Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Is it OK to use deceit in opposing abortion?

 Here is an interesting problem. Working from the point of view of pro-life politics, putting a replacement for Ginsburg on the court with the present President and Senate would be a victory, as was refusing to the nomination of Merrick Garland and leaving the seat open to be filled by Neil Gorsuch.  It could have been done on the basis of straightforward power politics, we have the majority in the Senate, we want a conservative majority that will overturn Roe and do other things we want, so we are leaving the seat open. We will do it because we can.  But they didn't do that. 2016, like 2020, was an election year, and they specifically argued for the Garland refusal by insisting that in an election year the people should decide. They used this rhetoric,  no doubt, to help Republican candidates in tight Senate races look good. And they didn't qualify it, that is what they said. They didn't say it applied only if the President and the Senate majority were of opposite parties. Lindsey Graham said if this happened with a Republican President the same principle would apply, and if he changed his mind, you could use his words against him. Well, he changed his mind, and he is in a re-election race. Or maybe he didn't, maybe it was power politics from the beginning for him, and he was gambling on this never coming up. In any event, Jaime Harrison should be able to use it this to his advantage. 


If we act on principle, the idea of this is that we are going to be willing to employ the principle when it is convenient for us as well as when it is inconvenient. 

But we can also ask this question: If you are a pro-life Christian, should you be happy about the use of deceit to promote the prohibition of abortion? In this context there is also the payment of a huge sum of money to Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v. Wade, who was paid that money because her support for the pro-life cause was thought to be wavering, who really didn't support the pro-life position, and who wrote a book convincing millions of people that she had changed her mind. It was called "Won by Love," but was she really won by money? A committed pro-lifer could say that the deceit involved was a small price to pay considering the fetuses that were (presumably) saved. And they might say that same thing about deceitfully implying that Republicans were following principle, as opposed to practicing power politics, in refusing to allow Merrick Garland's nomination to be considered. 

One response would be to say that people on the other side are deceitful in this or that way, so it's hypocritical to bring this up. But hypocrisy arguments are inherently weak and are often beside the point. But what that suggests is that if a rule is being violated on the other side, it is no longer valid. What you are saying is that deceit in the interests of pro-life is justified, since people on the pro-choice side practice deceit. But does that follow in any sort of logical way?

And this ties in with the whole Trump issue. How many deceits and transgressions of basic Christian values are Christians willing to tolerate because, after all,  he's "pro-life." (This is in scarequotes because I find it impossible to believe he cares about fetuses. This is a transactional deal with the pro-life movement--you scratch by back and I'll scratch yours.) This is a man who straightforwardly mocked the fundamental value of loving and forgiving one's enemies, something the Bible says a lot more about than it says about abortion. 

Some evangelicals, if confronted with the news that Trump had just shot three people to death on Fifth Avenue, would just say "Well, I still support him. At least he's pro-life." 

But let me ask this question as pointedly as I can. If you are pro-life, to what extent is deceit justified in pursuing that goal. If the right to life is a good end, what means are justified in pursuing it?

124 comments:

bmiller said...

I find it enjoyable when thugs complain that it's immoral for their victims to hit back. It means God is at work.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
I find it enjoyable when thugs complain that it's immoral for their victims to hit back. It means God is at work.

Nice to know you support the BLM protesters, and see their efforts as God at work.

Kevin said...

I have long been openly critical of what Republicans did to Obama and Garland. No need to guve ideas that will be used by the pro-abortion Democrats who have a surplus of other moral failings.

Of course Harry Reid is the one who first went nuclear, so there's that. Maybe instead of preventing a nominee from being considered in the future, Republicans can just destroy the nominee like the left did with Kavanaugh. Also a valid option these days.

Point being, when both sides are nasty cheating lying power-hungry deceivers, and Christians on the left are actively participating in bolstering Democrats, why are Christians on the right expected to feel guilt for doing the same?

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,
Point being, when both sides are nasty cheating lying power-hungry deceivers, and Christians on the left are actively participating in bolstering Democrats, why are Christians on the right expected to feel guilt for doing the same?

I think it is because of the fact that the religious right typically claims they are part of the moral majority and that God is on their side.

And the left-leaning Christians aren't as politically mobilized like those on the right.

Of course, being a general observation it doesn't apply to all Christians whether they are left-leaning or right-leaning.

Humans are far from perfect, but I don't share your rather negative views regarding politicians. I think there are many on the left and right trying to do their best for the country.

bmiller said...

Point being, when both sides are nasty cheating lying power-hungry deceivers, and Christians on the left are actively participating in bolstering Democrats, why are Christians on the right expected to feel guilt for doing the same?

It took the Republicans (at least the ones that really disagree with leftists) a while to realize that they were not working with people of good faith across the aisle. The left has been at war for decades and war includes deception.

McConnell stated at the time he was doing exactly the same thing Democrats would have done if they were in the majority. Graham has stated that he changed his mind about SC nominations after the disgusting show Dems put on at the Kavanaugh hearings.

Also how bizarre to bring up Norma McCorvey. The rabid abortionists just have to keep on lying because that is their native language.

oozzielionel said...

Deceit is generally a poor argument. It should not work to persuade. First, because the truth is important. Second, because an argument based on falsehood should not be effective since is not a valid argument. Third, when the deceit is exposed, the argument is weakened and the communicator is discredited. The problem is too often these days deceit has the pragmatic effect of actually working. Voters seem incapable of discerning lies. Voters seem incapable of detecting foreign false information. To some extent, we get what we deserve. Worse are those who would try to "protect" us through censorship and "fact-checking" where the deceit continues. There is no possibility of clean Christian participation in the swamp of politics.

Unknown said...

There is no possibility of clean Christian participation in the swamp of politics.

The truest and most pertinent statement in the thread, right here.

SteveK said...

To what extent is it OK to ask another person to live a virtuous life so that you can continue to kill innocent children? Should I not deceive the intruder asking where my children are hiding?

SteveK said...

Deceit is used in sports and I think most people would say that’s okay. So what’s the lesson here?

Hal said...

SteveK
To what extent is it OK to ask another person to live a virtuous life so that you can continue to kill innocent children? Should I not deceive the intruder asking where my children are hiding?

A woman having an abortion is not killing an innocent child. She is killing a fetus. Or a zygote if she has access to a medication abortion.

And a woman having an abortion is not an intruder threatening your children. If anyone is an intruder it is the anti-abortionist restricting a woman's right to an abortion.

Hal said...

SteveK
Deceit is used in sports and I think most people would say that’s okay. So what’s the lesson here?

I don't base my moral decisions on what happens in sports.

SteveK said...

Politics is a competition to many people, like poker.

SteveK said...

There’s certainly a poker-like element to politics where deceit seems acceptable.

SteveK said...

The Senate is a political body and it has the sole authority to evaluate and confirm a judicial nominee. Suppose they evaluated the nominee and decided not to proceed, similar to when SCOTUS decides not to hear a case. It’s their right to do this and the reason doesn’t really matter. It’s politics.

bmiller said...

Hal,

A woman having an abortion is not killing an innocent child. She is killing a fetus. Or a zygote if she has access to a medication abortion.

She actually is killing an innocent child.

From Merriam-Webster
3a : an unborn or recently born person
… Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.
— Laura Simonetti

bmiller said...

But since we're talking about deception, just look at the language and lies of abortion proponents.

We were told that the unborn were just "globs of tissue" rather than unique human beings. They started using clinical embryological terms like zygote and fetus to create the impression that these terms, describing certain phases of development of the child, were actual descriptions of things that were not really human.

They claim abortion is a "reproductive right" when, in fact, it is pure destruction rather than reproduction. The reproduction has already happened. There is something diabolically inverse about calling the 'right' to kill a 'reproductive' right.

SteveK said...

My point (for now) was to show that deceit is sometimes acceptable. We rely on it more often than people think and we think it’s justified. It’s not easy to figure out the when and why.

Deceit seems acceptable in sports - which is a power struggle of sorts - where people know the ground rules, abide by them and use deceit to defeat an opponent. Fairness only goes so far.

Politics is similar where laws and the constitution are the accepted ground rules, but I won’t say it’s the same as a sport. A politician isn’t obligated to give up ground to an opponent out of fairness if they are allowed to engage in a legal yet deceptive move than will prevent it.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
To what extent is it OK to ask another person to live a virtuous life so that you can continue to kill enslave women? Should I not deceive the intruder asking where my children are hiding?

As silly as that sounds to you, your post was just as silly to me.

SteveK said...

Help! I’m being forced to not kill another human. Someone help!

Hal said...

SteveK,

You are taking the immoral stance of supporting the elimination of women's reproductive rights. The freedom to have an abortion is a part of those rights.

I am fortunate that I can help support those women financially. Hope others verbally supporting their reproductive rights can also provide such financial support.

SteveK said...

I see your deception and I’m not going along with it.

Kevin said...

Yes, those of you who can pay to kill the unborn before they get old enough for legal protection, please do so. We need piles and piles of the dead to ensure women have equal rights.

Still haven't hit that 100 million mark!

bmiller said...

Hal,

You are taking the immoral stance of supporting the elimination of women's reproductive rights.

No, just the completely moral stance of the elimination of women's destructive rights. How perverse does one have to be to claim killing innocent human beings is a reproductive right.

Hal said...

SteveK,
I see your deception and I’m not going along with it.

No deception. Am being completely honest with you. And I believe you are attempting to be completely honest with me.
Of course I never expected you to agree with me that it is moral for a woman to choose to have an abortion. You've made your position pretty clear here and in prior posts.

Pretty common in life to find that people come to different conclusions regarding morality.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,
Yes, those of you who can pay to kill the unborn before they get old enough for legal protection, please do so.

The only legal and moral right being threatened is the reproductive right of women. So, yes, I am going to do what I can to ensure that right is being protected.

As I've mentioned before, even if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be legal in many states. Am sure money will be used to help poor women travel to those states if they need an abortion. Turns out states' rights are a very good thing. The religious right can't impose its religiously based morality on the whole country.

Kevin said...

bmiller said it well. Abortion is not a reproductive issue, part of the right on whether or not to reproduce (equal to a man) because once pregnancy occurs, reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED. The offspring of the mother and the father has come into existence.

Abortion is the right of a woman to kill her offspring if she regrets having reproduced.

Kevin said...

The religious right can't impose its religiously based morality on the whole country.

If valuing human life is a religious value, then that doesn't bode well for those of you who are not religious.

bmiller said...

Legion,

once pregnancy occurs, reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Notice how he keeps robotically repeating that he's protecting 'reproductive rights' even though the deception of his phrase has been outed. I think he needs to be rebooted.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,
If valuing human life is a religious value, then that doesn't bode well for those of you who are not religious.

Nope, we all value human life. What we don't share is the conservative Christian attack on the reproductive rights of women.

A substantial number of religious and non-religious don't agree with your attempts to make abortion illegal.

Your intent may be good but you are engaging in immoral behavior by your attempt to limit those rights.

Abortion is the right of a woman to kill her offspring if she regrets having reproduced.illegal.

From the wiki article on reproductive rights:

Women's reproductive rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal and safe abortion; the right to birth control; freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception; the right to access good-quality reproductive healthcare; and the right to education and access in order to make free and informed reproductive choices. Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about sexually transmitted infections and other aspects of sexuality, right to menstrual health and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation

We are very fortunate to have those reproductive rights in our country.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Honestly. Think. Did your high school biology teacher ever tell you that parents killing offspring was part of reproduction? Sheesh!

SteveK said...

"What we don't share is the conservative Christian attack on the reproductive rights of women."

Any rights you have under the law can be removed by the same process that put them there.

"Your intent may be good but you are engaging in immoral behavior by your attempt to limit those rights."

It's not immoral to use the political process to remove rights that the political process put into place. Prove me wrong, non-believer.

Hal said...

SteveK,

It is immoral to remove a woman’s right to an abortion.

Of course, if one believes that might makes right they might think using a political process justifies the immorality of that removal. I don’t believe might makes right.

Fortunately even if Roe is overturned, reproductive rights will still be protected in many states.

SteveK said...

It’s not immoral because that legal right is just another law on the books. Like any other law it can be undone and removed through the political process.

Hal said...

SteveK,

Disagree.
The political process is a tool being used to achieve an immoral end.
What the conservative right is attempting to do (the abolishment of a woman's right to obtain a safe and legal abortion) is immoral.

Kind of like what the Jim Crow laws did in the South.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic,
If valuing human life is a religious value, then that doesn't bode well for those of you who are not religious.

I get that you are being more angry than serious, but really, would you think "If valuing the right to decide who uses your body is not a religious value, that doesn't bode well for those of you that are religious" would be a fair characterization of your postion?

One Brow said...

bmiller,

Think. Did your high school biology teacher ever tell you that parents killing offspring was part of reproduction?

It's happened in all kinds of animals, including humans.

SteveK said...

The political process is a tool being used to achieve an immoral end.

That’s what I’m asking you to prove. If this is a secular society founded on secular principles and laws then you can’t appeal to some non-secular principles. That’s what you say to Christians isn’t it? “Don’t force your principles (morals) on me”.

Secular principles boil down to a power struggle via the political process. How is it immoral for Christians to participate in that power struggle in order to change a secular law?

SteveK said...

There is no such thing as an immoral secular end. Consult Marx and Darwin if you need evidence.

SteveK said...

The danger to society is in pushing, pushing, pushing Christians to give up their principles and embrace secular principles. That’s what Legion was alluding to. If you want to live in a society where nobody can appeal to non-secular principles then expect nothing but a very ugly secular power struggle. Be careful what you wish for.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
There is no such thing as an immoral secular end. Consult Marx and Darwin if you need evidence.

Darwin was not a philosopher, and Marx comes across to me as having a very specific morality. You're putting forth a false caricature.

SteveK said...

God bless the Babylon Bee. Lol

https://babylonbee.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-holds-press-conference-in-handmaids-tale-uniform-just-to-mess-with-liberals

bmiller said...

The Babylon Bee is having a tough time doing parodies these days. Real life is beating them to the punch.

bmiller said...

There are rumors that Clarence Thomas wants to retire. Breyer is 82 and Sotomayor is in ill health. So Trump may appoint 3 more justices in his second term.

One of the big complaints about Roe v Wade was that it overrode all state laws. The proper remedy would be for the SC to not just reverse Roe but outlaw abortion in the US (ie all the states). This would just be the next logical step in the recognition of the mistake that Roe was. We already have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that recognizes the rights of the unborn along with most of the states. There is no need for a Constitutional amendment. All it takes is the right case to reach the SC.

bmiller said...

And since it will be done in a secular manner it should satisfy the atheists that it is morally correct decision.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
And since it will be done in a secular manner it should satisfy the atheists that it is morally correct decision.

The anti-abortion atheists might be. Those of us who believe no person should enslave another person, not so much. Do you think enslavement bothers religious people less?

bmiller said...

One Brow,

Are you a pedophile?

SteveK said...

One Brow,
Secular society doesn't want religious morals thrust into the political process so it doesn't matter what we believe. All that matters is we're using the secular political process to get the job done. We're allowed to use the same process everyone else can use to get laws changed. That's all you need to know.

bmiller said...

Is Bob Prokop OK?

I'm worried.

Kevin said...

Those of us who believe no person should enslave another person, not so much. Do you think enslavement bothers religious people less?

As you acknowledge, pro-life atheists exist. It is not a "religious position" it is just a view that is more often held by religious people than not.

To your question, I would say that religious people are less likely to call a parent's relationship to his or her children "enslavement".

One Brow said...

bmiller,
Are you a pedophile?

No. Do you keep asking because you are looking for some pedophiles to hang around with?

SteveK,
Secular society doesn't want religious morals thrust into the political process so it doesn't matter what we believe. All that matters is we're using the secular political process to get the job done. We're allowed to use the same process everyone else can use to get laws changed. That's all you need to know.

It's important to everyone that the laws reflect both the morality of the society and human societies generally. fJim Crow laws were passed through the secular political process, and were wrong.

Legion of Logic,
To your question, I would say that religious people are less likely to call a parent's relationship to his or her children "enslavement".

I fully acknowledge the use of "slavery" is a little dramatic for this context, and I apologize if I offended you in the process. I have found bmiller more aggravating than usual lately, but I should not allow that to color my language for other Christians.

Still, I think there is a decent parallel to be drawn between indentured servitude and forced continuation of a pregnancy. What do you see as the significant differences between those two states, philosophically?

bmiller said...

One Brow,

I have found bmiller more aggravating than usual lately, but I should not allow that to color my language for other Christians.

You routinely accuse everyone of misogyny and racism with zero reason to do so. I'm glad you find that kind of behavior aggravating when it's done to you. I can hope you've learned a lesson, but I don't expect your behavior to change.

Still, I think there is a decent parallel to be drawn between indentured servitude and forced continuation of a pregnancy.

I can see a decent parallel to be drawn between sexually engaging a child without their consent and killing a child without their consent. Are both permitted? Which is worse than the other if not?

Kevin said...

Still, I think there is a decent parallel to be drawn between indentured servitude and forced continuation of a pregnancy. What do you see as the significant differences between those two states, philosophically?

Indentured servitude was a (crappy) method for someone to work for someone else to attain a goal, for example a woman in a third world country agreeing to work for free for several years in exchange for transportation to America or Europe. (I only speak of voluntary servitude, otherwise it's slavery and akin to rape.)

To compare pregnancy to indentured servitude would be a woman who DID NOT WANT to go to America, but signed the contract for a good time and made herself an indentured servant anyway. Then she panics and,, to get out of it, ends another life.

Those are the two big differences. A woman in indentured servitude is engaging in risky behavior to attain a goal, otherwise she would not put herself in that position. A woman who gets an abortion engaged in risky behavior, with that behavior the goal in of itself, and desires to remove the consequences of that risky behavior at the cost of another life.

The most common reasons for abortions are that they aren't ready, they couldn't afford it, they don't want to be single mothers, they are having relationship problems, things like that. The vast majority have nothing to do with health of the mother or the offspring, or rape. People in these situations having sex is like someone with a peanut allergy chomping on cookies and Chinese food. People are responsible for avoiding risky behavior if they are not prepared to accept the consequences. This includes the fathers, so if they don't want to be a dad, it's an easy thing to accomplish. Yes I know everyone wants to have their fun, but at the cost of lives?

The other difference is the woman is only putting herself at risk if she enters into voluntary indentured servitude. A woman who gets an abortion is ending another life to get out of the consequences of her own decisions.

Incidentally I've been in this conversation before, where everything I say is ignored in favor of accusing me of wanting to control the sex lives of women. I'm not quite sure how women not having sex benefits me personally in any way, so hopefully that talking point won't pop up here. Everything I said includes the fathers, it's just that men don't get the abortions.

SteveK said...

” It's important to everyone that the laws reflect both the morality of the society and human societies generally.”

So if Jim Crow laws reflected the morality of these human societies then that would be okay Pedophilia and slavery too? Interesting morality you have there.

bmiller said...

OK.

What bottom-feeding smears are the Dems gonna unleash? After the Kavanaugh debacle I wouldn't put anything past them.

SteveK said...

‘Extreme religious zealot’ seems to be the only smear they have. I’m interested to see how much they are willing to trash Catholicism considering there are millions of Catholics in the Democrat party.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

You routinely accuse everyone of misogyny and racism with zero reason to do so.

It's not an accusation, it's a reality. It's interesting that you used "everyone". I'm an "everyone". Do I accuse myself?

What do you think I mean by this "accusation"?

As for the reason, I have dozens of studies for justification.


I'm glad you find that kind of behavior aggravating when it's done to you. I can hope you've learned a lesson, but I don't expect your behavior to change.

If you meant to show me that you don't understand what I'm saying or why, you have done a spectacular job. Well done.

I can see a decent parallel to be drawn between sexually engaging a child without their consent and killing a child without their consent.

When you can tell me how the first can be an act of self defense or in an act to decide who can and can not use the body of the adult, I'll acknowledge the parallel is relevant.

Which is worse than the other if not?

The worse one is the one not done to defend your own body.

SteveK said...

Was anyone bothered by Ginsburg being a devoutly religious Jew? Did anyone say Ginsburg’s presence on the court created a problem for the separation of church and state? The issue of religion is a grave concern for ACB, but not RBG.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic,

Support of patriarchy does not necessarily involve having sex with the women being dominated. That said, I will do my best to address your comments with as little distinction between the sexes as possible.

You made the equation of a "good time" with the signing of the contract. With whom are the man and woman signing the contract? A person that does not exist?

You also said that "their fun" should not come at the cost of lives, but what are the lives that exist during this "fun" which cost is had?

One Brow said...

SteveK,
So if Jim Crow laws reflected the morality of these human societies then that would be okay Pedophilia and slavery too? Interesting morality you have there.

Jim Crow did not reflect their morality, that's why it was able to be gotten rid of. Same pedophilia and slavery.

The urge to treat other people well is part of the nature of over 90% of humans. You only need to bring what's there to the surface.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
What bottom-feeding smears are the Dems gonna unleash? After the Kavanaugh debacle I wouldn't put anything past them.

Can you point me to the volley of smears that were unleashed upon Gorsuch? If not, can you point to the reason that, in your mind, Kavanaugh was targeted and Gorsuch was not? If not, perhaps you can entertain the idea that the issue actually was Kavanaugh?

SteveK said...

One Brow,
I said *IF*. Your morality views horrendous laws as morally good *IF* society is onboard with them. Nice.

bmiller said...

‘Extreme religious zealot’ seems to be the only smear they have.

Yeah, Feinstein did that when she was appointed to the appellate court. What religion is Diane Feinstein anyway? I've seen they are also going after her kids.

bmiller said...

One Brow,

It's not an accusation, it's a reality. It's interesting that you used "everyone". I'm an "everyone". Do I accuse myself?

It's like talking to a bratty 6th grader.

What do you think I mean by this "accusation"?

I simply don't care that fanatics make wild unsupported accusations.

As for the reason, I have dozens of studies for justification.

Yes. You have "dozens of studies for justification" showing everyone is a misogynist and racist. That's very convincing.

Ever so often I need to be reminded why it's a waste of time responding to you. Thanks for the reminder.

Kevin said...

Support of patriarchy does not necessarily involve having sex with the women being dominated

I can't think of any examples where "patriarchy" or the support / participation thereof was a useful descriptive term. It seems to be more a blunt rhetorical tool used to silence certain positions from a moral standpoint.

You made the equation of a "good time" with the signing of the contract.

I'd imagine the primary reason people want sex other than reproduction is for a good time, so that would be the equivalent for the contract signing - having fun putting your name on the dotted line.

But pregnancy and indentured servitude aren't really equivalent except, arguably, for women who WANT the baby and are willing to to through the risk of pregnancy to get it. In both cases, endure the risk to receive the reward. Indentured servitude for the new home, pregnancy for the baby. To enter into indentured servitude they sign the contract, to have the baby they have sex. In that regard, the good time is the means of initiating the risky situation.

In the case of people who do NOT want children, sex is still the equivalent of signing the contract, since in both cases it is what creates the situation in the first place. For these people, the "signing of the contract" is the goal in of itself, done for fun, but they are not wanting to accept the consequences of that signature if the "master" comes calling. Instead they kill them, then continue signing contracts.

"I want to freely engage in the behavior that creates new life without creating new life, and should be allowed to kill that new life if my behavior unsurprisingly creates it" is simply not an impressive moral position. As a parent of two, I am responsible to feed, clothe, protect, nurture, teach, enrich, and in all other ways provide for them. My needs and desires become secondary. My sleep becomes secondary, and let me tell you all about the health risks of sleep deprivation, because I'm an expert at them at this point. I also knew four people personally killed by falling asleep at the wheel, a mix of parenthood and night shift work. I know zero killed by pregnancy.

Should the sleep deprivation I chronically endure as a single father of two who works night shift give me the right to kill them for self-defense or regret of reproduction or money worries? Only if I killed them early enough, right? Isn't that the message of abortion advocacy?

Speaking of my kids, they were still my kids while in the womb. I read to them for months. They weren't "my fetuses", they were my kids. And my kids are who would have died had their mother aborted them. That's the life being lost.

bmiller said...

Legion,

They weren't "my fetuses", they were my kids.

Well said. Referring to people by the stage of life they are living at the moment is part of the plan to dehumanize them.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
I said *IF*. Your morality views horrendous laws as morally good *IF* society is onboard with them. Nice.

I'm not sure if is a lack of intelligence or a lack of honesty that causes you to so grossly misconstrue what I said.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

It's like talking to a bratty 6th grader.

Yes, but I will keep trying. If you actually engage in the conversation, you might even be surprised by the answer. Do I accuse literally everyone, including myself?

I simply don't care that fanatics make wild unsupported accusations.

Fortunately, I'm doing neither, but instead relying on the results of decades of research.

Yes. You have "dozens of studies for justification" showing everyone is a misogynist and racist. That's very convincing.

Well, if you don't accept science, I suppose there is little left to discuss there. Let's try the Bible.

Proverbs 22:6 (NASB)
Train up a child in the way he should go,
Even when he is old he will not depart from it.

When you train a child up in a culture full of racist and misogynist sign, symbols, assumptions, jokes, etc., do they not tend to follow that path?

SteveK said...

You: “It's important to everyone that the laws reflect both the morality of the society and human societies generally.”

Me: (restating what you say above) If a law reflects the morality of these societies then it is a morally good law. I listed a few examples of laws that were *logically possible*.

One Brow said...

Kevin said...
I can't think of any examples where "patriarchy" or the support / participation thereof was a useful descriptive term. It seems to be more a blunt rhetorical tool used to silence certain positions from a moral standpoint.

Well, I don't see how a vegan could use "patriarchy" as a rhetorical tool to silence the support of eating of meat, nor a drinker could use it to silence the abolitionist. It teally only seems to be good for situaitons involving peole who want to tell women who can use their bodies.

In the case of people who do NOT want children, sex is still the equivalent of signing the contract, ...

Signing a contract with what extant party? You have to exist to be a signatory.

"I want to freely engage in the behavior that creates new life without creating new life, and should be allowed to kill that new life if my behavior unsurprisingly creates it" is simply not an impressive moral position.

As a parent of five, I agree completely. I'm only discussing what the legal position should be.

Speaking of my kids, they were still my kids while in the womb. I read to them for months. They weren't "my fetuses", they were my kids. And my kids are who would have died had their mother aborted them. That's the life being lost.

Again, I agree with all of that. Acts of self defense occasionally result in lost lives.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
You: “It's important to everyone that the laws reflect both the morality of the society and human societies generally.”

Me: (restating what you say above) If a law reflects the morality of these societies then it is a morally good law. I listed a few examples of laws that were *logically possible*..


I also said:
Jim Crow did not reflect their morality, that's why it was able to be gotten rid of. Same pedophilia and slavery.

The urge to treat other people well is part of the nature of over 90% of humans. You only need to bring what's there to the surface.

SteveK said...

That it’s *possible* for pro-slavery laws, pro-Jim Crow laws etc to be morally good is the problem.

Kevin said...

Incidentally I finally got tired of my early-20's choice of name. If anyone didn't know, I'm Legion of Logic.

It teally only seems to be good for situaitons involving peole who want to tell women who can use their bodies.

It's really not even good for that, since nearly half of women are pro-life. Seems more like a sexist tool to bludgeon men, like "mansplaining", even though women engage in the same behavior.

Signing a contract with what extant party? You have to exist to be a signatory.

Analogies do break down if examined closely enough.

I'm only discussing what the legal position should be.

Our current legal position is that men who kill their offspring go to prison, even if it's because he can't afford children or they will negatively affect his health, while women are free to do so in a certain age range and even have celebrations for it.

My legal position would be equality. What would I tell a man who didn't want to become a father? Take that conversation, replace "man" with "woman", and the conversation would be no different. Avoiding parenthood is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

Acts of self defense occasionally result in lost lives.

Self-defense is also not always viewed as justifiable. In this case, pregnancy has a 0.017 percent chance of being lethal to the mother. That's seventeen hundreths of one percent. In what situation would a jury sympathetically look upon me if I killed someone and claimed self-defense because I had a 0.017 percent chance of that person attacking me?

And only a miniscule number of unborn killings are claimed for self-defense anyway. Depending on the website, it ranged from a maximum of four percent to a minimum of less than one percent. No jury in the world (hopefully) would be sympathetic to me if I killed my kids because they were interfering with my education or work.

Legally, a human life has value, which is why those who champion abortion do so in manners that dehumanize the unborn. Calling it "a potential life" even though it exists and is alive. "Embryo" and "fetus" rather than kids. "Women's ability to decide whether to reproduce" even though reproduction has already occurred. I think the legal position should be consistent and not based on vague notions like "viability".

The law, when considering this, should take several things into account.

If it is vital that society protect human life, is it not imperative that the law be based upon clear, knowable criteria in defining that life? Should abortion laws be reflective of these values?

What is the actual risk in pregnancy if carried to full term? Should abortion laws reflect the actual risk and make allowances when that risk appears to be manifesting as a threat?

How many abortions occur as a result of this risk, and how many occur based upon no known threat? Should abortion laws allow taking advantage of the system because a very tiny number use it for self-defense purposes?

And specifically for you, One Brow:

Does bodily autonomy trump the right to life in all cases, particularly when the life in question exists as a result of the decisions of the parents?

The bodily autonomy question in particular is interesting, for example if someone tries to give me a vaccine against my will, do I have the right to kill them to protect my bodily autonomy, or does a vaccine not pose a high enough risk to justify my killing them? Does the right for others to not die due to my refusal to vaccinate trump my bodily autonomy?

bmiller said...

Sorry.

Legion of Logic sounds like a super-hero. Kevin sounds like a mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper. :-)

Kevin said...

I bet the Daily Planet was a liberal rag anyway!

One Brow said...

SteveK,
That it’s *possible* for pro-slavery laws, pro-Jim Crow laws etc to be morally good is the problem.

Since human nature makes that impossible, it's not a concern.

One Brow said...

Kevin,

Under either (or any) name, I value these discussions.

It's really not even good for that, since nearly half of women are pro-life. Seems more like a sexist tool to bludgeon men, like "mansplaining", even though women engage in the same behavior.

Women can be patriarchal, just as black people can be racist (to be specific, buy into the anti-black racism still somewhat prevalent in out culture), gay people can be homophobes, etc. Humans are such marvelously complex creatures.

I agree "mansplaining" is a description of frequency, not quality, regarding men.

My legal position would be equality. What would I tell a man who didn't want to become a father? Take that conversation, replace "man" with "woman", and the conversation would be no different. Avoiding parenthood is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

Equality can sometimes mean treating people differently based on circumstance. Men don't need to kill a fetus to protect their body.

Self-defense is also not always viewed as justifiable. In this case, pregnancy has a 0.017 percent chance of being lethal to the mother. That's seventeen hundreths of one percent. In what situation would a jury sympathetically look upon me if I killed someone and claimed self-defense because I had a 0.017 percent chance of that person attacking me?

The person is not about to attack you, they are attacking you, say with the large end of a rubber reflex hammer. Yes, it's very unlikely to kill you, but it is much more likely to leave you bruised and battered, and there is a decent chance of life-long bodily changes.

No jury in the world (hopefully) would be sympathetic to me if I killed my kids because they were interfering with my education or work.

Agreed.

You offered a great many excellent, seemingly rhetorical questions. I would agree with you in some degree on most of them.

And specifically for you, One Brow:

Does bodily autonomy trump the right to life in all cases, particularly when the life in question exists as a result of the decisions of the parents?


Yes, with the principle of minimum necessary force in application.

The bodily autonomy question in particular is interesting, for example if someone tries to give me a vaccine against my will, do I have the right to kill them to protect my bodily autonomy, or does a vaccine not pose a high enough risk to justify my killing them? Does the right for others to not die due to my refusal to vaccinate trump my bodily autonomy?

I'm about as pro-vaccine as a person could be, so that is an excellent example. Still, I would say, if you were determined to not be vaccinated, and the only means of preventing it is to kill the vaccinator, then I would agree you were within your rights to do so. Using the above example I gave, if the only means you have to stop someone from hitting you with that hammer is to kill them, you are within your rights to do so.

SteveK said...

“Since human nature makes that impossible, it's not a concern.”

What do you mean by human nature? Explain how human nature makes it impossible for pro-slavery laws to be morally good.

One Brow said...

SteveK,

For the third time:
Jim Crow did not reflect their morality, that's why it was able to be gotten rid of. Same pedophilia and slavery.

The urge to treat other people well is part of the nature of over 90% of humans. You only need to bring what's there to the surface.

SteveK said...

We have lots of urges and it’s possible to make any of them common among 90% of humans with a little time and effort. So you’re wrong, it actually is possible for pro-slavery laws to reflect these human societies.

bmiller said...

BTW.

One Brow sounds like a consequence of all the beauty salons closing down for Covid.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
We have lots of urges and it’s possible to make any of them common among 90% of humans with a little time and effort. So you’re wrong, it actually is possible for pro-slavery laws to reflect these human societies.

You speak of human societies, I speak of human nature. Societies can certainly corrupt nature. For a less-controversial example, human urine has a naturally repellant smell, yet has been used to clean teeth in some societies.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

One Brow sounds like a consequence of all the beauty salons closing down for Covid.

Perhaps, like Kevin, I will one day tire of an appellation I have had for some 38 years now, but not yet.

SteveK said...

“ You speak of human societies, I speak of human nature.”

I asked what you meant by human nature and you just requoted a prior comment about an urge that can be brought to the surface. I did the same thing and somehow that’s illegitimate.

I’ll ask it again, what do you mean by human nature?

One Brow said...

SteveK,

I saw some thought on pro-slavery societies, I didn't see anything on human nature.

Our human nature is to be a communal group. We developed to be interdependent and watch out for other people. We are also status seekers, seeking the respect of others.

Slavery does not lead us to watch out for slaves, nor to seek their respect.

SteveK said...

I referenced a natural human urge just like you did.

Our human nature is to want to succeed and progress. It’s possible that the natural human urge to succeed and progress will be brought to the surface in the form of pro-slavery laws that reflect the morality of these societies.

The natural urge to be a communal group and to watch out for other people is still there but our human nature also thinks it’s important to succeed and progress. Why not do both? You haven’t explained that.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
I referenced a natural human urge just like you did.

Our human nature is to want to succeed and progress. It’s possible that the natural human urge to succeed and progress will be brought to the surface in the form of pro-slavery laws that reflect the morality of these societies.


Anything is *possible*, and much possible human behavior runs contrary to human nature (such asbrushing your teeth with urine, or making people into slaves).

The natural urge to be a communal group and to watch out for other people is still there but our human nature also thinks it’s important to succeed and progress. Why not do both? You haven’t explained that.

Slavery is not essential for success nor progress, and counter to our natural empathy.

SteveK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveK said...

“Anything is *possible*, and much possible human behavior runs contrary to human nature (such asbrushing your teeth with urine, or making people into slaves)”

How is it possible for a human behavior to be contrary to human nature and what does that even mean? Details please.

Has human nature evolved as humans have evolved?

Is it possible for human nature to evolve to a point where in the future slavery aligns well with human nature?

One Brow said...

SteveK said...
How is it possible for a human behavior to be contrary to human nature and what does that even mean? Details please.

You mean, as opposed to the notion that every human action is human nature? It's human nature to make people sick and to heal them? To kill people and to protect people from death? Human nature is everything and nothing?

Human nature involves the range of behaviors we developed before we had a language more sophisticated than grunting. Part of our nature is to be followers of a confident leader, and the odds ideas of various leaders give us cultural behaviors contrary to our nature.

Has human nature evolved as humans have evolved?

Sure, over few million years.

Is it possible for human nature to evolve to a point where in the future slavery aligns well with human nature?

When they evolve so much we would no longer recognize them as human, possibly.

SteveK said...

“You mean, as opposed to the notion that every human action is human nature?“

Yes. It’s like saying a person has a non-human though. In fact this must be true according to your theory. Certain thoughts and intentions must be contrary to human nature - not part of it.

How is this even possible? You’re dividing every human into parts- one part aligns with human nature and the other part doesn’t. Where is this human nature located?

If it’s not part of human nature then to what nature do they belong?

“When they evolve so much we would no longer recognize them as human, possibly.”

Or, possibly, they are humans who are aligned with human nature. Once again I say, nice morality you have there. Slavery (pedophilia, etc) can be a moral good, just give it some time.

SteveK said...

Further to my question, “how is this even possible?”

It’s logically possible for every human on the planet to exist as a human being but not exhibit ANY characteristics that align with human nature. Every thought and every behavior can collectively be contrary to human nature for, say, 60 seconds -and yet everyone remains human beings during that same timeframe.

How is this even possible in a naturalistic universe? It reminds me of the claims regarding gender/sex.

One Brow said...

Yes. It’s like saying a person has a non-human though. In fact this must be true according to your theory. Certain thoughts and intentions must be contrary to human nature - not part of it.

Why should I equate a thought contrary to human nature with a non-human thought? Some humans eat the flesh of other humans. I don't know anyone who thinks being a cannibal is human nature. Do you?

How is this even possible? You’re dividing every human into parts- one part aligns with human nature and the other part doesn’t. Where is this human nature located?

I'm categorizing behavior by how closely it aligns with our nature.

If it’s not part of human nature then to what nature do they belong?

Artificially constructed nature.

Or, possibly, they are humans who are aligned with human nature. Once again I say, nice morality you have there. Slavery (pedophilia, etc) can be a moral good, just give it some time.

For things that are not human but can have morality, how can you say otherwise?

It’s logically possible for every human on the planet to exist as a human being but not exhibit ANY characteristics that align with human nature.

Again, I'm discussing behavior, not characteristics.

It reminds me of the claims regarding gender/sex.

The ones that confuse biology with behavior? Agreed.

StardustyPsyche said...

OP
“If the right to life is a good end, what means are justified in pursuing it?”
If every fetus has a soul that will surely be saved by a merciful god who will welcome that innocent soul into heaven then abortion is the most pro-life thing one can do.

Nothing could be more pro-life than aborting a fetus. By aborting the fetus, any fetus, even a 40 week fetus, one grantees eternal life, the greatest gift of life possible.

Therefore, all good Christians should do everything they can to encourage as many abortions as possible.

Just think how bad you will feel if your kid grows up to be an atheist or a Muslim or something horrible like that. In that case your kid is going to hell for eternity. You will then be sorry you did not have that abortion because if you had the abortion that kid would be going to heaven guaranteed.

Christians, don’t take a chance on your kid going to hell. Do the loving thing, give the gift of guaranteed eternal life and abort your fetus before it is too late.

SteveK said...

One Brow
I ask questions so you can explain what YOU believe and I get little in return so I think it’s time for me to stop.

Saying a behavior is ‘artificially constructed’ is the same answer as ‘it doesn’t align with human nature’. You’ve not told me anything new. I still don’t know to which nature the behavior align with.

Asking questions in response to my questions doesn’t tell me anything new. I want to understand YOUR belief. Maybe you’ll explain it one day.

SteveK said...

Dusty once again demonstrates that he knows nothing about Christianity.

SteveK said...

You avoid my question by deflecting and misleading.

Me: “Every thought and every behavior can collectively be contrary to human nature...”

You: “ Again, I'm discussing behavior, not characteristics.”

bmiller said...

SteveK,

Maybe you’ll explain it one day.

Ha. Don't hold your breath.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
I ask questions so you can explain what YOU believe and I get little in return so I think it’s time for me to stop.

It was not deliberate. Maybe I had trouble distinguishing between rhetorical and interlocutory questions, and perhaps I was clear enough about questions that I thought were based on inaccurate positions of my views.

So, going back to How is it possible for a human behavior to be contrary to human nature and what does that even mean?

It's possible because cultural pressures and norms can cause us to disregard our natures, and it means that we learn to do things that would not come naturally to us. I have already offered the example of people brushing their teeth with urine, when urine has a smell that naturally repulses us.

How is this even possible? You’re dividing every human into parts- one part aligns with human nature and the other part doesn’t. Where is this human nature located?

I don't think of myself as dividing people into parts, but rather, as saying that "behavior A aligns with what human nature seems to be" and "behavior B requires that we ignore our natural tendencies". The entire person engages in both types of behaviors.

Saying a behavior is ‘artificially constructed’ is the same answer as ‘it doesn’t align with human nature’. You’ve not told me anything new. I still don’t know to which nature the behavior align with.

Human nature is, of course, complex and multi-faceted. For example, with regard to our fellow humans, part of our nature is to protect and care for people we are around every day, and for people to not behave that way, it has to be taught.

Me: “Every thought and every behavior can collectively be contrary to human nature...”

Can it? I don't know. Do you have an example of a situation where every thought and every behavior is contrary to human nature?

SteveK said...

“It's possible because cultural pressures and norms can cause us to disregard our natures, and it means that we learn to do things that would not come naturally to us.”

I’m not asking that type of ‘how’ question. I’m asking a metaphysical ‘how’ question about existence that is similar to this question: “how can a circle have a non-circular nature?” If something had a non-circular nature we would say it’s not a circle.

“I don't think of myself as dividing people into parts”

You referenced parts A & B, which you said are behaviors of a human. Suppose I said part A of a circle aligns with a circular nature but part B doesn’t. Why is it called a circle if part B has, say, a straight section that isn’t aligned with a circular nature?

“Can it? I don't know.”

Logically it can happen. It was a thought experiment.

SteveK said...

Further to my thought experiment, we can ask a similar question about circles. If everything that existed was contrary to circular nature would circles exist?

I say no. You say yes (about humans).

One Brow said...

SteveK,
I’m asking a metaphysical ‘how’ question about existence that is similar to this question: “how can a circle have a non-circular nature?” If something had a non-circular nature we would say it’s not a circle.

Circles don't learn, or adapt, or change themselves based on their surroundings. For a better example, let's try dogs. I've never seen a dog stand on two legs without being trained to do so. It's not part of a dog's nature to stand on two legs, but some dogs can be and are taught to do it.

You referenced parts A & B, which you said are behaviors of a human.

I referenced different behaviors, but I never referred them them as "parts", and I don't see it as useful to think of them that way.

Logically it can happen. It was a thought experiment.

Sometimes the logically possible is metaphysically impossible.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
Further to my thought experiment, we can ask a similar question about circles. If everything that existed was contrary to circular nature would circles exist?

I say no. You say yes (about humans).


Again, I don't think it's possible for nothing about a human to reflect human nature.

StardustyPsyche said...

SteveK said...

"Dusty once again demonstrates that he knows nothing about Christianity."

How about WL Craige? Does he know anything about Christianity?

He said genocidal infanticide was a very good thing because otherwise all those pagen babies would go to hell, but genocidal infanticide, according to the great Christian WLC, guaranteed all those babies would go to heaven instead of hell.

Pretty hard to beat that logic

SteveK said...

“For a better example, let's try dogs. I've never seen a dog stand on two legs without being trained to do so. It's not part of a dog's nature to stand on two legs, but some dogs can be and are taught to do it.”

I would say the behavior is derived from the dogs nature. Being a dog and having a dog nature is what makes training possible - not the other way around. If it was a circle with a circular nature it couldn’t be trained.

Do you agree with that? If you do then you agree that behavior follows from the nature of a particular thing. In other words, “What it is by nature determines what it can do”. Dog nature is what makes training possible and that makes standing on 2 legs possible.

That behavior is very much consistent with dog nature. How could it not be consistent if a dog is doing it? This is the question I keep coming back to regarding humans. Yes humans can be trained but that is completely consistent with human nature.

SteveK said...

“Pretty hard to beat that logic”

It’s easy to misrepresent an argument though.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

One Brow said...

SteveK,
I would say the behavior is derived from the dogs nature. Being a dog and having a dog nature is what makes training possible - not the other way around. If it was a circle with a circular nature it couldn’t be trained.

Sure, and when the training instills unnatural things, the dog behaves unnaturally.

Do you agree with that? If you do then you agree that behavior follows from the nature of a particular thing. In other words, “What it is by nature determines what it can do”. Dog nature is what makes training possible and that makes standing on 2 legs possible.

"Makes possible" =/= "act according to". As I've been saying above, we can be trained to act against our nature.

That behavior is very much consistent with dog nature. How could it not be consistent if a dog is doing it? This is the question I keep coming back to regarding humans. Yes humans can be trained but that is completely consistent with human nature.

"Consistent with" =/= "act according to".

SteveK said...

“Sure, and when the training instills unnatural things, the dog behaves unnaturally.”

In a universe where only nature things exist and were only natural laws cause those things to change, please explain how this so-called ‘unnatural behavior’ magically appears? You’ve created a category that doesn’t exist in a naturalistic universe. Explain.

One Brow said...

SteveK,

I've been wondering if we are using "nature" in a different way. Do you think that living things have a typical way of doing things, and that deviating from this is typically unpleasant for these things? What do you call that, if not the "nature" of the thing?

SteveK said...

All of this is yours to explain, so please do. I have my own way of explaining what these things mean.

“What do you call that, if not the "nature" of the thing?”

I call that typical behavior. The nature of a thing is not the same as typical behavior - it’s “what a thing is” regardless of what the behavior is.

A human can mimic the behavior of some other thing, like when a human behaves like a monkey or a statue or an airplane or some other person. We associate the behavior with the other thing because we see the resemblance, but (a) resembling other things isn’t contrary to human nature and (b) it’s not necessarily immoral. That’s my view **

Apparently you disagree with both (a) and (b).

Regarding (a):
I asked you what the contrary behavior was associated with if not human nature and you said “artificial nature”. Like with the examples above, the behavior must be associated with some other thing. What?

Regarding (b):
If 90% of the group accept the behavior then how can it be immoral?

** from a naturalistic perspective

One Brow said...

SteveK,
All of this is yours to explain, so please do. I have my own way of explaining what these things mean.

I'm just trying to see if we define words in the same way, so we don't talk past eash other.

“What do you call that, if not the "nature" of the thing?”

I call that typical behavior. The nature of a thing is not the same as typical behavior - it’s “what a thing is” regardless of what the behavior is.


Does typical behavior vary from individual to individual, or do all humans have and the same typical (human) behavior, all dogs have the same typical (dog) behavior, etc.?

Apparently you disagree with both (a) and (b).

Let's make sure we are using words the same way before we draw conclusions.

I asked you what the contrary behavior was associated with if not human nature and you said “artificial nature”. Like with the examples above, the behavior must be associated with some other thing. What?

Some "other things" could be cultures, training, and defects.

Regarding (b):
If 90% of the group accept the behavior then how can it be immoral?

** from a naturalistic perspective


To avoid confusion, let's get the terminology correct before I answer this.

SteveK said...

Then go ahead and define your terminology. Don’t wait for me. As I said, it’s yours to explain.

“Does typical behavior vary from individual to individual, or do all humans have and the same typical (human) behavior, all dogs have the same typical (dog) behavior, etc.?“

Typical means normative, common, usual, widespread etc. Behaviors do vary individually and what’s typical/common/widespread can change over time.

“Some "other things" could be cultures, training, and defects.”

What is a defect? Are defects unnatural things? This brings me back to the question I asked regarding ‘unnatural behavior’ that you didn’t answer. It seems you’ve created a category of things that don’t exist in a naturalistic universe. How does nature create a defect through natural processes? Now would be the time for you to explain.

One Brow said...

I prefer to try and use your terminology, once I know what it is, because that will lessen the chance of misunderstanding.

If what is typical/common can change over time, what is your term for behaviors that are preserved because of the nature of a thing? Humans have a behavior of walking because that's how our bodies develop to move, but a human can not walk for various reasons. Even when an entire hypothetical culture teaches people to crawl, scoot, roll, or whatever, walking is the form of locomotion our biology guides us toward. What's your word for that kind of behavior?

What is a defect? Are defects unnatural things?

You seem to caught up here in "natural" as opposed to "supernatural". When I refer to "our nature", I'm referring to habits, patterns, and decisions that our biology guides us toward, but I still don't know what word you would like to use for that.

SteveK said...

What is a defect? You could’ve answered in your own words.

“If what is typical/common can change over time, what is your term for behaviors that are preserved because of the nature of a thing?”

I call those either typical or untypical things depending is how widespread/usual/normative they are.

SteveK said...

“I'm referring to habits, patterns, and decisions that our biology guides us toward, but I still don't know what word you would like to use for that.”

I agree that our current biology limits our current range of behaviors but our biology isn’t preserving anything. Since biology changes over time those behavioral limits can and do change. History is proof of this. Biology doesn’t guide us toward anything. That’s my view.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
What is a defect? You could’ve answered in your own words.

I could have, but you seem to use that word for an entirely different concept, and it creates confusion.

I call those either typical or untypical things depending is how widespread/usual/normative they are.

So, you make no connection between what the nature of a thing is, and the behaviors that may align with or run against that nature?

One Brow said...

SteveK,
I agree that our current biology limits our current range of behaviors but our biology isn’t preserving anything. Since biology changes over time those behavioral limits can and do change. History is proof of this. Biology doesn’t guide us toward anything. That’s my view.

As a species, a population, or a line of descent, I agree.

However, individuals don't have a biology that changes from generation to generation, they have only their own form. Do you think individual form guides behavior? Do you recognize any difference between those behaviors and behaviors contrary to form, or neutral regarding form?

SteveK said...

One Brow,

"I could have, but you seem to use that word for an entirely different concept, and it creates confusion."

Rather than actually respond to the question and clear the air, you deflect (again).


"So, you make no connection between what the nature of a thing is, and the behaviors that may align with or run against that nature?"

I said previously that behavior is derived from the the nature of a thing. That's the connection. You still haven't explained how a behavior can "run against" the nature of a thing. You've just repeated the same concept using different phrases such as "artificially constructed nature" and "defect". You've never explained anything. I haven't learned anything new in well over a week.

I'm done responding until you actually address the issue.

One Brow said...

SteveK,

Well, since we agree that there is behavior that is encouraged by the nature of a being, we can call that natural behavior. than, the questions would be if there is any such thing as unnatural behavior. You seem to claim there is no such category. I disagree.

There's a reason that taking a human life is a stressful experience for most people; killing other people is an unnatural behavior. Our population has developed to care for other people, not kill them, so killing people feels wrong to us. Now, this tendency can be subverted by defects (brain lesions, for example), by culture ("they" are not the same as us), or by training. However, the natural behavioral tendency still exists.

No, perhaps you believe this distinction is fictional, and I'm OK with that.

SteveK said...

@bmiller
Good thing I didn’t hold my breath because I’d be dead.

bmiller said...

SteveK,

Yeah. That's been my experience too.

One Brow said...

SteveK,
Good thing I didn’t hold my breath because I’d be dead.

That happens when you ask for an explanation of what you think is a fictional phenomenon. Now I now that you think every behavior exhibited by any human is the natural way for humans to behave. No problem.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

Yeah. That's been my experience too.

You do have a pattern of ignoring detailed explanations.

SteveK said...

“ That happens when you ask for an explanation of what you think is a fictional phenomenon.”

What I think is irrelevant. I’m asking you to explain it so I can understand. Maybe you’ll change minds.

One Brow said...

SteveK,

We agree that being have natures, and that being have behaviors. I see some behaviors as being closely aligned to the nature of a being, and others are less closely aligned, or even in opposition to that nature.

For example, it is natural (that is, closely aligned with out nature as humans) for humans to walk on their legs, and almost all children learn this without even being taught how to do so. It is not natural to walk on our hands, and learning to do so requires time, training, etc.

At no point am I discussing something supernatural. I am using nature in the sense of "the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it". I see our inherent features as leading toward some behaviors and not conducive of others, and I consider the first group to be natural behaviors.

Getting back to the discussion this branched from, I see slavery, and viewing people that you are around every day as inferiors generally, as an unnatural behavior.