mgggb Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 After watching Stefans debate with crowder I'm left with a puzzling contradiction. Let's start with the assumption that abortion is axiomatically a violation of the NAP. The groups who are having abortions the most in society are blacks, Hispanics, and leftists--groups that if they get enough voting power will increase the size and scope of the state. Every time that happens it results in death camps, starvation, etc. So why should I prevent people from voluntarily submitting to genocide, especially if doing so will cause it to happen to me?
ofd Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Quote Let's start with the assumption that abortion is axiomatically a violation of the NAP. Except that it's not, but ok. Quote So why should I prevent people from voluntarily submitting to genocide, especially if doing so will cause it to happen to me? That's several steps too far. Under the NAP there is no moral obligation for you to help somebody else or prevent a murder.
mgggb Posted September 27, 2017 Author Posted September 27, 2017 2 hours ago, ofd said: Except that it's not, but ok. If you consent to have sex you're accepting that a consequence of that is pregnancy. A zygote is a genetically distinct person. If you remove it from the womb unnecessarily and it dies then you have killed it. Killing is a violation of the NAP. 2 hours ago, ofd said: That's several steps too far. Under the NAP there is no moral obligation for you to help somebody else or prevent a murder Maybe not full culpability, but if you know that a crime is about to be committed and you take no action to prevent it, you own a bit of the blame. But neither of those are the point I'm trying to make. My point is that promoting abortion as immoral will lead to people who generally vote left to breed even more, and since we live in a society where every person gets a vote, that will lead to a massive increase in state power over time. So I'm trying to square this circle, that if promoting a moral will lead to the destruction of that moral is it valid not to follow it?
ofd Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Quote Maybe not full culpability, but if you know that a crime is about to be committed and you take no action to prevent it, you own a bit of the blame. I agree, the NAP is the bare minimum. Quote So I'm trying to square this circle, that if promoting a moral will lead to the destruction of that moral is it valid not to follow it? Max Weber distinguished between two ethical / moral approaches. Gesinnungsethik and Verantwortungsethik. With Gesinnungsethik, you do what is right, no matter the consequences. With Verantwortungsethik you take the effects of actions into account when acting. If you apply the latter, you have basically two options: accelerationism or trying to get back to the status quo. If you think that a collapse can't be avoided, you speed up the inevitable. This view has the advantage that you can argue for the NAP while at the same time applying a bird's eye view.
EGreg Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 By this argument, welfare recipients and women shouldn't have the right to vote because they lead society down a path to leftism, which is bad and kills people etc. Or something. That's the argument Peter Thiel actually made, as a libertarian in a piece published by Cato: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian 1
RamynKing Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 one problem is that the left can have it all. They get abortions to enable their degeneracy, and the import migrants to keep their vote stacked. Eventually maybe the left will be all Hispanic and muslim, two groups who still have breeding spirit. Then you might see more perma blue states
mgggb Posted September 28, 2017 Author Posted September 28, 2017 On 9/27/2017 at 11:38 AM, ofd said: Max Weber distinguished between two ethical / moral approaches. Gesinnungsethik and Verantwortungsethik. With Gesinnungsethik, you do what is right, no matter the consequences. With Verantwortungsethik you take the effects of actions into account when acting. If you apply the latter, you have basically two options: accelerationism or trying to get back to the status quo. If you think that a collapse can't be avoided, you speed up the inevitable. This view has the advantage that you can argue for the NAP while at the same time applying a bird's eye view. I'd usually never accept the second as valid because it's a slippery slope to doing whatever you feel like and justifying it ex post facto, but it looks like I have come to a wall here since clearly that's what I'm advocating. 22 hours ago, EGreg said: By this argument, welfare recipients and women shouldn't have the right to vote because they lead society down a path to leftism I'd rather that no one had the right to vote, but repealing the 20th amendment would be a good start. 13 hours ago, RamynKing said: Eventually maybe the left will be all Hispanic and muslim, two groups who still have breeding spirit. Then you might see more perma blue states Islam is cancer. I'd never thought I'd be relieved to live in the multicultural paradise known as New Jersey, but then there's Germany...
EGreg Posted September 28, 2017 Posted September 28, 2017 Why the 20th amendment? What in particular does it accomplish?
mgggb Posted October 3, 2017 Author Posted October 3, 2017 On 9/28/2017 at 4:25 PM, EGreg said: Why the 20th amendment? What in particular does it accomplish? I was half joking but I meant the 19th.
Jsbrads Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 Firstly, I think abortion is always morally wrong. But, I don't think it is always legally wrong. A woman who is raped, by US law should be allowed to terminate even if we could agree that the baby is an individual. Many argue the baby doesn't satisfy the quality of an individual at conception, and many argue there is no objective demarcation from conception to birth...
mgggb Posted October 10, 2017 Author Posted October 10, 2017 On 10/3/2017 at 4:08 AM, Jsbrads said: Firstly, I think abortion is always morally wrong. But, I don't think it is always legally wrong. A woman who is raped, by US law should be allowed to terminate even if we could agree that the baby is an individual. Many argue the baby doesn't satisfy the quality of an individual at conception, and many argue there is no objective demarcation from conception to birth... Not sure if I fully agree, but since abortions for rape victims are a tiny minority I'm willing to accept that as necessary evil or something like that. But I think that the answer to this is that to those that set death as their highest ideal, long life is the slowest and most painful of suicides.
Jsbrads Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 freedom as our highest ideal, we have often said we would die fighting for freedom, enslaving a woman to bear a child for a rapist is so far from okay as to permit even the death of the child from a legal perspective. should the woman chose to bear the child and raise it in loving home, that is the actions of a saintly person.
mgggb Posted October 11, 2017 Author Posted October 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Jsbrads said: freedom as our highest ideal, we have often said we would die fighting for freedom, enslaving a woman to bear a child for a rapist is so far from okay as to permit even the death of the child from a legal perspective. should the woman chose to bear the child and raise it in loving home, that is the actions of a saintly person. Murder is worse than rape.
Marshall B Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 Stef won this debate. I know he wasn't wanting to maybe but he won in my book. At what point is it murder? At what point do we call it a human life? If you say at conception you are my peoples. I like that world and I want to live in that world. Its obviously not self defense and aesthetically gross at the very least but if we saw a woman having an abortion Im trying to picture someone preventing it from happening by using force against the pregnant woman? Would it be justified? I guess so but not sure. One of those things we just hope wouldn't happen and shouldn't happen. In a future society maybe they'll be plenty of fiscal reasons to have a baby(sell it on the open market, give it up for adoption, better enviroments for kids) to where it wouldn't happen. Just take a shit on the idea and condemn it but it's a tough one for me to get to an absolute certainty on the issue.
lorry Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 I think you win that debate by invoking Rand with a twist. Life as the standard of value. Man as rational animal. Potential rational not automatic rational. You can see Crowder try to get to life as the standard of value but fail to define man as a rational animal (he has a hard time differentiating man from fish). Once you have life as the standard of value and man as rational animal, you just need to get fetus into the category of rational animal. I think you get there because rational means "has the potential to be rational" not "is automatically rational". A fetus is can not be reduced (split up into egg and sperm) and has a potential (if not aborted) to be rational. Don't see how you get around that.
mgggb Posted October 11, 2017 Author Posted October 11, 2017 8 hours ago, Marshall B said: At what point is it murder? At what point do we call it a human life? If you say at conception you are my peoples. Why would it be anything other than at conception?
mgggb Posted October 11, 2017 Author Posted October 11, 2017 3 hours ago, lorry said: I think you win that debate by invoking Rand with a twist. Life as the standard of value. Man as rational animal. Potential rational not automatic rational. You can see Crowder try to get to life as the standard of value but fail to define man as a rational animal (he has a hard time differentiating man from fish). Once you have life as the standard of value and man as rational animal, you just need to get fetus into the category of rational animal. I think you get there because rational means "has the potential to be rational" not "is automatically rational". A fetus is can not be reduced (split up into egg and sperm) and has a potential (if not aborted) to be rational. Don't see how you get around that. I think pregnancy is more like an implied contract. If we assume you're not mentally retarded you know what sex does, therefore you are consenting to have a child since there is always the risk of pregnancy to some degree.
lorry Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 On 11/10/2017 at 10:06 PM, mgggb said: I think pregnancy is more like an implied contract. If we assume you're not mentally retarded you know what sex does, therefore you are consenting to have a child since there is always the risk of pregnancy to some degree. I do agree, but introducing the concept of an implied contract doesn't solve the ethical problem, it pushes it back a level of abstraction and introduces another problem to solve. So instead of "is abortion ethical", it is now: "is an implied contact forbidding abortion ethical" which holds two problems "is an implied contract ethical" and "is abortion ethical".
Mel_NAP Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 Conception is not a contract. Fetuses, embryos, and zygotes are (almost always) invitees. It is immoral to invite someone somewhere then kill them for being there. This is typically referred to as "murder." Evictionism is also immoral, because it is immoral to invite someone with the intent of kicking them out in a way that would be fatal to them. I can not invite you into my car then decide to kick you out on the interstate doing 90mph on the grounds that I own the car. 1
Marshall B Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 On 10/11/2017 at 5:03 PM, mgggb said: Why would it be anything other than at conception? I reckons so. 22 minutes ago, Mel_NAP said: Conception is not a contract. Fetuses, embryos, and zygotes are (almost always) invitees. It is immoral to invite someone somewhere then kill them for being there. This is typically referred to as "murder." Evictionism is also immoral, because it is immoral to invite someone with the intent of kicking them out in a way that would be fatal to them. I can not invite you into my car then decide to kick you out on the interstate doing 90mph on the grounds that I own the car. Great points.
mgggb Posted October 14, 2017 Author Posted October 14, 2017 18 hours ago, Mel_NAP said: Fetuses, embryos, and zygotes are (almost always) invitees. It is immoral to invite someone somewhere then kill them for being there. This is typically referred to as "murder." Evictionism is also immoral, because it is immoral to invite someone with the intent of kicking them out in a way that would be fatal to them. I can not invite you into my car then decide to kick you out on the interstate doing 90mph on the grounds that I own the car. 100% agree 18 hours ago, Mel_NAP said: Conception is not a contract. Eh... Maybe it's just a matter of perspective or how I phrased it, but consenting to sex means you accept its possible consequences, be it stds or a pregnancy. If that's not a contract I don't know what is. On 10/12/2017 at 8:44 PM, lorry said: I do agree, but introducing the concept of an implied contract doesn't solve the ethical problem, it pushes it back a level of abstraction and introduces another problem to solve. So instead of "is abortion ethical", it is now: "is an implied contact forbidding abortion ethical" which holds two problems "is an implied contract ethical" and "is abortion ethical I think it's a much more simple way to solve the problem rather than having to make an argument for if it is a rational animal, and at what point. I avoid making the argument on moral grounds because leftists believe in moral relativism. Then I can argue the 'muh body muh choice' line because it that point it isn't their body so they can't make the choice.
Mel_NAP Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 Right, but that's not a contract- its taking on an obligation. Unless you're talking about unilateral contracts, which I always thought was a non-concept. It seems obvious that you can't have a contract with a zygote. Preforming an action means accepting all of its consequences, but I wouldn't call all actions contracts. You can't successfully argue morals with someone who is refusing to engage in morals anymore than you can successfully use logic with someone who is refusing to engage in logic. If leftists refuse to acknowledge morals, then what good will telling them that it is a contract or a separate person do? They can just say that they don't have a problem violating contracts or killing separate people. They are still going to use the "my body, my choice" slogan. Contemporary leftists don't so much deny that the baby is a person or a baby. They argue that the baby is impeding on the personal autonomy/body of the woman and therefore the woman has a right to dispose of it. (Though they seem to reject the same argument for adult welfare recipients.) If someone is dead set on feticide as a means of sexual promiscuity I don't think that there is anything we can say to stop them. So I don't see any point in watering down the arguments for their sake.
mgggb Posted October 15, 2017 Author Posted October 15, 2017 12 hours ago, Mel_NAP said: Right, but that's not a contract- its taking on an obligation. Unless you're talking about unilateral contracts, which I always thought was a non-concept. It seems obvious that you can't have a contract with a zygote. Preforming an action means accepting all of its consequences, but I wouldn't call all actions contracts. You can't successfully argue morals with someone who is refusing to engage in morals anymore than you can successfully use logic with someone who is refusing to engage in logic. If leftists refuse to acknowledge morals, then what good will telling them that it is a contract or a separate person do? They can just say that they don't have a problem violating contracts or killing separate people. They are still going to use the "my body, my choice" slogan. Contemporary leftists don't so much deny that the baby is a person or a baby. They argue that the baby is impeding on the personal autonomy/body of the woman and therefore the woman has a right to dispose of it. (Though they seem to reject the same argument for adult welfare recipients.) If someone is dead set on feticide as a means of sexual promiscuity I don't think that there is anything we can say to stop them. So I don't see any point in watering down the arguments for their sake. Then what is a better way of arguing the point? I like the to conceptualize it as a contract, because I think it's the easiest way to do it, but I'm open to new ways of looking at it.
Mel_NAP Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 From a practical standpoint- I don't think there is any. If someone values promiscuity (and not even bothering to use one of the many forms of bc available) more than they value not being a murderer, you're not going to reason them out of that. From a philosophical standpoint- fetuses are almost always invitees. I admit that I don't have a good argument against evictinism for babies that were the result of rape, but even they are not moral agents and as such can not commit trespass and so you can not kill them consistent with the NAP. My problem with calling it a contract is that someone could claim that the fetus is not agreeing to anything, which is true, or that they just put different "terms" on their contract. The parents invited the fetus in and caused it to be dependent. I can not morally kill a fetus invitee by evicting it in a way that would kill it anymore than I can morally kill an adult invitee by evicting it in a way that would kill it out the car door doing 90mph or through the 5th story window rather than the 1st story door. When I invite a fetus I know that it will take 9 months for me to be able to morally kick it out. When I invite you in to my car I know that it will take me slowing down and stopping (at a minimum) to morally kick you out. When I invite you to the 5th story of my building and suddenly decide I no longer want you there, I have to wait for you to have an opportunity to walk back down to the 1st floor. Different locations have different safe methods of exiting and the fact that a uterus has an exceptionally high wait time to safely kick out an invitee is my problem if I choose to invite someone to live in my uterus. It is possible to assume obligations in ways other than signing contracts. Inviting people onto your property is one of them. Since the parents caused the fetus to be dependent they are also responsible for caring for it until it is no longer dependent. When you cause someone to suffer an inadequacy you are responsible for making up for the inadequacy. This is more commonly seen in torts where if I run into with my car, I am responsible for your medical bills, lost wages, etc. It is true that causing the fetus to be dependent also caused it to exist, and it is also probably true that running you over with my car caused you to have some time off work and maybe you enjoy the meds. But I can not deduct these "gains" from my moral obligation to make you whole because value is subjective and neither my victim nor the fetus asked for these benefits in exchange for the state of dependency. I am morally responsible for the harm that I cause that is not the fault of the "victim."
lorry Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 On 14/10/2017 at 5:19 PM, mgggb said: I think it's a much more simple way to solve the problem rather than having to make an argument for if it is a rational animal, and at what point. I avoid making the argument on moral grounds because leftists believe in moral relativism. Then I can argue the 'muh body muh choice' line because it that point it isn't their body so they can't make the choice. But they can not argue my body my choice without implicitly accepting the premise that they are a being capable of choosing, ie, a rational animal. If their argument requires the axiom: I am capable of choice, why would you not use that as the foundation of your position? Like: are you capable of choice when you are unconscious? No? OK, so remember that scene in Kill Bill where the janitor has sex with the unconscious women, no problem! hey? Then you get straight to a capacity for choice or a potential for choice (and they even did in the debate, ie, we don't get to kill unconscious people) and then it is game over, either I can fuck you when you are unconscious or abortion is wrong. 1
Recommended Posts