re: Is there a secular argument against abortions?

quote:

---

y view, I'm not objective, God is. Therefore I believe in an objective standard to judge all other moral views by, including my own (which I admit can be inconsistent and needs improvement according to God's revealed word).

---

if every single person who ever read the Bible came to the same conclusions regarding morality you might have a point. But they don't

quote:

---

The golden rule is pretty good, but how does it hold up when you are dealing with a masochist, for example? The masochist enjoys having pain infllicted upon themselves, so should they inflict pain into others?


Kind of a ridiculous counter example; but a good illustration on the shortcomings of claiming one moral scheme is absolutely true in all circumstances.

---

This objection might hold up against a certain reading of the golden rule, but fails when the golden rule is properly defined. Let's analyze the common "love your neighbor as yourself" to illustrate this point.

First one ought to define the term "love". For this argument I define love as "willing the good of another". Applying this definition to the golden rule renders it as to "will the good of your neighbor as you yourself would will your own good". I would argue that the proper reading is not saying that a person ought to will his own good onto others. Instead one ought to will another's good as if it were his own. An example of the former would be what your objection brings up. A masochist inflicts pain on another because pain is the masochist's own good. An example of the latter would be that the masochist seeks to reduce the pain of another because it is the good of that person to have his pain alleviated.

You're defining this in a biblical context. The theory and concepts predate that interpretation by thousands of years across multiple cultures.

quote:

---

I believe a human has human rights when their life begins. Yes. The fact that legality and lawfulness do not intersect here is horrid.

---

Well, nearly everything except your religion disagrees with you, but believe what you want. At least you're consistent with your absolutist views.

quote:

---

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

---

Might makes right is just an axiom that states that those who make the rules are the ones who can enforce the rules. Since we've already agreed that a completely secular view of morality lacks objectivity, there really is no ultimate "right" and "wrong", and therefore the concept of right and wrong is simply what is accepted as such in a society where that arbitrary standard is applied by force.

quote:

---

but there isn't

---

That's up for debate. I believe that there is but that's not really the point. If there isn't one (as you say) then there is nothing to compare each individual moral code to and thus there isn't an objective "right" and "wrong", which again is my point. People who don't hold to a universal moral authority that applies equally to everyone have a hard time justifying their opposition to the actions of others that don't conform to their personal and subjective standard.

quote:

---

ok. I Don't see the issue

---

There isn't a problem with the questions. The problem lies with the answers. Again, with no objective standard to compare good and bad to, you just have a bunch of people coming up with their own views of good and bad and then fighting to enforce it, which gets back to "might makes right" (right, again, being the moral standard that a society is held accountable to).

quote:

---

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

---

That sounds like equivocation, though. I'm not talking about how it's made, but what is considered "best". It's easy to make a moral code. Most people make theirs up based on outside influences mixed with internal preferences and an understanding of causality. The problem is that each individual likes and dislikes certain things and has a different outlook on life and different situations that they find themselves in which may affect their moral code.

Going back to the analogy, my point is that there isn't a "best" ice cream or a "best" morality that everyone can agree to. It's subjective and varies from person to person.

We can't even agree on things in this country like whether or not Christians should discriminate against homosexuals because one side says it's immoral to discriminate at all based on sexual orientation while the other says it's immoral to force religious people to violate their consciences and religious beliefs. Which is "right" and how do you determine that if there is no objective rule to judge by? It's like ice cream; there is no universal right or universal best. It's subjective.

quote:

---

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

---

My point is that there is no "right" or "better" in a universal sense, so it always boils down to "might makes right". Genocide is not objectively wrong. Rape is not objectively wrong. Theft is not objectively wrong. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of it is determined by the standard of the one or ones in power.

Why does this matter? Because if there is no objective morality then there is no objective standard to judge Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot by. There is no "moral" basis to condemn their actions because they were just doing what they thought was right according to their moral standard which they imposed through the principle of "might makes right" within their own societies and who are we to impose our subjective moral standards on them? You could even take this back a step and ask if it is "moral" for a government or ruler to force you or anyone else to abide by their moral code? If there is no ultimate moral authority and each person has autonomy over themselves and their own concept of morality, then what gives anyone the right to judge anyone else?

quote:

---

"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.

---

There are all sorts of reason why people act the way that they do and judge others, but my point is not that there are reason why people come up with moral codes but rather that because everyone comes up with their own (and that there is no objective code to judge them by), they are all valid in a sense and therefore there is no objective reason to condemn anyone else. None are objectively right and none are objectively wrong.

quote:

---

There are all sorts of reason why people act the way that they do and judge others, but my point is not that there are reason why people come up with moral codes but rather that because everyone comes up with their own (and that there is no objective code to judge them by), they are all valid in a sense and therefore there is no objective reason to condemn anyone else. None are objectively right and none are objectively wrong.

---

Right, we agree on that, as I've said. Where we differ is your argument that moral objectivity exists because of your faith in your god.

quote:

---

Irrelevant.

---

Nope, it's completely relevant. You asserted: "when the golden rule is properly defined." You then proceeded to define it in a manner that is neither objectively correct, nor the first or only example.

quote:

---

Well, nearly everything except your religion disagrees with you, but believe what you want. At least you're consistent with your absolutist views.

---

Ok. Science denier. I recognize that leftist philosophy has created an arbitrary construct called personhood, bu that is because the scientific fact is life begins at fertilization.

Facts and the left though. Like oil and water.

quote:

---

Right, we agree on that, as I've said. Where we differ is your argument that moral objectivity exists because of your faith in your god.

---

Don't mean to jump in this mess- but the argument is "does moral objectivity exist". The premise that it exists "because of my faith in my God" is a false premise. It either exists or it doesn't. Ones view on God does not cause it to be anymore than your counter views cause it to be.