At least you focused on the cause of abortions rather than the morality. I’m sure thats the only way to make progress. [frogblog]
Whilst I don't deny this point is quite pragmatic, people are making it to avoid the real debate, one that defines our morality.
PART ONE
One thing modern society doesn’t want, is to have to deal with morality. It is a new society based on rationalism. Rationalism without moral constraint leads us in a destructive direction.
By not continuing to debate morality and ethics, they seemingly become less and less important. Certainly, a big part of this debate for some people (and I’m not necessarily talking about people here) is to play with semantics to convince themselves that killing a pre-born is not really ending a life. If it were seen as that we might collectively try much harder to work on prevention and on expanding post-birth support options.
The cause of abortions is having sex for reasons where a baby is an unacceptable possible outcome. We need to debate morality and ethics. These are not things to be discarded like an unwanted baby.
PART TWO
One of the most compelling arguments in the abortion debate for the pro-choice camp is that a women has "sovereignty" over her body. It's hers, and she's in charge of it, and no-one can tell her otherwise. Her body is her property. The baby growing within it is either her property, to dispose of as she will, or it is an illegal resident, to be ejected because of her ultimate property rights.
That argument makes rational sense.
It is an argument that is completely rational, and also devoid of any real morality.
The morality of the argument is that the women had free choice not to get pregnant, and now pregnant, has now a new life to guard. There is arguably, a moral obligation to complete the pregnancy and then call on others to help care for the baby, again for moral reasons if no other.
In adopting property rights to explain a new, rational framework for society to conduct its affairs we open ourselves to a new social structure, one that appears similar but would in practice, seem as different from concept and execution as communism.
This ideology best fits Libertarianism. I must confess, it is a very appealing ideology. The huge advantage rationalism has, it is seemingly dispenses with the subjective nature of morality. Morality too, has its problems when we find ourselves discussing "which morality".
To me, where morality meets rationalism we have a marvelous synthesis of, hang-on, that's an answer for another post, so put that out of your mind and get to the end of this comment :-)
No, the point of this comment was to highlight where a Libertarian rationalism can take us, with a discussion from prominent US Libertarian where he argues:
"Snacky dog [his dog] is property. If I want to take Snacky's head and smash it against a brick wall it's my right to do it! It's my right to do it.
To discuss the idea of rationalism without morals, it is interesting to read Lucyna's recent post, and the comments that go with it. So, go read Lucyna's post, Fatuous pro-abortion slogans and then watch the video that the above comment came from. (My comment, 6 comments down)
Added video link for the lazy: Snacky Dog
Whilst I don't deny this point is quite pragmatic, people are making it to avoid the real debate, one that defines our morality.
PART ONE
One thing modern society doesn’t want, is to have to deal with morality. It is a new society based on rationalism. Rationalism without moral constraint leads us in a destructive direction.
By not continuing to debate morality and ethics, they seemingly become less and less important. Certainly, a big part of this debate for some people (and I’m not necessarily talking about people here) is to play with semantics to convince themselves that killing a pre-born is not really ending a life. If it were seen as that we might collectively try much harder to work on prevention and on expanding post-birth support options.
The cause of abortions is having sex for reasons where a baby is an unacceptable possible outcome. We need to debate morality and ethics. These are not things to be discarded like an unwanted baby.
PART TWO
One of the most compelling arguments in the abortion debate for the pro-choice camp is that a women has "sovereignty" over her body. It's hers, and she's in charge of it, and no-one can tell her otherwise. Her body is her property. The baby growing within it is either her property, to dispose of as she will, or it is an illegal resident, to be ejected because of her ultimate property rights.
That argument makes rational sense.
It is an argument that is completely rational, and also devoid of any real morality.
The morality of the argument is that the women had free choice not to get pregnant, and now pregnant, has now a new life to guard. There is arguably, a moral obligation to complete the pregnancy and then call on others to help care for the baby, again for moral reasons if no other.
In adopting property rights to explain a new, rational framework for society to conduct its affairs we open ourselves to a new social structure, one that appears similar but would in practice, seem as different from concept and execution as communism.
This ideology best fits Libertarianism. I must confess, it is a very appealing ideology. The huge advantage rationalism has, it is seemingly dispenses with the subjective nature of morality. Morality too, has its problems when we find ourselves discussing "which morality".
To me, where morality meets rationalism we have a marvelous synthesis of, hang-on, that's an answer for another post, so put that out of your mind and get to the end of this comment :-)
No, the point of this comment was to highlight where a Libertarian rationalism can take us, with a discussion from prominent US Libertarian where he argues:
"Snacky dog [his dog] is property. If I want to take Snacky's head and smash it against a brick wall it's my right to do it! It's my right to do it.
To discuss the idea of rationalism without morals, it is interesting to read Lucyna's recent post, and the comments that go with it. So, go read Lucyna's post, Fatuous pro-abortion slogans and then watch the video that the above comment came from. (My comment, 6 comments down)
Added video link for the lazy: Snacky Dog
Sorry, zen, but it is in fact quite easy to hold morals whilst not needing a god.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it is a whole lot easier, and better, because the morality that comes from leading a rational life is one that has been devised by humans to suit humans.
As an example,I find that a life lived with care for others is a pleasntly lived life, and as I know that this life is all there is, better to enjoy it. On the other hand, many god botherers live lifes of sorrow and evil, believing they can atone at the end and get another bite at the cherry. The Sopranos has a lot of references to this.
Why do you find it so hard to know what to do unless you are told by someone else?
Moral choices are easy when they are rational.
And rational choices in the absence of morals aren't always as rational as they may seem.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, you are advancing an argument in the absence of me making any of those arguments. I did not say in this post:
1. Morals requires a god.
2. I don't know what to do without being told.
And as for point 2 - that at best is an assumption on your part. Try to find some links where I have said that.
"A life lived with care for others is a pleasantly lived life".
But you set limits on that care. You care for a Mother's inconvenience of going to term in a pregnancy more than placing any importance on the life of the child who must be killed by a third party to help the mother attain her goal. That's either a rational argument based on competing interests, or a moral one - but where did you get your morals from to decide it is moral to kill in that situation?
A large part of morals comes from the weight of the society we live in, and the traditions that have built it. Who told you your morals? Maybe some-one did, and you didn't realise it at the time.
Interestingly Ayn Rand said that there is no moral/practical dichotomy. The moral IS the practical. I agree with that.
ReplyDeleteIMO a lot of libertarians would just like to escape the moral realm and follow the money no matter what...but this is contrary to what Rand said.
I put forward an idea of the cross over between morals and rationalism. I'm not sure I would want to argue for a dichotomy, although I agree that many would try to view it that way.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if rationalism in this sense is the same as arguing for practicality, as you'd still have the issue of short and long term gains, ends justifies the means and those sorts of things when trying to be pragmatic.
When you bring Ayn Rand into this, is it that you are saying Objectivism is basically libertarianism, and Ayn Rand is the high priestess?
"and as I know that this life is all there is...."
ReplyDeleteBeen there and had a look, have you Fugley?
Of course, you may well be right--but you no more "know" that than I know there are gold-plated dwarfs living under the ice in Antarctica.
Libertariansim is a bastardised form of Objectivism. We can look at rationalism as 'what pertains to life' say - what serves one's life. So I see it as the same as the practical.
ReplyDeleteRand strongly disliked libertarians - she said they were on an 'intellectual shoestring'. She would be turning in her grave to be thought of as the high priestess of libertarianism. The Ayn Rand Institute,including her intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff, shun libertarians.
I just posted a rude, offensive video message to Ken Orr on my bloggy blog. Thought you guys might like to see it instead of talking utter bollocks like you usually do.
ReplyDeleteActually, when I said: In adopting property rights to explain a new, rational framework for society to conduct its affairs we open ourselves to a new social structure...
ReplyDelete..I could add we've always had the concept of property rights with us in various forms - and we need them.
My point was how far do we go with them, can what we believe to be objective decisions based on competing property rights and ownership go to a more extreme (purist?) implementation without requiring some moral constraint?
I'll have a bash at expanding on this in another post.
Hairy Armpit, no, not interested in seeing it at all. I've looked at your site once, and that was enough for me.
ReplyDeleteI've been seriously considering whether or not I should delete your comment, but at this stage your comment (in itself) is not as offensive as others I have deleted (it's been mostly me deleting your comments). But, if you continue to use this site as a launchpad for being offensive to others in the future, then I will delete every single comment of yours, whether it is offensive or not.
I have removed the off topic comments from my post. I am now putting my fingers in my ears and going "la la la" until some-one actually comments about the post...
ReplyDelete