logic there.
I'll be happy to do more reading on your position if you can give me some references.
The blog archives are linked on the left sidebar.
you clearly “feel entitled to intervene in the most intimate of matters”, otherwise you wouldn't be part of a campaigning group that seeks to intervene.
B/c it is clearly murder.
I guess you think that every law court in the US and western Europe (countries where murder is outlawed) "feels entitled to intervene in the most intimate of matters".
I would argue that you exploit the reproductive lives of women to advance your cause,
Then not only do you need to read more of my blog, but you also need to read the Abolitionist Society blog as well.
It's also linked on the left sidebar.
I would further argue that “you don't believe they should have control over their bodies” since you would deny them the right to access the full range of reproductive health services
Labeling an exercise that always results in death a "health service" is creative, I'll give you that.
We are unlikely to agree about the status of the foetus since you have a religious commitment to it which I do not share.
If you were to do sufficient research, you'd find that the my conclusion is the best one, even if you remove any Christian commitment from the equation.
“How do you know that? Have you asked everyone?”
ReplyDeleteAs I have already pointed out, in utilitarian philosophy the meaning is built into the words. Pleasure is by definition what people pursue, displeasure is by definition what they avoid. Let me know if you want to argue against the definition of a bachelor being an unmarried man.
“That just promotes my point. Everyone would get pleasure from worshiping God but few actually do it. Thus few actually seek the highest pleasure.”
Most utilitarians would agree with you that few seek the highest pleasure, although I'm not sure why you think this promotes your point, since most utilitarians would also agree that trying to tell other people what their highest pleasure is, is simultaneously futile, arrogant and meaningless.
“The blog archives are linked on the left sidebar.”
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm sorry. I thought you had a specific link, rather than expecting me to trawl through your entire blog archive. Tell you what, I'll read through your “blog archives” if you bother to read some actual utilitarian philosophers, deal?
“B/c it is clearly murder.”
Except it isn't clearly murder, because if you carry out an abortion you aren't charged with murder. I'm guessing you mean murder as you define it, rather than as the legal system defines it, in which case you should probably pick a new word to avoid looking silly.
“Then not only do you need to read more of my blog, but you also need to read the Abolitionist Society blog as well.”
I've read the Abolitionist Society blog – it's exhibit A in the evidence that you exploit the reproductive lives of women to advance your cause.
“If you were to do sufficient research, you'd find that the my conclusion is the best one, even if you remove any Christian commitment from the equation.”
I've done sufficient research, and no, I don't think that's the case. I'm assuming that at root you believe that human lives are uniquely valuable because each human possesses a soul, and that soul is present from the moment of conception. I don't believe in the existence of a soul, and thus don't share your faith position.
Pleasure is by definition what people pursue, displeasure is by definition what they avoid
ReplyDeleteAnd when diff ppl seek diff things?
Ie, some ppl seek to murder other ppl, whereas other ppl find great pleasure in NOT murdering other ppl?
What then?
Let me know if you want to argue against the definition of a bachelor being an unmarried man.
First you need to prove that pleasure=good. That's begging the question at hand.
EVen if everyone did seek the same thing and they all called that thing "good", I'd need to see an argument proving that "everyone seeks the same thing and calls it 'good', ergo that thing is in fact good".
most utilitarians would also agree that trying to tell other people what their highest pleasure is, is simultaneously futile, arrogant and meaningless.
So? What if I happen to have information that is reliable to that effect?
It's not as if any given person knows for sure what would bring him the highest pleasure, right? How would he know? Has he tried EVERY possible experience in the universe?
. I thought you had a specific link, rather than expecting me to trawl through your entire blog archive.
Ah, OK, so you're not willing to understand my position.
Probably better to ask me about my position, then, rather than pretending you know what my position is.
Tell you what, I'll read through your “blog archives” if you bother to read some actual utilitarian philosophers, deal?
No deal. I don't care enough.
The difference is that I haven't presumed to tell utilitarian philosophers what they believe.
Except it isn't clearly murder, because if you carry out an abortion you aren't charged with murder
And it's merkur with the category error, for the win!!!
I'm guessing you mean murder as you define it
Unjustified taking of human life, yes.
I've read the Abolitionist Society blog – it's exhibit A in the evidence that you exploit the reproductive lives of women to advance your cause.
Then your discernment senses need tuning as well. What a foolish conclusion. Biased.
I'm assuming that at root you believe that human lives are uniquely valuable because each human possesses a soul, and that soul is present from the moment of conception. I don't believe in the existence of a soul, and thus don't share your faith position
Not at all. Maybe you missed where I said "even if you remove any Christian commitment from the equation". Try again, read it again.
The secular case would be made thusly:
1) Human beings possess human rights.
2) One human right is the right not to be killed w/o due process of law.
3) Medically speaking, human beings come into existence at the moment of conception.
4) Any argument against 3) means importing an arbitrary assignment of "human being"-ness for some arbitrary level of development or performance, which is a category error.
C) Therefore, human fetuses should not be killed w/o due process of law.
Obviously I disagree with point 4. However, since abortion is regulated by law, then due process of law already applies to abortion, and so I'm left wondering what your objection actually is.
ReplyDeleteDoes it? Are aborted humans tried by a jury of their peers before the guilty verdict is handed down and the sentence carried out?
ReplyDelete"Unjustified taking of human life, yes."
ReplyDeleteSo you don't use the legal definition, and should probably find another word in order to avoid confusion.
"Does it? Are aborted humans tried by a jury of their peers before the guilty verdict is handed down and the sentence carried out?"
ReplyDeleteYou specified "due process of law", which is not limited to and does not have to include trial by jury.
“No deal. I don't care enough.”
ReplyDeleteThat much is painfully clear.
“Ah, OK, so you're not willing to understand my position. Probably better to ask me about my position, then, rather than pretending you know what my position is.”
ReplyDeleteI did ask you about your position, when I said “I'll be happy to do more reading on your position if you can give me some references.”
“And when diff ppl seek diff things? Ie, some ppl seek to murder other ppl, whereas other ppl find great pleasure in NOT murdering other ppl? What then?”
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that's a defeater for utilitarianism, when in fact that's exactly what utilitarianism deals with, which is why I suggested that you read some utilitarian philosophy, to which you replied that you “don't care enough”.
“First you need to prove that pleasure=good.”
I believe that you are not using the common definition of “good”, since you believe that God is the definition of good. Since I do not believe in your God, trying to prove that pleasure=God would be meaningless.
“So? What if I happen to have information that is reliable to that effect? It's not as if any given person knows for sure what would bring him the highest pleasure, right? How would he know? Has he tried EVERY possible experience in the universe?”
No, but neither has anybody else, and thus nobody is in a position to state definitively what would bring any given person the highest pleasure.
You specified "due process of law", which is not limited to and does not have to include trial by jury.
ReplyDeleteWhat due process of law did you have in mind, then, through which these murdered babies have passed?
I did ask you about your position, when I said “I'll be happy to do more reading on your position if you can give me some references.”
And I seem to recall answering, by pointing you to an abundance of resources.
They're even organised by tags.
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/morality
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/theology
for example.
“And when diff ppl seek diff things? Ie, some ppl seek to murder other ppl, whereas other ppl find great pleasure in NOT murdering other ppl? What then?”
You seem to think that's a defeater for utilitarianism, when in fact that's exactly what utilitarianism deals with, which is why I suggested that you read some utilitarian philosophy, to which you replied that you “don't care enough”.
Do I think it's a defeater, or am I waiting for an answer?
Maybe you should... --wait for it-- ask me which it is.
And yes, thanks for asking! I think it's something I'd like to see you answer so that we can further analyse what merit this system has.
“First you need to prove that pleasure=good.”
I believe that you are not using the common definition of “good”, since you believe that God is the definition of good. Since I do not believe in your God, trying to prove that pleasure=God would be meaningless.
I believe that you are not using the common definition of “good”, since you believe that pleasure is the definition of good. Since I do not believe in your definition of good, trying to prove that God=good would be meaningless.
There. See how easy non-answers are? You oughta know; you're quite good at them!
“So? What if I happen to have information that is reliable to that effect? It's not as if any given person knows for sure what would bring him the highest pleasure, right? How would he know? Has he tried EVERY possible experience in the universe?”
No, but neither has anybody else, and thus nobody is in a position to state definitively what would bring any given person the highest pleasure.
That's an assumption on your part.
1) How do you know that nobody is in that position? Can you read everyone's thoughts? Know all the information that everyone on the planet has access to?
2) God does have that access, BTW.
3) Since you seem to think that nobody has that access or that information, how is this system acted out in real practice? How do you ever make decisions?
“What due process of law did you have in mind, then, through which these murdered babies have passed?”
ReplyDeleteI already answered this question: “since abortion is regulated by law, then due process of law already applies to abortion.” (This of course only applies where abortions are carried out by operators licensed under that law.)
I have exactly zero expectation that you would know this, but Roe vs Wade hinged on due process, and the majority decision was based primarily on the due process clause in the Constitution. Clearly the Supreme Court did not feel that due process extended to fetuses.
You may disagree with this position, but you can't argue that abortion is not covered by due process of law. Can I also recommend that you read up on legal history in addition to basic utilitarian philosophy? You might be able to make a stronger argument if you did so.
“And I seem to recall answering, by pointing you to an abundance of resources.”
ReplyDeleteYes, but it's unreasonable to expect me to trawl through “an abundance of resources” in order to work out your position on this particular issue, particularly since in this case quantity most definitely does not equal quality.
Let's get back to the point. I argue that “you don't believe [women] should have control over their bodies”, since you wish to prevent them from accessing the full range of reproductive health services, in violation of their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs Wade.
You retort that this is not the case, and that I am ignorant of your position. I acknowledge that I may be ignorant of your position; but if you refuse to state it clearly, as I have stated mine above, your retort has little force.
“Do I think it's a defeater, or am I waiting for an answer? Maybe you should... --wait for it-- ask me which it is. And yes, thanks for asking! I think it's something I'd like to see you answer so that we can further analyse what merit this system has.”
ReplyDeleteWhen different people seek different things, we have to weigh the relative pleasure and displeasure their actions will lead to. It is usually argued that murder creates such an extreme of suffering on the part of the victim that there can be no justification for it in terms of the satisfaction gained by the perpetrator. This position seems coherent to me.
“I believe that you are not using the common definition of “good”, since you believe that pleasure is the definition of good. Since I do not believe in your definition of good, trying to prove that God=good would be meaningless. There. See how easy non-answers are? You oughta know; you're quite good at them!”
ReplyDeleteThis is both incoherent and childish. I have nowhere stated that I believe that pleasure is the definition of good, whereas you have explicity stated elsewhere that you believe that God is the definition of good. You still appear not to have grasped that in utilitarian philosophy, “pleasure” is by definition good, i.e. that is what meant by use of the word “pleasure”.
“1) How do you know that nobody is in that position? Can you read everyone's thoughts? Know all the information that everyone on the planet has access to?”
ReplyDeleteI was merely re-iterating your point, which was “It's not as if any given person knows for sure what would bring him the highest pleasure, right?” Are you now arguing against your own position? That seems... odd.
“2) God does have that access, BTW.”
You believe that he does, but even if he does, you do not have access to God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts, and so this belief doesn't help you.
“3) Since you seem to think that nobody has that access or that information, how is this system acted out in real practice? How do you ever make decisions?”
With careful consideration rather than glib rhetoric.
BTW I will continue to answer your individual points in individual comments, because I have noticed that you have difficulty formulating coherent arguments. Hopefully this way we can keep the separate points running smoothly and identify what, exactly, your argument is!
ReplyDeletep.s. I've just read pretty much everything in your blog over the last three years - it didn't take that long, it wasn't very substantial - but it's still not clear to me why you think your persistent tirades against women's access to reproductive health services constitutes evidence that you are fully ins upport of women's access to reproductive health services. Perhaps you can enlighten this poor, confused soul.
ReplyDeleteI already answered this question: “since abortion is regulated by law, then due process of law already applies to abortion.”
ReplyDeleteA law made by Congress or a state does not supersede the Constitution.
Further, this goes deeper than even the Constitution. It is a principle of justice that the death penalty must be meted out only in case of a fair process. Abortion isn't fair.
I have exactly zero expectation that you would know this, but Roe vs Wade hinged on due process
How is that possible when it allows the death penalty for the unconvicted?
Clearly the Supreme Court did not feel that due process extended to fetuses.
Any objective reader will see that the Supreme Court was wrong.
They made up a nonexistent "right to privacy", and that was their excuse for their decision.
, but you can't argue that abortion is not covered by due process of law.
Right, b/c fetuses who get killed ACTUALLY DO get convicted in a court. That doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Then, on the one hand:
Can I also recommend that you read up on legal history in addition to basic utilitarian philosophy?
but on the other hand:
Yes, but it's unreasonable to expect me to trawl through “an abundance of resources” in order to work out your position on this particular issue
Stifled snicker.
you wish to prevent them from accessing the full range of reproductive health services
That is false. I do not wish to do so. Abortion is not a women's health issue; it is an issue of baby death. Keep ALL the women's health stuff. Just stop butchering babies and everyone's in good shape.
The fact that you claim to have read most of my stuff from the past few years and still don't get this doesn't speak well to your honesty or reading comprehension.
When different people seek different things, we have to weigh the relative pleasure and displeasure their actions will lead to
Why? B/c you say so? Who are you to tell others what to do?
B/c your ethic says so? Why should anyone follow your ethic?
And we've seen your equation of pleasure=good is erroneous, so... I think we're done on this issue.
I have nowhere stated that I believe that pleasure is the definition of good,
then please clarify your statement from Thu Dec 15, 02:50:00 PM CST:
"as I said, the inherently positive nature of pleasure is built into the concept itself."
. You still appear not to have grasped that in utilitarian philosophy, “pleasure” is by definition good, i.e. that is what meant by use of the word “pleasure”.
Maybe I'm asking for some good reason to believe it. Ever think of that? Since it's incoherent, I'm looking for the argument for the truth of the proposal.
“1) How do you know that nobody is in that position? Can you read everyone's thoughts? Know all the information that everyone on the planet has access to?”
ReplyDeleteI was merely re-iterating your point, which was “It's not as if any given person knows for sure what would bring him the highest pleasure, right?” Are you now arguing against your own position?
Nope. I'm demonstrating that NOBODY can make that judgment unless they're omniscient. That's why I ask these questions instead of making statements, a lot of the time.
You believe that he does, but even if he does, you do not have access to God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts, and so this belief doesn't help you.
I have the Bible, which is God's revelation.
So yes, actually, I DO have access to it.
“3) Since you seem to think that nobody has that access or that information, how is this system acted out in real practice? How do you ever make decisions?”
With careful consideration rather than glib rhetoric.
All the careful consideration in the world is useless when considering a faulty foundation.
identify what, exactly, your argument is!
My argument is actually quite simple. Again, you'd know that if you were familiar with my writings. I'm not saying you have to, I'm saying your complaints are infantile and foolish given that I can't just copy+paste all my prior writings into this combox.
Here is my argument. Biblical Christianity is the only true system and has all that is required for life, godliness, and truth.
Competing systems have fatal internal inconsistencies. Including utilitarianism.
“A law made by Congress or a state does not supersede the Constitution.”
ReplyDeleteIndeed, and that was the basis of the Supreme Court ruling; that state legislation prohibiting abortion should not be allowed to supersede constitutional rights.
“It is a principle of justice that the death penalty must be meted out only in case of a fair process. Abortion isn't fair.”
So now it's clear that you weren't talking about due process but a new and completely undefined “fair process”. Perhaps you could define what you mean when you say “abortion isn't fair”? Life isn't fair, but I assume you wouldn't argue that we should criminalize life.
“Right, b/c fetuses who get killed ACTUALLY DO get convicted in a court. That doesn't really make a lot of sense.”
As I have already pointed out (since you seem unwilling to do even the most basic research on the topic), the concept of due process is not limited to trial by jury, so once again: abortion does take place under due process, since the government follows the legal requirements around abortion. You can disagree with those requirements, but not with the fact that abortion is covered by due process.
“Stifled snicker.”
I've now read through almost all of your output, and duly expect you to do the same regarding legal history and utilitarian philosophy.
“All the careful consideration in the world is useless when considering a faulty foundation.”
ReplyDeleteUtilitarianism isn't a faulty foundation. Most people, including you, use it every day to make decisions: from relatively trivial decisions, such as what to order at the restaurant, to fairly major decisions, such as whether to search for a new job.
“My argument is actually quite simple... Biblical Christianity is the only true system and has all that is required for life, godliness, and truth. Competing systems have fatal internal inconsistencies. Including utilitarianism.”
That's not an argument, that's a statement, and so far you have not presented a single actual argument against utilitarianism. You've expressed disbelief, ignorance and concern at the premises of utilitarianism, but that doesn't constitute an argument.
“I have the Bible, which is God's revelation. So yes, actually, I DO have access to it.”
ReplyDelete“The Bible” is not equivalent to “God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts”, so no, you don't have access to God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts. You can easily prove me wrong, though: please direct me to the Bible passage which describes what my neighbour Mr Perry was thinking at 3pm yesterday.
Here's the 5th Amendment:
ReplyDelete======
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
======
Did you miss that?
"No person shall...be deprived of life...without due process of law."
Please explain how going to a private office and being dismembered, all in one day, is "due process of law". I'm not sure you're catching my point.
since the government follows the legal requirements around abortion
But not the Constitutional ones. That's the point - the current law is both morally wrong and Constitutionally incompatible.
I've now read through almost all of your output, and duly expect you to do the same regarding legal history and utilitarian philosophy.
Hmm, I don't remember making a deal with you. Perhaps you should try making a compelling argument explaining mistakes you think I'm making. "Utilitarian ethics" are not a person that they should explain themselves. I, however, am and can rightly offer correction when someone doesn't understand my own position.
“Maybe I'm asking for some good reason to believe it. Ever think of that? Since it's incoherent, I'm looking for the argument for the truth of the proposal.”
ReplyDeleteYou appear not to understand what it means for something to be true by definition. In mathematics, a triangle is by definition a three-sided shape; in society, a bachelor is by definition an unmarried man; in utilitarianism pleasure is by definition good.
I'm waiting for you to ask me to give you a good reason why you should believe that a bachelor is unmarried. Go on, ask me, ask me!
“That is false. I do not wish to do so. Abortion is not a women's health issue; it is an issue of baby death. Keep ALL the women's health stuff. Just stop butchering babies and everyone's in good shape.”
ReplyDeleteI didn't say it was a women's health issue, I said it was a reproductive health issue. That you mistake reproductive health services for “women's health stuff” tells me that you're almost entirely ignorant on this subject. Although that doesn't come as much of a surprise, since you seem to take pride in your ignorance on almost every subject.
“Why? B/c you say so? Who are you to tell others what to do?”
ReplyDeleteYou asked me on what basis utilitarianism reconciles different interests, and I have explained the basis on which utilitarianism reconciles different interests. I'm not trying to tell others what to do – that's you, remember? You're the one telling others what to do.
“And we've seen your equation of pleasure=good is erroneous”
We haven't seen any such thing. You've asked a few ill-informed questions and proudly announced your ignorance of utilitarian philosophy, but I am trying to explain that (in utilitarianism) “good”, “happiness”, “pleasure” and similar words are placeholders for those things viewed as inherently positive by humans.
"No person shall...be deprived of life...without due process of law."
ReplyDelete“Please explain how going to a private office and being dismembered, all in one day, is "due process of law". I'm not sure you're catching my point.”
I'm surely not catching your point. If the government is following the law, then due process of law is being followed. Since abortions are legal, they are covered by due process of law. You may not like that law, you may not agree with that law, but it is the law, and thus due process of law is being observed.
“Perhaps you should try making a compelling argument explaining mistakes you think I'm making.”
ReplyDeleteThe biggest mistake you're making is remaining wilfully ignorant of almost every topic you blog about while simultaneously thinking that this makes you a good advertisement for Christianity.
“Why? B/c you say so? Who are you to tell others what to do?”
ReplyDeleteYou asked me on what basis utilitarianism reconciles different interests, and I have explained the basis on which utilitarianism reconciles different interests. I'm not trying to tell others what to do – that's you, remember? You're the one telling others what to do.
“And we've seen your equation of pleasure=good is erroneous”
We haven't seen any such thing. You've asked a few ill-informed questions and proudly announced your ignorance of utilitarian philosophy, but I am trying to explain that (in utilitarianism) “good”, “happiness”, “pleasure” and similar words are placeholders for those things viewed as inherently positive by humans.
Most people, including you, use it every day to make decisions
ReplyDelete1) False; I don't. Just b/c it contains some overlap with my own ethical system doesn't mean I "use it".
2) So what if "most people use it"? most people are also spiritual believers. You don't think that the supernatural is therefore real, do you?
That's not an argument, that's a statement
Yes, an argument that I've spent years developing and testing against competition on this very blog.
so far you have not presented a single actual argument against utilitarianism.
I've asked lots of fundamental and important questions. You either need to answer them or you need to show why they're not relevant, or why if you can't answer them utilitarianism is still viable.
Sorry if you don't like my style. There are, however, plenty of other blogs out there.
“The Bible” is not equivalent to “God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts”
Argument?
In fact, it IS equivalent to that IN SOME AREAS about SOME ISSUES. For example, when it uses language indicating that it is referring to ALL people. Like Romans 1-3, Romans 5, etc.
In mathematics, a triangle is by definition a three-sided shape; in society, a bachelor is by definition an unmarried man; in utilitarianism pleasure is by definition good.
And one of my questions has been on what authority "utilitarianism" defines it that way. And why anyone else should. And how the equivalence is known to be true.
I'm waiting for you to ask me to give you a good reason why you should believe that a bachelor is unmarried.
And I'm waiting on you to prove the definitional equivalence. Nobody's questioning whether a bachelor=unmarried man. I *AM* questioning pleasure=good, however.
I didn't say it was a women's health issue, I said it was a reproductive health issue
And abortion is not great for the health of the reproduced person, either.
It's amazing to me that i have to point this out.
I'm not trying to tell others what to do – that's you, remember? You're the one telling others what to do
Um, integral to the idea of ETHICS is indeed telling people what to do. You know, OUGHT-ness.
If the government is following the law, then due process of law is being followed.
The law is wrong, b/c THERE IS NO PROCESS OF LAW IN PLACE FOR THE UNBORN BABY.
Perhaps you think that the authors of the 5th Amendment had in mind "no due process" when they wrote "due process".
“1) False; I don't. Just b/c it contains some overlap with my own ethical system doesn't mean I "use it".”
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you decide what meal to order at the restaurant then?
“Yes, an argument that I've spent years developing and testing against competition on this very blog.”
ReplyDeleteYou obviously haven't tested it against utilitarianism, since by your own admission you've never read any utilitarian philosophy.
Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 - I am free to choose that which is wise and that which I prefer to eat that day.
ReplyDeleteAgain, overlap != borrowing.
Are you saying that you are an incompetent representative for your ethic? Why are you even talking then?
ReplyDelete“Argument? In fact, it IS equivalent to that IN SOME AREAS about SOME ISSUES. For example, when it uses language indicating that it is referring to ALL people. Like Romans 1-3, Romans 5, etc. “
ReplyDeleteHaving access to the Bible is not equivalent to having access to “God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts”, otherwise you would be able to point me to the section in the Bible which describes what my neighbour Mr Perry was thinking at 3pm yesterday afternoon.
It doesn't matter if some passages refer to “ALL people”, because that's not what we were talking about. You claimed that you have access to God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts – that's individual's thoughts, not aggregate thoughts – and you don't.
“The law is wrong, b/c THERE IS NO PROCESS OF LAW IN PLACE FOR THE UNBORN BABY.”
ReplyDeleteIf you won't accept my explanation of what due process actually means, will you at least glance at a one of the many explanations of due process that are available on the web?
"Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 - I am free to choose that which is wise and that which I prefer to eat that day."
ReplyDeleteSo your basis for choosing is a) what is wise and b) what you prefer. You get pleasure from acting wisely and you get pleasure from eating what you prefer. Thus, utilitarianism.
Good to know that your meal choices are biblical, though.