If one person says "McDonald's hamburgers are tasty" and another person says "No, they taste awful," arguably the statements have a "for me" clause implied, which makes them not really contradictory (I like them, you don't, where's the contradiction). Moral relativists think that moral statements are statements about what an individual, or a society , prefers. And if you see it that way, the contradiction evaporates and the Law of Noncontradiction does not apply.
Moral objectivists think that there is a real right and wrong that our moral judgments can either match or fail to match. The law of noncontradiction does apply.
23 comments:
So is abortion objectively the intentional murder of an innocent human being?
"Pro-choice" women think it is up to the individual woman to make that decision and apparently some commenters here tacitly agree.
In this example “taste” must be an objective reality otherwise neither could experience it or react to it with an opinion. It makes no sense to say that a person is judging something that doesn’t exist.
Likewise with “morality”. People are responding to and judging a reality that exists.
I didn't intend this to be about abortion. People who believe that there are objective moral values can hold that abortion is murder, and they can believe that it is objectively not murder.
Right.
But apparently "pro-choice" people conclude that whether it is murder or not depends on the attitude of the mother. If it depends on the subjective judgement of the person engaged in the act, then how can it be considered objective?
They think that it is objectively not murder. Or else they think it is justifiable murder.
Objective = someone thinks it’s objective
Subjective = someone thinks it’s subjective
Did I get that right Victor?
They think that it is objectively not murder. Or else they think it is justifiable murder.
So do a lot of killers. Does that mean murder is a relative, depending on the individual?
They think their opponents are mistaken. So do you.
Sure.
But the question was if that means that murder is relative depending on the individual.
Moral relativists think that moral statements are statements about what an individual, or a society , prefers.
This position you attribute to moral relativists just is the "pro-choice" position.
bmiller,
It is a morally objective principle that every person has the right to decide whether or not another person gets to be inside their body; by definition, the unwelcome are invaders. There is nothing relative about it.
There are people who are mistaken about the right to self-defense and bodily integrity.
In most locations, if I am sitting in my house and suddenly you kick the door open and rush me, and I grab a nearby shotgun and blow you away, I will not be convicted of murder because it was an act of self-defense.
But if I'm sitting in my house and see you walking down the street, and I invite you in, punch you in the face, and as soon as you start to fight back I shoot you, I'm most likely getting convicted for murder. At that point it was not self-defense because it was entirely my actions that led to your being in my home and my actions that led to your aggression.
Some would view the vast majority of abortion cases the same way. Even with objective moral values, context matters.
Not accepting any invitations from Kevin. That's for sure ;-)
One of the reasons I conclude that most people who hold the "pro-choice" position are moral relativists is that in the end for the "pro-choicer", it comes down to an individual's decision whether the killing is right or wrong rather than any objective standard. It's how the woman feels emotionally that makes it right or wrong. External judgement is unwelcome.
This is the "pro-choice" person from the link in the previous post in the comment section:
GypsyPhoenixx AUTHORRadiowalla
Apr 05, 2015 at 04:01:06 PM
Thank you for your thought-provoking comment
I see your point, too. I wasn't really justifying, though I can see why you would think I might be. Do I like abortion? Can't say I do, but can't say I don't. As the commenter below said, it's a medical procedure. For personal reasons, I don't think I would be able to do it and am very grateful that I never had to actually make the decision.
I know several women who don't like it but who don't believe it's their business whether another woman has one. It seems to be a common view among women. We know we have the potential to create life and that's pretty amazing. We also have the ability to terminate that life, and that's pretty serious. I've only known one woman who admitted to being willing to abort had she ever found herself pregnant, ever, for any reason.
The part in bold seems to be the central point that all "pro-choicers" agree on. Including the "pro-choicers" here. The only moral absolute for a moral relativist is that we shouldn't judge the morality of others.
Kevin,
I don't really want to delve into that analogy too deeply, but I will say you can't invite someone into your home when they don't exist.
However, my primary purpose was to point out that both bmiller and I have what we consider to be objective morals opinions, even though they differ.
bmiller,
There is nothing relative about saying that only the person hosting the fetus can decide if the fetus is welcome or unwelcome, while also saying they would welcome any fetus personally. It's still an objective position.
My point is that for most moral propositions, context will matter.
When it is one's own actions that lead to the "violation" of their body, killing the innocent life that was put there through no intent of their own is not a moral action. I couldn't remove your kidneys, hook you to mine, then kill you to get out of it without going to prison. Any jury that let me off the hook would deserve prison themselves.
Most people would agree with your objective moral truth that everyone has a right to control who uses their body. But once you add the element "they are the reason the other person has to use their body to survive", suddenly that principle is shown to be a little less black and white.
I'd say most moral propositions fall under that category. Rape is one of the few things I can think of where there is no "greater good" that could justify it. It's simply always wrong, period.
Kevin,
It seems you are saying that the woman "knew or should have known" that her actions could have the consequences of bearing a child and so she shares responsibility for that outcome presumably with her partner. Both the father and the mother brought about the situation and so if there is any punishment or redress to be assigned, it should be to those 2, not an innocent 3rd party. But even then, the penalty should not be the death of any of the 3. The more reasonable penalty would be to sue for lost income/opportunities and/or additional expenses incurred.
The quoted phrase prompts a legal obligation under the law and is a pretty well established general principle.
For the sake of this particular conversation, I'm leaving it at the assertion that One Brow's stated objective moral truth is too broadly written to be true in all cases that might fall under that umbrella.
Much like "It is wrong to kill another human" is not true because it ignores justified defensive killings. Context matters.
Yes, of course you're right that the circumstances have to be considered. But also we need to consider the proportionality of an reaction to a situation. For instance it's illegal to kill someone who took a bite out of your sandwich.
I read an article recently that in America, from the beginning that abortion was always considered the killing of an innocent child (even by the early feminists). In fact that was the attitude as far back as the laws of Christendom can be traced.
The article (by a Baptist) asserted that Protestant theology was mostly concerned about the mechanism of how a new soul came into being and just accepted or never delved into the Catholic/Orthodox position that the newly conceived should not be killed any more than a child already born.
What changed things was advances in medicine that made it possible to safely surgically abort a child in cases to save the life of the mother. Since Protestant theology had not grappled internally with things like the Catholic doctrine of double effect when doctors started to favor this technique they had no ready rebuttal. As time went on, this attitude evolved into favoring the health of the mother (mental or otherwise) over the life of the child until, finally, it evolved into favoring the economic and social well-being of the mother over the life of the child.
This seems plausible to me from what I've heard from some of my Evangelical acquaintences. One said that Evangelicals were slow to get on board for pro-life and that was a mistake.
It would have been overcome even if they had, because in today's society sexual "liberation" is one of the highest virtues. Much more valuable than a life prior to exposure to air.
Of course that trend could also be due to weaksauce Protestants.
Much more valuable than a life prior to exposure to air.
Yep. All other "pro-choice" arguments for abortion fade to insignficance in comparison to the "we want sex and no responsibility" argument.
It's a win-win. Women get to have just as much irresponsible sex as men and men don't have to worry about bastard children making claims on them. A little nasty business and all is back to normal.
It is a morally objective principle that every person has the right to decide whether or not another person gets to be inside their body; by definition, the unwelcome are invaders. There is nothing relative about it.
(In other words, it is morally objective for a woman to decide if abortion is objectively murder or not. Enter the relativist: It is morally objective for solely me to decide if a moral action is morally wrong or not. Sounds relative to me.)
There is nothing relative about saying that only the person hosting the fetus can decide if the fetus is welcome or unwelcome, while also saying they would welcome any fetus personally. It's still an objective position.
(So when a murder says my knife, my choice. He is being objective ? Please.)
Post a Comment