Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:08:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
932 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > > I believe that some crimes objectively deserve to be punished by death.
> > >
> > > This is your second use of "objectively." I think you'll find that it means
> > > something other than what you think it does. Check out www.dictionary.com.
> >
> > Since I received several error messages when trying to open dictionary.com,
> > I will quote you one of the definitions of "objective" from The American
> > Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition: "2) Having actual existence or
> > reality." I meant just what I said.
>
> From Merriam-Webster's http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary , the essense of
> objective is something "having reality independent of the mind." So two
> rational people examining the evidence, will come to the same conclusion about
> objective matters. The very fact that I disagree (and it's not just a little
> disagreement with wording or something) demonstrates that the matters to which
> you have assigned the term objective, are in fact, subjective matters. now,
> you're free to have your opinion, and I'm glad for a foil against which to
> sharpen my own opinions, but I wanted to point out that your perceptions of
> truth are actually opinions.
>
> They are in fact, objectively, opinions :-)
I in fact do believe that certain moral truths operate independently of the
mind. Because something is objectively true, it does not follow that the moral
truth is imminently and transparently obvious to an observer. You may be right
- my presuppositions may be merely subjective, but your disagreement of the
particulars is not in itself a defeater which indeed proves the falsity of a
supposed objective truth. You are quite right that my arguments rest on a set
of presuppositions which are not proveable - in brief, my arguments are built
from the foundational principles that:
1) As you already know, I believe that our world has been created by an
absolutely good God.
2) God can do all things that can be done, but He cannot do the absurd, such as
creating a square circle. Thus, even God cannot make evil good; i.e., Good
isn't good because God calls it so, but because Good objectively Is. The crux
of this matter is that creation is such that no possible universe can exist in
which Good is anything but that which it is, and the very nature of existence is
such that God cannot be anything other than absolutely Good; it would be an
absurd impossibility for him to be otherwise because the very nature and fabric
of reality is such that certain moral principles objectively exist - just like
the unbendable physical principle that necessitates that a circle be without any
right angles. Just as a circle has this inherent property, so does morality
have very inherent properties. For what it is worth, I call your attention to a
more complete summation of my argument here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5811
Now, isn't this a wildly speculative and unproveable set of presuppostions?
Unproveable, yes. But it is a presupposition which is quite compatible with the
particulars of human experience, it contradicts no proven laws of reality, it
allows for a hopeful view of reality, it provides a supportable base for the
particulars of moral conduct, and it is just as reasonable and liveable as
philosophical positions which affirm an impersonal universe. In short, I
believe that I am well within the bounds of warranted reason to start from the
platform of these suppositions, and that these presuppositions are just as
rational and liveable as any other set of presuppositions which would describe
the nature of reality.
So, I freely yield to your statement that my statements regarding the nature of
objective truth is indeed an opinion which cannot be proven, but I would also
submit to you that I have offered a reasonable opinion, which, if true, is
philosophically supportable with reasonable merit. It's not water-tight, but
humans can never achieve any water-tight philosophical positions that are free
from doubt.
Thus, as you can see, we have come to the end of our debate tether - at best, we
can argue the reasonableness of our respective philosophical positions, but
since we have started from very different philosophical presuppositions, I don't
think that we can come to an agreement on many of the particulars of the issue.
> > You and I have debated the question as
> > to whether fundamental absolute principles objectively, err... that is,
> > actually, really ,literally exist. I say that self-evident foundational
> > truths do indeed exist, and I'm sure that you remember our debate in months
> > past in which I layed out my argument to the best of my ability. You
> > disagree with me, and I respect that. We obviously have different
> > presuppositions regarding the nature of reality.
>
> But if these very "self-evident...truths" exist, why are they remarkably non
> evident? I'm not the only one either, or we might agree that I'm just
> perceptively crippled. But I bet that we could get a bunch of people to
> disagree that "some crimes objectively deserve to be punished by death."
> Because of that, even you would (I hope) see that your claim of self-evidence
> is not correct.
I agree - it is very likely that these groups would come to different
conclusions. I argue that certain truths exist independently of perception -
that is, with the appropriate moral and philosophical tools, one can rightly
come to an understanding of Truth (our epistimology can be held with greater
degrees of confidence when issues of reasonableness and coherence with the
actuals of the human condition are satisfied), but that Truth is ultimately not
something fluid. I may not know it; You may indeed know it (even though you
don't think that it really is there), but regardless, Truth Exists. I once
again assert, however, that my presuppositions yield warranted conclusions that
are in accord with the particulars of human existence - i.e., that humans are
endowed with moral thinking and conscience not out of chance or biological
oddity, but because moral reasoning is a proper response to the actuals of
reality; Just as sight-perception is a proper response to light, so is moral
reckoning a proper response to moral principles that inherently Are (just as
light inherently Is.)
>
> > > > Premeditated murder? Yes.
> > >
> > > Like military sniping?
> >
> > Do you really want me to give you my opinion on that matter?
>
> Sure. I wouldn't have come up with that example of premeditated murder if I
> didn't think it was a good test case. If you're just going to say that it's
> not murder when your government tells you to do it, then I suppose not. But if
> you have some reasonable argument, or agreement, then I'd love to hear it.
Life is complicated, and I'm not necessarily going to give you pat answers to
complicated problems. I'd say that sniping is warranted when one is protecting
an invaded homeland, but wrong when the target is a column of injured soldiers,
for example. I think that it greatly depends on whether or not the sniper is
the agressor or the defender (one can be morally just in either role, depending
on the circumstances.)
> > You and I no
> > doubt approach most issues from wholly different perspectives, but I love a
> > good sound parley.
>
> I guess that I've pretty soundly suggested that I'm opposed to sniping. That's
> not universally so. For instance, I think that instead of going to Iraq with
> full force, we should have executed Saddam Hussein (did I spell that right?).
> That murder (that's what it would be) would be wrong, but less wrong than
> bombing the crap out of the country. And it would have done more good. So on
> balance, it would have been the right solution.
Agreed.
>
> > > > Heinous brutalities? Yes.
> > >
> > > Like circumcision?
> >
> > Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you believe that circumcision is
> > really a moral evil?
>
> I am not playing the devil's advocate. I am presenting examples of the class
> of crimes that you say are self-evidently punishable by death.
>
> I don't have a complete definition of heinous, but it's closely synonymous with
> abominable which is "worthy of causing disgust" or "quite disagreeable or
> unpleasant." Brutality is acting in a brutal fashion. Brutal is "grossly
> ruthless or unfeeling" and "suggests a lack of intelligence, feeling,
> or humanity." So, I am comfortable saying that the mutilation of a baby
> human's genitalia is an example of disgusting, ruthless, stupid, inumanity.
> But I don't think you should be put to death for having it done. Basically, it
> has been an ignorance-promulgated practice in our society for quite a while and
> now that's changing. It would be hard for you to find a doctor under the age
> of thirty who would strongly promote circumcision.
>
> > If you do, well... I'm not going to take issue with
> > your personal convictions.
>
> It sounds as if you disagree. Why?
I don't necessarily disagree - I think that you make a very good argument. I'm
not yet convinced that it is wrong for a male to be circumcised, provided that
it is done safely and with anesthesia (did I just spell that wrong?). I am
circumcised, and it has not impaired my natural biological functions, as it
might had I been a circumcised female.
>
> > > > Even Rape? I'm not sure, although arguably, Yes.
> > >
> > > Hard-core victim/agressor rape, date rape, rape-based fantasy fulfilment • being
> > > called rape by a sour-grapes girlfriend?
> >
> > Rape (just so we understand our terms)as defined by The American Heritage
> > Dictionary Second College Edition: "The crime of forcing another person to
> > submit to sexual intercourse." I mean rape.
>
> But what about the shades of grey? If I'm having sex, and as I orgasm, the
> woman tells me to stop and get out, and I do, but only after the physical
> effects of the orgasm subside a bit, did I rape her? Probably not. What if
> I'm not in that state, but I continue the sex act in an attempt to change her
> mind? is that rape? What if it lasts only ten second until she indicates that
> she's serious? What if it lasts four minutes? It's still not clear cut from
> that definition.
Again, I'll give you no pat answers to a difficult dilemma. Rape cases such as
that one should be tried with extreme prudence. Grey-area cases should not be
liable to the death penalty. But, let's say a man rapes a child, a senior
citizen, or someone in a clear position of vulnerability? That man's
destination should be the death-chamber with all the expediency that justice
will allow.
> >
> > Are you absolutely sure, or is that a subjective opinion?
>
> It is my opinion that remedies to injustice should occur.
Fair enough - I just don't think that one (philosophically) has the latitude to
"should" anything if no moral principles objectively and absolutely exist. I
basically respect your moral framework. I believe that you are wonderfully
inconsistent to your presuppositions (and I mean that sincerely, not
sarcastically - my opinion, for what it is worth, is that you are a good person)
- most people who assert moral relativity fortunately live very
much as if they believe that certain principles do indeed exist.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
