Abortion: My personal experience

[TragicMonkey]

I wasn't making a theistic argument. I was merely observing that the skeptics in the Religion forum tend not to believe in absolute moral values as much as those in the USA Politics forum.

Totally irrelevant I know.

I think it boils down to utility: people who argue politics believe in good and evil so they can justify their chosen positions and condemn the opposition. What's funny is when people so revere science they attempt to first seize morality under the mantle of science, then bless their politics with that morality. Making their political positions not only good, but scientifically proven! Like building a robot pope to endorse your actions.

 

[psionl0]

Like building a robot pope to endorse your actions.

This is getting waaaayyy off topic but they don't actually build anything. In the legal world, an idea is just as real as a solid object (think: corporations).

Legal people tend to argue that all authority comes from God. They don't actually practise a belief in God (in fact, some of their more archaic rituals have been described as "satanic"). They have simply created the ultimate corporation.

 

[RandFan]

I think it boils down to utility: people who argue politics believe in good and evil so they can justify their chosen positions and condemn the opposition. What's funny is when people so revere science they attempt to first seize morality under the mantle of science, then bless their politics with that morality. Making their political positions not only good, but scientifically proven! Like building a robot pope to endorse your actions.

Straw men. Nonsense.

1. Who is using morality to justify their political position?
2. Who claims to believe in good and evil?
3. Who claims to "prove" their morality.

If you can't state who and provide a source then please rework this? It's not fair to the people you are debating with.

 

[RandFan]

Please note. I answer your questions while you ignore mine.

Statistics can only give you an idea of what people think. They cannot inform you of whether those positions are correct, only that they are popular.

You are not listening. And YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING questions. Which demonstrates that you are not listening. You are so sure of your position that you do not need to consider what is being said.

¹If I don't want to feel pain and you don't want to feel pain. Why should I hurt you? Why should you hurt me?

Unless you think right and wrong are things that are decided by popular vote. In that case, the majority position will always be the right one.

No. It's NOT that simple. But I'm not making an ad populum argument.

Dude, moral philosophers far smarter than you and I have figured this out. NOW, I'm not simply appealing to authority. They could all be wrong. But ask yourself why so many people, experts in their respective fields disagree with you?

What's the scientific method of evaluating the quality of life?

It's very, very complex but it CAN be done.

Is it purely medical

No.

...or do economics play a part.

Yes.

What about happiness?

Measurable.

Fulfillment?

Measurable.

What if someone has a painful chronic disease or disability but still enjoys life and is happy?

I have edema. It causes me a great deal of pain and problems. I still enjoy life. I enjoy the computer. I enjoy time with my family. However, if it got worse I might very well want to take my life.

Is that "flourishing"?

I would flourish more, I would be more happy more often without edema.

What about Nietzsche, crippled by a horrible disease and writing until his eyes literally bled, but full of vim and optimism about the triumph of the human spirit? Was he "flourishing"? What about the people who live fast and die young?

Clearly he flourished less with his disease than if he didn't have it. You are making my argument for me.

Science is wonderful for certain things, but measuring things about the human spirit isn't one of them.

Asserted. Doesn't follow any premise. People who are suffering in the hospital and need pain meds are not flourishing. People who are doing things that they like and are free of pain are.

²There is a continuum. Can you understand that?

And then there are the times they don't. But those don't count, eh? Your scientific model encourages you to select your data?

They do count. There ARE exceptions. ³Do you understand populations statistics? Do you know what statistical outliers are?

Oh dear, I'm sorry. I didn't really you owned science and ethics. Sounds to me like you're the one with pet theories.

No. I didn't dream up anything.

My theory is that what people do and what people think about what their actions are two entirely separate things

⁴People never think about their actions?

...and most people go to lengths to excuse their misdeeds to themselves. Few villains actually think they're bad people--they think in their case, their actions are justified.

Accounted for in my model (Singer's, Shermer's, Harris', etc., model)

⁵"Villains"? Using your model, who are you to call them villains? Hmmm.....

My opinion is that right and wrong are just words people use to describe how they feel about a given behavior in a given circumstance, and those labels are very, very flexible.

Then we should find societies where most people enjoy intense pain and humiliation. Not just a subset who enjoy S&M.

A given action might be right in some circumstances and wrong in others, to some people. Others might think that action is inherently wrong in itself. And some would hold the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on who's performing it, or their motivations for doing so.

Accounted for in my model.

Is killing wrong?

It depends on many variables. Unnecessary killing can be argued wrong. Do you want to be killed? I don't want to be killed. How many people want to be killed?

In your model the question need not be asked "is killing wrong". In your model being killed is the same as going to the movies, right?

What about in self-defense? If I'm on a battlefield and I find an enemy soldier hideously wounded, obviously cannot be saved and going to die, but slowly and in agony, is it right or wrong to kill him quickly?

No model eliminates moral dilemma. That moral dilemma can't be eliminated does not mean that there are no consistent moral philosophies.

Is it good to not kill him if I believe in the sanctity of life or am optimistic about his chances with medical help, but wrong if I don't kill merely because I want him to suffer longer? How could the same action with the same result have different moral valuations? Who gets to decide?

Morality isn't absolute. I don't claim it is. The model I use doesn't claim that it is. Your model doesn't do anything but leave every decision up to the individual. Your model gives us no basis to judge if Stalin's actions were wrong. If the Holocaust was wrong. If morality is so wishy washy as to make the thought of the sociopath on par with the thought of a doctor who donates his time to saving lives then we have nothing.

People do things. They then assign labels to evaluate their actions, based on all sorts of criteria, some of them cultural, some of them personal, some of them selfish, some of them just plain crazy. But there is no physical force or quality in existence by which we can compare our actions to see if the labelling is correct. Science can build you a gun but it can't tell you when it is right or wrong to use it. If you imagine it can then you aren't dealing with science anymore, you've made it a religion.

Science can inform us when using the gun is more likely to increase well being and flourishing and when it will decrease it.

⁶In a society of two. You and I, would our society be better if we tried to kill each other, harm each other or would it be worse?

Because you are ignoring so many of my questions I'm going to start keeping track of them. Feel free to do likewise. I want to answer your questions.

1. If I don't want to feel pain and you don't want to feel pain. Why should I hurt you? Why should you hurt me?
2. There is a continuum. Can you understand that?
3. Do you understand populations statistics? Do you know what statistical outliers are?
4. People never think about their actions?
5. Villains? If we use your model, who are you to call them villains?
6. In a society of two. You and I, would our society be better if we tried to kill each other, harm each other or would it be worse?

 

[RandFan]

Because they don't find an advantage in those behaviors.

THANK YOU!

The behaviors that are advantageous get followed--insects that eat each other after mating, animals that kill their own young. Animals aren't good or bad, they just do things. Evolution just means the things that tend to help the species are the things that stick over time through the generations. That doesn't make them good, in a moral sense. There is no moral valuation to animal actions.

YES! Again, THANK YOU.

Then why aren't they universal, and universally applied? Read a newspaper lately?

Universal? Why the hell would "they" be universal? My model doesn't predict universal? Some things are near universal but not absolute. The problem is that we are born with conflicting drives and motivations. My model predicts that by understanding our conflicting drives and motivations and what is more likely to make us happy and flourish we can craft better rules of behavior.

Religions think they can explain things, too. And predictive powers?

But they don't.

My "pet theories" do have predictive powers--I predict that human nature doesn't change, that good people will do bad things and vice versa, crime will always exist, people will hurt each other, people will love each other, and people will do crazy things and everybody will say they never saw it coming even though it's all been done before.

Do you want to live in Somalia or a country where there is less violence? Do you like that women have rights? Do you like that slavery is illegal in many if not most nations? Do you like that we have worked to end segregation?

By your model social and moral progress is impossible. By your model attempts to craft better laws and ethics are a waste of time. My model predicts that over time violence will go down.

The Myth of Violence.

Again, that's just what we find.

Again, argument from popularity. Most societies in history were okay with slavery, too.

Dude, you are soooooo close. So, if America were to decide tomorrow to enslave blacks, would that be okay? Why has slavery decreased?

I'm not making an ad populum argument. This is where you are getting it wrong. I'm saying DON'T rely on the popularity of what people think is right or wrong. Decide on what makes people flourish. Decide on what most people would want to have happen to them. If the majority doesn't want to be slaves then it's wrong for the minority to be slaves.

You are making my argument for me.

Is that evolution in action?

It's evolution coupled with reason.

And how are you defining "well being"?

Do you want to be tortured? Do you want to be infected with AIDS? Do you want to have your legs cut off? These things don't absolutely mean you can't have some well being. But all would decrease it, right?

That doesn't sound like a scientific concept at all.

But it is. HDI is scientific.

If you want to talk about evolution, from an evolutionary perspective the greatest wellbeing is having the most surviving offspring capable of having their own surviving offspring. From an evolutionary perspective, a multiple-rapist who impregnates a hundred women who are die-hard right-to-lifers then gets the death penalty is more successful in life than a saintly doctor who has one child and lives to a hundred and develops a cure for arthritis that spares millions of people pain and suffering.

You are missing a very crucial point and making some mistakes.

• Well being isn't at the gene level (The selfish gene) so the argument is silly.
• Well being is what we evolve to ensure our genes replicate.
• Evolution ensures diversity. Not all offspring are alpha males and females.
• Evolution ensures that there will be lots of fertile doctors and lots of infertile die-hard right-to-lifers.

Questions:

1. Do you want to live in Somalia or a country where there is less violence? Do you like that women have rights? Do you like that slavery is illegal in many if not most nations? Do you like that we have worked to end segregation?
2. So, if America were to decide tomorrow to enslave blacks, would that be okay? Why has slavery decreased?
3. Do you want to be tortured? Do you want to be infected with AIDS? Do you want to have your legs cut off? These things don't absolutely mean you can't have some well being. But all would decrease it, right?

 

[sgtbaker]

I have been married to my wife for about 5 years now. I am a US Army soldier and will be for at least a few more years. My wife has stood by me for 2 deployments, several training exercises a year and an ill-fated stab at SF qualification. We do not have children. We talked it out rationally and objectively years ago and decided that if my wife became pregnant our financial situation was not congruent to raising a child.

A few weeks ago I came home from work and my wife was standing in the kitchen. I could tell immediately that something was not right in her demeanor. Instinctively I made a mental note that I saw both of our dogs when I pulled up the drive so I knew that couldn't be it. Her eyes were filled with tears as she came toward me. She threw her arms around me and started to cry and said that she thought she might be pregnant.

We sat down in the kitchen and I said 'We've talked about this before, and whatever you decide is what we are going to do.' She said that she had a great conflict inside between what her emotional feelings and her rational feelings were. She said it would be best to end the pregnancy.

That night we went out and purchased two home pregnancy tests, both of which confirmed her suspicions. She was indeed pregnant.

I am stationed on a small base in the middle of nowhere Missouri. I called our local Planned Parenthood clinic (by local I mean 40 miles away) and was told that they do not offer abortion services. I called my commander and asked for a 4 day pass I had been promised and it was granted. I did not tell him why fearing that his well known political beliefs might somehow hinder my pass.

Oh, and this was on our 5th anniversary.

We drove 2 hours away to Colombia only to be told that they also do not offer abortion services. We were told there was a clinic in Kansas City MO and another in St. Louis that did, both of which almost 2 hours away. I called the St. Louis clinic, being marginally closer, and made an appointment.

We made the drive and we hardly spoke the entire way. I can't say for sure what was going through her mind though I can only imagine. This was not an easy decision for either of us and contrary to much pro-life propaganda it was not fun nor was it done solely for convenience.

We arrived at the clinic which was a protected building. The entrance was manned by armed guards and a metal detector requiring me to make another trip to the truck to drop off my daily carry arm. I did not expect this level of security at a health care facility. We checked in and waited several hours.

The waiting room was horrible. Everyone there was desperate and in an unenviable situation. Young women with their parents and poor couples populated the waiting room. No one was having fun. On top of that, ****** pop music was piped in.

After several hours of waiting we were called into a small office and spoke to a counselor. She informed us that according to Missouri state law an ultrasound was required and a 24 hour waiting period before the actual abortion was performed. I supposed this is some feature to prevent rash decisions on the fate of the unborn. For me, it was a massive inconvenience and another unforeseen hurdle. Fortunately, I could afford the cost of the drive and the time off. However, many cannot. I cannot imagine being a young person with no means trying to do this.

We had the ultrasound performed. My wife chose not to see. However, being a medic and being curious I did. Being only 5 weeks old I could hardly make out the little shape in all the background noise. Along the uterine wall was a little oval about 4mm across according to the etched scale on the screen. We had another speechless drive home.

Being in the Military my wife has some of the best medical insurance coverage around however, abortion was not covered. Interesting, my request for a vasectomy was turned down because I did not have children. I had to pay the 500$ fee out of pocket which I could afford. However, my mind was on those who could not. None of this was made clear to us prior.

24 hours later we were back in that depressing waiting room. We were seen rather quickly by a doctor and my wife was given 2 medications. One was the abortive agent and the doctor wrote her a script for an antibiotic.

We left and she took the medication and had the abortion (which was really a medication induced miscarriage) at home. I was working for the next few days and it killed me that I couldn't be home with my wife when I felt she needed me.

Call me a baby killer if you like, I'm a Soldier and you wouldn't be the first. However, these are the facts: Abortion is not fun. It is not convenient. Laws such as 24 hour waiting periods and locally banning clinics from performing abortions do nothing to help the women affected. The costs were outrageous and out of reach for most folks that actually need to have the procedure done. Because of the social stigma I could not even ask my commander for a few days to chill at home with my sick wife. Being a medic I work with several health care providers and got some top notch support from them.

I was always pro-choice but not I am pro-access to care. Every hurdle and every 'waiting period' only delayed care. Making abortion difficult will not benefit anyone.

I wanted to share my experience with those that may not know what the human experience is. I still believe that we made the right decision for all parties involved.

I know I am a little late to respond but this is the first time I've seen this thread. This story needs to be retold before congress.

 

[psionl0]

deleted.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Please note. I answer your questions while you ignore mine.

Because you are ignoring so many of my questions I'm going to start keeping track of them. Feel free to do likewise. I want to answer your questions.

1. If I don't want to feel pain and you don't want to feel pain. Why should I hurt you? Why should you hurt me?
2. There is a continuum. Can you understand that?
3. Do you understand populations statistics? Do you know what statistical outliers are?
4. People never think about their actions?
5. Villains? If we use your model, who are you to call them villains?
6. In a society of two. You and I, would our society be better if we tried to kill each other, harm each other or would it be worse?

I don't care enough to continue with this. Once it gets down to line-by-line quoting I find it difficult to read and frankly, not worth the bother. I don't desire to change anybody's mind, and have concluded that in your case it's simply impossible. You do not think as I do, and there's no particular reason you should. You may consider this a grand victory for yourself, in the JREF manner, if it pleases you.

 

[RandFan]

I don't care enough to continue with this. Once it gets down to line-by-line quoting I find it difficult to read and frankly, not worth the bother. I don't desire to change anybody's mind, and have concluded that in your case it's simply impossible. You do not think as I do, and there's no particular reason you should. You may consider this a grand victory for yourself, in the JREF manner, if it pleases you.

I'm not here to win arguments. I find such notions silly and solipsistic. I desire only to contribute to the dialectic.

When I came to JREF I was a Deist. I believed in dualism. I was an ID proponent. I was a staunch Conservative. I was against gay rights. I was against legalizing marijuana. I was against legalizing prostitution.

I can honestly say that I know of no one on JREF who has changed their mind more than I. So, while I respect your decision I find this little personal attack to be very disappointing and I would suggest that in the future Mr. Pot that you before you accuse what you think is Mr. Kettle of something you go look in the mirror.

1. I gave you valid premises.
2. I gave you logically valid argument. The very same arguments used against creationists (explanatory and predictive power).

I don't ask you to change your mind. I ask that you acknowledge any premises that are true and any argument that is valid. That's all.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not here to win arguments. I find such notions silly and solipsistic. I desire only to contribute to the dialectic.

When I came to JREF I was a Deist. I believed in dualism. I was an ID proponent. I was a staunch Conservative. I was against gay rights. I was against legalizing marijuana. I was against legalizing prostitution.

I can honestly say that I know of no one on JREF who has changed their mind more than I. So, while I respect your decision I find this little personal attack to be very disappointing and I would suggest that in the future Mr. Pot that you before you accuse what you think is Mr. Kettle of something you go look in the mirror.

1. I gave you valid premises.
2. I gave you logically valid argument. The very same arguments used against creationists (explanatory and predictive power).

I don't ask you to change your mind. I ask that you acknowledge any premises that are true and any argument that is valid. That's all.

It's not a "personal attack" to assert that you will never agree with me. Your thought is too alien to mine. I do not insist that mine is the correct, or only correct, interpretation of reality. Which is exactly why we will never agree--you think the truth is out there, and you can find it. That's the underlying assumption of Western philosophy --and science. I disagree, at least in matters of morality. There is no truth, no right answer to be found at all, no matter what your methodology. I don't consider matters of morality to be subject to logical argument. Premises, statistics, q.e.d.s...I don't think they work here, it's the wrong arena. Therefore there is an unbridgeable gulf between our positions.

 

[bookitty]

foxholeatheist; I have only now become aware of this thread. My heart goes out to you and your wife. You have my deepest respect and condolences. As well as my gratitude for being brave enough to tell this story and smart enough to understand why it is necessary.

 

[RandFan]

I Your thought is too alien to mine.

No. That's silly. Your post in the Bert and Ernie thread reveals you are no different from me. You get that harm can come to children. You get that child psychologists can measure pathology and maladaptive behavior. This is trivially obvious. You have painted yourself in a corner clinging to the misbegotten notion that nothing objective can be said about morality. Yet you know this not to be true. If it were you would never bother stating an opinion about children being exposed to sex as your opinion would be irrelevant for all the arguments you gave above. Your actions belie your arguments.

I do not insist that mine is the correct, or only correct, interpretation of reality. Which is exactly why we will never agree--you think the truth is out there, and you can find it. That's the underlying assumption of Western philosophy --and science. I disagree, at least in matters of morality. There is no truth, no right answer to be found at all, no matter what your methodology. I don't consider matters of morality to be subject to logical argument. Premises, statistics, q.e.d.s...I don't think they work here, it's the wrong arena. Therefore there is an unbridgeable gulf between our positions.

There is no ultimate, a priori truth. We could have evolved to eat our children as lions. We could have evolved to not feel pain. The thing is, we didn't evolve to eat our children. We did evolve to feel pain. Children did evolve to become pathological and maladaptive when exposed to trauma. These are truths. Trivial, non-controversial truths.

ETA: I strongly urge you to read Peter Singer, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris and others. I didn't pull these "alien" ideas out of my ass.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No. That's silly. Your post in the Bert and Ernie thread reveals you are no different from me. You get that harm can come to children. You get that child psychologists can measure pathology and maladaptive behavior. This is trivially obvious. You have painted yourself in a corner clinging to the misbegotten notion that nothing objective can be said about morality. Yet you know this not to be true or you would never bother stating an opinion about children being exposed to sex as your opinion would be irrelevant for all the arguments you gave.

I never said that just because something's subjective it can't be true. Love, hate, fashion, humor are all subjective. They are unquantifiable, inexplicable to science, and certainly not concrete. They're real, though.

There is no ultimate truth.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. Just that it's not about "good" and "bad".

We could have evolved to eat our children as lions. We could have evolved to not feel pain. We didn't evolve to eat our children as lions do. We did evolve to feel pain. THESE are truths.

People have killed their own children before. They've certainly killed other people's children. We inflict pain on each other all the time. We inflict pain on ourselves all the time. These are also truths.

 

[RandFan]

I never said that just because something's subjective it can't be true. Love, hate, fashion, humor are all subjective. They are unquantifiable, inexplicable to science, and certainly not concrete. They're real, though.

As is pain. As is trauma. As is stress. These are real and cause maladaptive behavior and pathology.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. Just that it's not about "good" and "bad".

Wait, you said there is "no truth". I said there is "no ultimate truth". Now you are disagreeing.

People have killed their own children before. They've certainly killed other people's children. We inflict pain on each other all the time. We inflict pain on ourselves all the time. These are also truths.

All things are not equal. Killing other people's children isn't equivalent to saving other people's children. Do the the things you list produce better societies? Are they more likely to produce maladaptive behavior and pathology than not inflicting pain or killing other people's children? The Germans sought a more "humane" means of killing (gas chamber) because the soldiers were suffering trauma murdering innocent people.

But you need to make the leap. Why should young children not be exposed to sex? If all things are equal, as you imply, then why not?

 

[foghorn]

I had a high school friend who come form an evangelical family who got pregnant. she was not ready to have a child and was too terrified to tell her parents about the baby or that she wanted an abortion so she threw herself down a flight of stairs to abort the pregnancy.
People like blaylock have no clue whatsoever about the true feelings, beliefs and motives about those for whom they arrogantly and fraudulently presume to speak.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As is pain. As is trauma. As is stress. These are real and cause maladaptive behavior and pathology.

"Maladaptive" is your valuation. Your personal opinion, your interpretation of how something turns out. That valuation is not inherent in the action itself. It's in your head.

Wait, you said there is "no truth". I said there is "no ultimate truth". Now you are disagreeing.

I'm saying you will not find "the good" out there floating in space, like a big ole book listing every action possible, and then you can look up something to authoritatively state whether it's good or not.

All things are not equal. Killing other people's children isn't equivalent to saving other people's children. Do the the things you list produce better societies?

Better for whom? The people in the society, or the people out of it? Better how? In all ways? Financially? Emotionally? Healthwise? "Better" is just as abstract as "good"--it's a value judgment made by people interpreting events according to their own opinions. There is no "best" out there to compare things to.

Are they more likely to produce maladaptive behavior and pathology than not inflicting pain or killing other people's children? The Germans sought a more "humane" means of killing (gas chamber) because the soldiers were suffering trauma murdering innocent people.

Again, personal value judgments. The people involved didn't consider their own activities evil, they judged them good.

But you need to make the leap. Why should young children not be exposed to sex? If all things are equal, as you imply, then why not?

I need make no leaps at all. I don't think young children should be exposed to sex on Sesame Street because it's tacky, and would probably bore them. Sex is already in plenty of other places, if they want to find it they can, easily. The usual Sesame Street audience isn't of an age to be much interested, in general.

Just because I consider good and evil to be artificial labels doesn't mean I think any behavior can and ought to be acceptable. I simply don't feel the need to appeal to authority--be it gods, statistics, or arguments about evolution that attempt to anthropomorphize historical and biological events--to lend weight to my own subjective moral valuations of things. Good and evil are in the mind of the beholder. That doesn't mean they aren't important.

 

[RandFan]

"Maladaptive" is your valuation. Your personal opinion, your interpretation of how something turns out. That valuation is not inherent in the action itself. It's in your head.

Conceded (see how that is done?) So are you saying that since the valuation only exists in the minds of people there is nothing we can say or do about the valuation?

I'm saying you will not find "the good" out there floating in space, like a big ole book listing every action possible, and then you can look up something to authoritatively state whether it's good or not.

Conceded (I've already conceded this.) You are arguing a point that has been conceded and is not in dispute. I don't need a pic ax and pith helmet to find objectively true statements about morality.

Better for whom? The people in the society, or the people out of it? Better how? In all ways? Financially? Emotionally? Healthwise? "Better" is just as abstract as "good"--it's a value judgment made by people interpreting events according to their own opinions. There is no "best" out there to compare things to.

I don't claim a "best". I claim we can compare results. Exposing children to sex, abuse and trauma, bad. Raising children in a healthy environment, good.

Again, personal value judgments. The people involved didn't consider their own activities evil, they judged them good.

You are missing the point. Whether the activities were evil or not, the people who deemed them permissible realized that the actions were harming their soldiers so they sought a better way to kill without harming soldiers.

I need make no leaps at all. I don't think young children should be exposed to sex on Sesame Street because it's tacky, and would probably bore them.

What's the problem with boredom? You are making a value judgement about boredom. You are not being consistent.

Just because I consider good and evil to be artificial labels doesn't mean I think any behavior can and ought to be acceptable. I simply don't feel the need to appeal to authority--be it gods, statistics, or arguments about evolution that attempt to anthropomorphize historical and biological events--to lend weight to my own subjective moral valuations of things. Good and evil are in the mind of the beholder. That doesn't mean they aren't important.

This is very contradictory. I can't figure out what it is you believe. Important but not acceptable nor unacceptable. I can't parse any of this. What if most of us share the same value judgements? Wouldn't it be important to know what those value judgements are?

 

[RandFan]

TragicMonkey,

Let's try a little thought experiment. You are going to design a new society. It can be democratic. It can be theocratic. It can be autocratic. There can be slavery. There can be torture. There can be social stratification (class). There can be equality or inequality.

Caveat. You don't get to choose what circumstances you will be put it into. If your society includes slavery you may very well be a slave. If you include torture you may very well be tortured. If you choose a dictatorial govt you probably won't be the dictator.

What society would you create? What society do you think others would create? Would it surprise you to know that most people would choose an equitable democracy without social stratification, without slavery or torture?

Why do you think that is?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Conceded (see how that is done?) So are you saying that since the valuation only exists in the minds of people there is nothing we can say or do about the valuation?

No, no, no. I'm not saying there is nothing you can say. You can say all you want, everybody always does. But there is no way to tell who is "correct" and who isn't, and no authority to appeal to to decide the issue when opinions conflict. We are who we are, we act how we act, we make judgments of ourselves and others, and we act upon them. We may be wrong about everything, but that doesn't mean we have to stop. We don't have an alternative but to proceed as best we think anyway.

I don't claim a "best". I claim we can compare results. Exposing children to sex, abuse and trauma, bad. Raising children in a healthy environment, good.

Why? What makes you think those things? It certain sounds nicer to raise children sheltered from things, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily better. It is nicer to live a comfortable life free of pain, but such a person is unlikely to create any great art. Better, or worse? It depends on what you consider important.

You are missing the point. Whether the activities were evil or not, the people who deemed them permissible realized that the actions were harming their soldiers so they sought a better way to kill without harming soldiers.

I don't get what you're trying to prove with that. They were attempting to pursue mass murder more efficiently. If you think efficiency is a good thing and mass murder a bad thing then, yes, you can pursue a good in order to commit a bad. Just because one activity is part of a larger one doesn't mean they have to have the same moral valuation. Death row inmates get medical care when they get sick, because it would be cruel to deny it to them, but they still get executed. Society frowns on causing animals unnecessary pain, but is perfectly okay with killing and eating them.

What's the problem with boredom? You are making a value judgement about boredom. You are not being consistent.

Jesus. I never said you can't make value judgments, just that they aren't universal and they don't derive their correctness from outside forces, nor are can the correctness be assessed by scientific means. If I find a thing boring, that's my judgment and will affect my behavior. I don't need to convince anybody else that the topic is boring, I'm not interested in converting people to think like me. Why would I be?

This is very contradictory. I can't figure out what it is you believe. Important but not acceptable nor unacceptable. I can't parse any of this. What if most of us share the same value judgements? Wouldn't it be important to know what those value judgements are?

Important? Depends on the context. It would be important to know what most people think of certain behaviors if you are attempting to coexist with them peacefully. That doesn't mean they're right and you're wrong. As for what I personally believe, why would that matter to you? It only matters to me. As long as we all keep our behavior sufficiently in line with those around us (as far as they are aware of, anyway) to the point that they don't feel a need to interfere with our activities, who cares about anybody's morals?

 

[TragicMonkey]

TragicMonkey,

Let's try a little thought experiment. You are going to design a new society. It can be democratic. It can be theocratic. It can be autocratic. There can be slavery. There can be torture. There can be social stratification (class). There can be equality or inequality.

Caveat. You don't get to choose what circumstances you will be put it into. If your society includes slavery you may very well be a slave. If you include torture you may very well be tortured. If you choose a dictatorial govt you probably won't be the dictator.

What society would you create? What society do you think others would create? Would it surprise you to know that most people would choose an equitable democracy without social stratification, without slavery or torture?

Why do you think that is?

Sigh. I would never attempt to design a new society. Societies design themselves. I certainly wouldn't want the burden of telling other people how to live. And your thought experiment doesn't tell you anything about my personal ideals for society because you state that I would be at risk of occupying the nastiest position I devise. It's not a thought experiment to elicit people's true beliefs in the "best" society, it's a Solomonic solution to try to convince people democracy and equality must be universal ideals because that's the choice with the least gamble in it in this scenario. But you can't tell whether people would pick that because they really think that's best or because they're not willing to gamble their own hides.