tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post2797254490530233240..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Utilitarian ethics, abortion, and abolitionismRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-11201079832925903352011-12-21T10:48:53.833-06:002011-12-21T10:48:53.833-06:00"Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 - I am free to..."Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 - I am free to choose that which is wise and that which I prefer to eat that day."<br /><br />So 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.<br /><br />Good to know that your meal choices are biblical, though.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-46306430471639360102011-12-21T10:47:30.665-06:002011-12-21T10:47:30.665-06:00“The law is wrong, b/c THERE IS NO PROCESS OF LAW ...“The law is wrong, b/c THERE IS NO PROCESS OF LAW IN PLACE FOR THE UNBORN BABY.”<br /><br />If 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?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-70777808376499941532011-12-21T10:44:42.151-06:002011-12-21T10:44:42.151-06:00“Argument? In fact, it IS equivalent to that IN SO...“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. “<br /><br />Having 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.<br /><br />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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-48381939059565914842011-12-21T10:42:34.242-06:002011-12-21T10:42:34.242-06:00Are you saying that you are an incompetent represe...Are you saying that you are an incompetent representative for your ethic? Why are you even talking then?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-83158906825279117662011-12-21T10:41:59.161-06:002011-12-21T10:41:59.161-06:00Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 - I am free to choos...Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 - I am free to choose that which is wise and that which I prefer to eat that day.<br /><br />Again, overlap != borrowing.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24251737102709148682011-12-21T10:41:35.683-06:002011-12-21T10:41:35.683-06:00“Yes, an argument that I've spent years develo...“Yes, an argument that I've spent years developing and testing against competition on this very blog.”<br /><br />You obviously haven't tested it against utilitarianism, since by your own admission you've never read any utilitarian philosophy.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89791690926337092972011-12-21T10:40:34.445-06:002011-12-21T10:40:34.445-06:00“1) False; I don't. Just b/c it contains some ...“1) False; I don't. Just b/c it contains some overlap with my own ethical system doesn't mean I "use it".”<br /><br />On what basis do you decide what meal to order at the restaurant then?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-44125874310038541342011-12-21T10:37:11.964-06:002011-12-21T10:37:11.964-06:00Most people, including you, use it every day to ma...<i>Most people, including you, use it every day to make decisions</i><br /><br />1) False; I don't. Just b/c it contains some overlap with my own ethical system doesn't mean I "use it". <br />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?<br /><br /><br /><i>That's not an argument, that's a statement</i><br /><br />Yes, an argument that I've spent years developing and testing against competition on this very blog.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>so far you have not presented a single actual argument against utilitarianism.</i><br /><br />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.<br />Sorry if you don't like my style. There are, however, plenty of other blogs out there.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>“The Bible” is not equivalent to “God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts”</i><br /><br />Argument?<br />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. <br /><br /><br /><i> 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><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><i>I'm waiting for you to ask me to give you a good reason why you should believe that a bachelor is unmarried.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><i>I didn't say it was a women's health issue, I said it was a reproductive health issue</i><br /><br />And abortion is not great for the health of the reproduced person, either. <br />It's amazing to me that i have to point this out.<br /><br /><br /><i>I'm not trying to tell others what to do – that's you, remember? You're the one telling others what to do</i><br /><br />Um, integral to the idea of ETHICS is indeed telling people what to do. You know, OUGHT-ness.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>If the government is following the law, then due process of law is being followed. </i><br /><br />The law is wrong, b/c THERE IS NO PROCESS OF LAW IN PLACE FOR THE UNBORN BABY.<br />Perhaps you think that the authors of the 5th Amendment had in mind "no due process" when they wrote "due process".Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-28730095947462433962011-12-21T10:18:51.890-06:002011-12-21T10:18:51.890-06:00“Why? B/c you say so? Who are you to tell others w...“Why? B/c you say so? Who are you to tell others what to do?”<br /><br />You 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.<br /><br />“And we've seen your equation of pleasure=good is erroneous”<br /><br />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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49285373316927436912011-12-21T10:07:28.042-06:002011-12-21T10:07:28.042-06:00“Perhaps you should try making a compelling argume...“Perhaps you should try making a compelling argument explaining mistakes you think I'm making.”<br /><br />The 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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24743974058987207802011-12-21T10:03:24.471-06:002011-12-21T10:03:24.471-06:00"No person shall...be deprived of life...with..."No person shall...be deprived of life...without due process of law."<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-56566390402702827742011-12-21T10:01:14.772-06:002011-12-21T10:01:14.772-06:00“Why? B/c you say so? Who are you to tell others w...“Why? B/c you say so? Who are you to tell others what to do?”<br /><br />You 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.<br /><br />“And we've seen your equation of pleasure=good is erroneous”<br /><br />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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-27035058214791417512011-12-21T09:57:22.106-06:002011-12-21T09:57:22.106-06:00“That is false. I do not wish to do so. Abortion i...“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.”<br /><br />I 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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-47860108918661130472011-12-21T09:55:25.081-06:002011-12-21T09:55:25.081-06:00“Maybe I'm asking for some good reason to beli...“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.”<br /><br />You 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.<br /><br />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!merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-47637705810895895072011-12-21T09:55:15.584-06:002011-12-21T09:55:15.584-06:00Here's the 5th Amendment:
======
No person sha...Here's the 5th Amendment:<br />======<br />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.<br />======<br /><br />Did you miss that?<br />"No person shall...be deprived of life...without due process of law."<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>since the government follows the legal requirements around abortion</i><br /><br />But not the Constitutional ones. That's the point - the current law is both morally wrong and Constitutionally incompatible.<br /><br /><br /><i>I've now read through almost all of your output, and duly expect you to do the same regarding legal history and utilitarian philosophy.</i><br /><br />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.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-5999047250239344602011-12-21T09:53:33.138-06:002011-12-21T09:53:33.138-06:00“I have the Bible, which is God's revelation. ...“I have the Bible, which is God's revelation. So yes, actually, I DO have access to it.”<br /><br />“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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-19734091643391401332011-12-21T09:53:21.700-06:002011-12-21T09:53:21.700-06:00“All the careful consideration in the world is use...“All the careful consideration in the world is useless when considering a faulty foundation.”<br /><br />Utilitarianism 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.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-69652903783825094232011-12-21T09:48:04.410-06:002011-12-21T09:48:04.410-06:00“A law made by Congress or a state does not supers...“A law made by Congress or a state does not supersede the Constitution.”<br /><br />Indeed, and that was the basis of the Supreme Court ruling; that state legislation prohibiting abortion should not be allowed to supersede constitutional rights.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“Right, b/c fetuses who get killed ACTUALLY DO get convicted in a court. That doesn't really make a lot of sense.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“Stifled snicker.”<br /><br />I've now read through almost all of your output, and duly expect you to do the same regarding legal history and utilitarian philosophy.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-14847836603525799802011-12-20T21:04:52.159-06:002011-12-20T21:04:52.159-06:00“1) How do you know that nobody is in that positio...<i>“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?”<br /><br />I 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?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />I have the Bible, which is God's revelation.<br />So yes, actually, I DO have access to it.<br /><br /><br /><i>“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?”<br /><br />With careful consideration rather than glib rhetoric.</i><br /><br />All the careful consideration in the world is useless when considering a faulty foundation.<br /><br /><br /><i> identify what, exactly, your argument is!</i><br /><br />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.<br />Here is my argument. Biblical Christianity is the only true system and has all that is required for life, godliness, and truth. <br />Competing systems have fatal internal inconsistencies. Including utilitarianism.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-57918016026868851712011-12-20T21:04:49.556-06:002011-12-20T21:04:49.556-06:00I already answered this question: “since abortion ...<i>I already answered this question: “since abortion is regulated by law, then due process of law already applies to abortion.”</i><br /><br />A law made by Congress or a state does not supersede the Constitution.<br />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.<br /><br /><br /><i>I have exactly zero expectation that you would know this, but Roe vs Wade hinged on due process</i><br /><br />How is that possible when it allows the death penalty for the unconvicted?<br /><br /><br /><i>Clearly the Supreme Court did not feel that due process extended to fetuses.</i><br /><br />Any objective reader will see that the Supreme Court was wrong. <br />They made up a nonexistent "right to privacy", and that was their excuse for their decision. <br /><br /><br /><i>, but you can't argue that abortion is not covered by due process of law.</i><br /><br />Right, b/c fetuses who get killed ACTUALLY DO get convicted in a court. That doesn't really make a lot of sense.<br /><br /><br />Then, on the one hand:<br /><i>Can I also recommend that you read up on legal history in addition to basic utilitarian philosophy? </i><br />but on the other hand:<br /><i>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</i><br /><br />Stifled snicker.<br /><br /><br /><i>you wish to prevent them from accessing the full range of reproductive health services</i><br /><br />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.<br />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. <br /><br /><br /><i>When different people seek different things, we have to weigh the relative pleasure and displeasure their actions will lead to</i><br /><br />Why? B/c you say so? Who are you to tell others what to do?<br />B/c your ethic says so? Why should anyone follow your ethic?<br />And we've seen your equation of pleasure=good is erroneous, so... I think we're done on this issue.<br /><br /><br /><i> I have nowhere stated that I believe that pleasure is the definition of good,</i><br /><br />then please clarify your statement from <a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2011/12/utilitarian-ethics-abortion-and.html?showComment=1323982240475#c2922286202345404248" rel="nofollow">Thu Dec 15, 02:50:00 PM CST</a>:<br /><i>"as I said, the inherently positive nature of pleasure is built into the concept itself."</i><br /><br /><br /><i>. 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”.</i><br /><br />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.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-8725250020559637142011-12-20T06:18:23.506-06:002011-12-20T06:18:23.506-06:00p.s. I've just read pretty much everything in ...p.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.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-59688642226314884552011-12-19T11:43:24.998-06:002011-12-19T11:43:24.998-06:00BTW I will continue to answer your individual poin...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!merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-83011893501304225772011-12-19T11:41:28.105-06:002011-12-19T11:41:28.105-06:00“1) How do you know that nobody is in that positio...“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?”<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />“2) God does have that access, BTW.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />“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?”<br /><br />With careful consideration rather than glib rhetoric.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-52522687965273954822011-12-19T11:40:13.291-06:002011-12-19T11:40:13.291-06:00“I believe that you are not using the common defin...“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!”<br /><br />This 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”.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-8955715772122843452011-12-19T11:35:19.833-06:002011-12-19T11:35:19.833-06:00“Do I think it's a defeater, or am I waiting f...“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.”<br /><br />When 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.merkurnoreply@blogger.com