dsayers

Wouldn't this be antithetical? If you could touch God, then it wouldn't be special. The reward comes from believing without knowing for certain, right? I think you're approaching the subject matter backwards. If I described a triangle square to you--that is, a two-dimensional object that has exactly 3 sides and exactly 4 sides simultaneously--there would be no value in contemplating whether or not the object I describe can be proven with science. Because rational thought indicates that it CAN'T exist.

Obfuscation, blech! In sich 2, person A did not steal. However, they contributed to the theft by helping thieves to flourish and aiding in their theft. So they have also created a debt to the bank, even if we cannot call it theft. Meaning they would be actionable with the use of force to invoke restitution. In sich 3, it would depend on what is meant by "part of the pre-planning." If this participation includes things like combinations, copies of keys, or anything that directly enables the theft, see sich 2. In sich 4, person A has not committed murder. However, they ARE an accessory to murder. See sich 2.

Rent is chosen. It is consented to in advance.

Do you mind if I ask why you're invested in whether there is a heaven and hell or not? By that I mean: What difference would it make? Not saying you shouldn't be curious about such things, but I am curious as to why you're curious As for the titular question, doesn't the word "afterlife" sort of indicate that there's no life after life ends, because it ended?

I think you're using the inaccurate, religious version of the word "moral." I accept that morality is the objective measure of a behavior's internal consistency. As such, I would argue that the moral issue is "assault is the initiation of the use of force." It doesn't matter what happens AFTER the assault; What matters is that consent was not secured BEFORE binding another human being. Also, I didn't mean to suggest that I thought that YOU were engaging in an appeal to authority. Though I did indicate that I thought indulging other people's appeals to authority was an inefficient approach.

I can't figure out what you're saying. This quote is another example of how you continue to appear to be contradicting yourself. If I'm missing something, please help me to understand. Different versions of what? If somebody accepts that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories (anarchy), why would you expect them to then take issue with other people doing different things if it's not the initiation of the use of force? Also, who are any of us to say who can object to what and for what reasons? Is objection the initiation of the use of force? In my opinion, you haven't answered my question as to how somebody saying there can be no leaders promotes themselves to a leader. For what it's worth, I totally agree with your final sentiment: I too am astounded at how many people reject anarchy out of hand despite 99% of their lives being carried out in an anarchic environment.

Contradiction in terms. It's like saying "gender focused push for an absence of gender focus." I think that if somebody wanted for gender equality, they would not self-apply a label that excludes a gender. Does that make sense?

With all due respect, I think you are asking the wrong questions. If "the wisest man ever to have lived" said that 2+2=5, this would not make it true. This is called an appeal to authority and is not useful to determining what truth is. Also, I think talking about "the effects of such things on children" dispenses with the moral argument to focus on utility. This is a dangerous standard to put forth because utility is subjective and cannot be universalized. I think much better would be to focus on the moral argument. Don't forget that there isn't ANYTHING that you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except for violence itself.

So does a hamster. This is insufficient. The difference is that a hamster operates on biological imperative alone. Humans on the other hand have the capacity for reason. That is, the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Because I understand the effects of my behaviors, I am responsible for them. I own them. This is not true of a fetus. Therefore, a fetus cannot own property.

That's my article. Where's my paycheck? Something tells me that the author would take issue with this. How does HE know it's his and not mine?

On what basis have you concluded that a fetus is capable of owning property? Hint: In order to be philosophically consistent, your answer must pass the grass/hamster test. @Donna: Turbo strawman. You also responded to questions as if they were statements. And asked how I feel as if my feelings have any bearing on the truth values of the statements you were trying to put into my mouth. That's some turbo strawman!

Who then owns the fetus? Can we charge the woman with kidnapping if she's carrying that around without the consent of whomever the owner is?

I think you are confusing morals with values. Morality is objective and not up to us.

What difference does it make who lives where or why? I don't see any initiation of the use of force.

Please don't allow your inner-abusers to attack you for engaging in self-care.

Not at all. This is the fundamental flaw in the utilitarian approach: it's subjective and therefore is ineligible for universality. This is why the moral consideration is paramount (it's objective).

No. The proposition that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories only offers utility to those in power.

A lot of people have lost sight of the fact that the word "law" denotes something that is absolutely binding. I think the power hungry call their commands backed by threats of violence "laws" to poison the well and trick people into thinking they cannot be questioned.

I would challenge this. The ability to reason is what makes a moral actor. If dolphins evolved to the point of understanding the other and calculating consequences, they would be people. This is really important to understand because without this acceptance of philosophical consistency, humans will just try and use their position of former superiority to beat back the dolphins, just as they have each other throughout history.

It is my understanding that data pertaining to children who are adopted aren't significantly different than those raised by their biological parents. This might help. But data aside, think about it. Why would this child not be able to be raised by their parents in the first place? Short of a tragic car accident or something along that vein, it would certainly be a failing of the grandparents to raise the parents properly. So I would assume it would be less than optimal to say the least.

To what end? If people believe something for reasons other than logic, reason, and evidence, then using logic, reason, and evidence will not only NOT convince them, but actually STRENGTHEN their resolve. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. It will be a far more productive use of your time "Go and live in Somalia" is way of saying that morality is based on avoidability instead of consent. As in it is never immoral for you to punch them in the face because they can always remain at greater than arm's length from you. Any reference to roads makes the implication that the State provides "services." However, "services" don't come at the muzzle of a gun. If somebody says that you don't care about people, in what way is this them caring about you? Did they arrive at that conclusion based on evidence they've gathered at expressing curiosity? Or are they appealing to emotion in reaction to you disagreeing with them and/or thinking for yourself?

I reject your implication that time invested has any bearing on the truth value of an objective claim. I'm afraid the conversation has gotten long to the point where you may have inter-meshed points being made. When I mentioned that a fetus is part of a woman's body, this was for the purpose of addressing property rights. The discussion of im/a/moral status of abortion was a separate conversation. One where comfort has no place. A fetus fails the moral actor test and therefore abortion cannot have a moral component. I hope I have succeeded in clarifying my position.

The easiest way to lose an argument is to overstate your case. What makes a moral actor? The capability to reason. Something that cannot conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compares behaves to those ideals, and calculate consequences is not responsible for its actions. Does this present a grey area as a baby evolves into a moral actor? Certainly. Luckily, I think you'll find it quite impossible to argue that a fetus understands the consequences of its non-actions while infants cannot righteously enter into contracts.

Kidneys have their own genetic material and reproduce every day. The ways in which being pregnant are detrimental to the mother host and beneficial to the fetus are numerous. Its motives can not change this.