re: Is there a secular argument against abortions?

quote:

---

So you embrace abortion ( death) as a means of reducing the welfare rolls, but reject marriage (affirming) as a means to curb it? Odd.

---

What is marriage affirming exactly? My point is that generally speaking people who can support their kids do, and those that cant, don't, married or not.

By making sure the parents can support their kids, we reduce the glut of one parent household in the US, while embracing two parent (but not necessarily married) households.

You don't think society would benefit from fewer single parent households?

quote:

---

Well just going by "secular" arguments, if it's alright to abort unborn babies on the basis They are unwanted and will be a "burden" society is better off not having to deal with, then it's OK to kill anyone for the same reasons.

---

That isn't the entirety of the "secular" argument for the legality of abortion.

quote:

---

couldn't you also say that might makes applied?

Just because I give him morality when's the day any particular place or time doesn't make it right it's simply makes it applied.

---

Sorry but I'm not tracking here. What I'm saying is that since there is no single, objective standard of right and wrong (since morality is in the mind) you either have to accept that every individual can and should enforce their own moral code or that societies have to enforce a singular moral code. Since all moral standards are arbitrary and subjective, to enforce one moral code would require a governing entity or power (government, king/emperor, Don, war lord, or something else like that) to force others to to abide by that moral code and expel or punish those that don't conform. Ultimately, morality is only as "good" as the one who enforces it, thus "might makes right" (powers that be determine what is "right" through its enforcement).

quote:

---

it appears that what you are really asking is this. If one's morality had to be argued in front of some theoretically unbiased arbiter could one prove there morality to be superior?

The right answer to that is no. Hence my point that it's part of the human condition. Just like everything else in life even ideas or a competition.

---

Sort of. I'm not thinking in terms of trying to convince some neutral arbiter that your view is right, but rather that there is already a single standard that you would compare yours to. It's all about defining "good" and "bad" and "better" and "worse". Those are statements that require comparison. "Good" compared to what? "Worse" compared to what? If you are comparing two subjective concepts, you can come to a decision for yourself but you can't make an objective decision that applies to everyone, universally. It's like two people arguing over what the best flavor of ice cream is. You have to have an objective standard that all other views are compared against or else you are just comparing flavors of ice cream; individualized moral preferences.

quote:

---

And given bad idea might exist in a particular time or place. But other ideas will always be in competition with it.

I would argue that over time for ideas get tossed aside by the best societies. However. That clearly doesn't prevent bad ideas from holding sway at any given moments

---

This goes back to my previous statement: how do you define "bad idea"? Compared to what? If you don't have a universal, objective standard to compare each individual, subjective standard to, each idea is just competing against others in the minds of individuals where each individual decides which one is "better" for them.

You poor stupid fool. You're too stupid to even realize just how stupid and ignorant you are.

quote:

---

Because it isn't a singular pivot point for how we treat others in a society.

---

It isn't, but the response was to why we wouldn't just abide by that rule. My point being that it's just one subjective standard among many and it's only as useful as the situation an individual finds themselves in.

quote:

---

Your god cannot impose anything on anyone. I mean sure, you believe that and it's effective to you, but billions of people around the world don't and that makes it relatively useless for anything absolute

---

My point in the statement that you replied to wasn't that people believe it but that if my view is right, there is a God that will judge each individual at some point, either on earth by bringing about negative consequences or on a judgment day where people are punished in the afterlife. The concept is the same, though, in that a moral standard is imposed on people by a power due to both its "rightness" as well as due to the negative consequences for not abiding by it.

quote:

---

You poor stupid fool. You're too stupid to even realize just how stupid and ignorant you are.

---

quote:

---

I've stated my opinion of this, If you don't get it tough shite. If you have a problem with it, tough shite. If you just like to argue (which is what I suspect.) You have no argument, I've stated my opinion of this, please reread this post.

---

Yep. It was the latter.

quote:

---

Well, this is exactly how it works in reality. There is no objective morality, so we rely on subjectivity.

---

That's precisely my point. If all is subjective, what basis do we have to judge other individuals or societies for coming to a different conclusion? The answer is "none", therefore "might makes right" (those with power try to force their own subjective standard on everyone else that they have power over) is the only reasonable moral authority if there is no God.

quote:

---

. What I'm saying is that since there is no single, objective standard of right and wrong

---

agreed

quote:

---

Ultimately, morality is only as "good" as the one who enforces it, thus "might makes right" (powers that be determine what is "right" through its enforcement). 

---

Again. Don't confuse might makes applied with might makes right

quote:

---

, but rather that there is already a single standard that you would compare yours to. It'

---

but there isn't

quote:

---

Those are statements that require comparison. "Good" compared to what? "Worse" compared to what? If

---

ok. I Don't see the issue

quote:

---

. It's like two people arguing over what the best flavor of ice cream is. You have to have an objective standard that all other views are compared against or else you are just comparing flavors of ice cream; individualized moral preferences. 

---

Actually a good analogy because there really is remarkably little disagreement on ice cream. Sure. You have different flavors but the basic ice cream has a pretty solid consensus on how its properly made

quote:

---

 If you don't have a universal, objective standard to compare each individual, subjective standard to, each idea is just competing against others in the minds of individuals where each individual decides which one is "better" for them.

---

i really don't understand your point because literally every human population in the history of the world has done this

quote:

---

That's precisely my point. If all is subjective, what basis do we have to judge other individuals or societies for coming to a different conclusion? The answer is "none", therefore "might makes right" (those with power try to force their own subjective standard on everyone else that they have power over) is the only reasonable moral authority if there is no God.

---

"None" is not correct. Again, I'll go back to the maxim of reciprocity. That's one example. There are other reasons that don't require objective morality, or even subjective morality, to act a certain way.