"I am opposed to murder, but have no problem if you do it."
In the current topic on fetal gene sequencing, the otherwise articulate and insightful Prof. James R. Brenner of the FIT chemical engineering department said that he would not terminate a pregnancy because to do so would be anti-life, but neither would he stop someone else. Jim is not alone. More than once, here in the Gulch, other people have made the same claim. They are opposed to abortion but believe that the government should not be involved in a personal decision.
Why would you feel (believe, conclude, surmise, deduce, induce...) that something is _wrong_ "for you" and then say that it might be right for someone else? I am not talking of chocolate-versus-vanilla but basic moral questions.
Why would you feel (believe, conclude, surmise, deduce, induce...) that something is _wrong_ "for you" and then say that it might be right for someone else? I am not talking of chocolate-versus-vanilla but basic moral questions.
Let me clear on the abortion issue.
1) As I said earlier, it is anti-life.
2) I could not live with myself or anyone else if I did it.
3) I agree that it would be wrong for anyone else to have an abortion, but frankly that isn't my business.
4) In the same post, I said that the persons involved with the abortion would have to live with the consequences.
5) While I view unborn babies as not only alive but as possessing the right to live, not everyone in this mixed up society does.
6) I did not say that abortion would be right for someone else. This was your misreading of either what I wrote and/or implied.
While I can see how you came to that conclusion, it was not my conclusion.
7) Before coming to the Gulch, I had never had anyone call me a racist or bigot or say that I was in support of murder. Now I have. I am a man, and I can take it.
I am not self-contradictory, and I have no guilt about what I have done or not done. I will not let you or anyone else make me think less of myself. Guilt is something that many people, Christian or non-Christian, struggle with. False guilt is something no one should have to deal with, but we have plenty of people in America who are willing to dole it out. I expected that sort of behavior in America, but not in the Gulch.
If and when I do something that ought to make me feel guilt, I will feel guilt, because my conscience is properly formed. I know right from wrong.
I, too, believe that abortion is a sin. I also believe in liberty and understand that others may not have the same belief system as do I. I explained my rational for how to address the issue in a rational manner below.
Your stance is entirely rational and non-contradictory. Anyone saying otherwise has to check their own premises.
Some define "life" as starting at the first fertilization of the egg by the sperm. There are different theories as to why this is, but the two leading ones are that 1) a new complete sequence of DNA equals a new life, and 2) the religious view that at conception a soul is created in that completed joining of egg and sperm.
The other issue for those not ascribing to those two specific theories is more a medical issue on when a grouping of cells becomes viable of independent living. Thus, at first fertilization that single fertilized cell is incapable of existing independently, thus is not a unique "life." At the other end of the spectrum, the moment immediately prior to birth the accumulation of cells has certainly attained a state of "life," with mere minor time passage being the only real difference - a difference that is inconsequential. This approach then calls for one to make a decision as to when the transformation from not capable to exist independently to able to exist independently occurs. There is no way to make a clear distinction when that occurs, so it is only rational to make that distinction in the most conservative manner possible to ensure that any mistakes are made to ensure that possible life does not have its inherent rights violated.
The first instance, which would not permit any form of abortion, calls for either a religious or scientific/medical perspective that many may not hold. In a free society we cannot force others to accept theories that they do not agree with.
In the second instance, there is a time period when abortion (the elimination of living tissue) would be permissible, but beyond which it would not.
The problem comes from the definition of "murder." The believers that the first cell division or conception creates a unique life with its own inherent rights, particularly to life, would then deem any intentional cessation of that life as murder, while others would not. For those of the second type, murder would not be a factor until later in the development of the tissue. Thus, for one person an aborted fetus could be thought of as a murder, while for another person it would not.
Those with the position that a baby does not attain inherent rights until it has passed through the birth canal (or been extracted via caesarean) have an immoral view in my opinion that is not worthy of even discussing. Such a view does not take into account the fact that a baby 2 mins prior to birth is fundamentally equivalent to one 2 mins after birth, and thus provides for infanticide.
Regarding the "inconsistency of ethical and political subjectivism", Mike, you fail to appreciate how limited a single human being is regarding his/her effects on government actions. It is not a matter of being inconsistent. It is a matter of realizing one's limitations. You seem to know a lot about Clint Eastwood movies. Well, a "man has to know his limitations". My limitation is that I am not going to be able to convince everyone of the correctness of how I live my life, let alone convince them of how they should live their lives. We all have a finite amount of energy, and I should not be wasting that time on efforts that cannot be in my best interest.
I live MY moral code.
Yours will be different, after all we are different individuals. We will have "rules" we both agree on. We will also have rules that are not in common, meaning we do not necessarily agree on.
Any action that falls into that category for us presents the possibility of the outcome in your title.
If our definitions of murder are not congruent, it will come out that way.
Abortion is one of the most controversial issues of our time.
I do not include it in my definition of murder however.
I am against it, but you might not be, as is your right.
I do not have the right or responsibility to dictate your choices in life to you unless they directly impact me.
I think abortion is wrong and having or performing one will harm you in ways you cannot know going forward, but that is your choice to make.
Do not expect me to approve of it, perform it, or fund it for you. If you want it, you own it, pay for it yourself.
I am not being self contradictory by not interfering with you doing an action that does not impinge upon me.
You are PROJECTING your contradiction with my moral code onto me as it being my action.
When in fact it is your action and therefore YOURS not mine.
Self contradiction only applies if I am not adhering to MY code.
Of course, if you rob a bank, someone might get hurt or killed. So, there is that risk of unjustly injuring an innocent person.
And the basic problem is that the money is not yours. Some people argue that, but I do not. I would not impose my standards on someone else.
-------------------------------------------------
Lest anyone be confused, the above was a rhetorical reply. None of the responses so far in the tet-a-tet between brenner and robbie actually addressed the issue.
Objectivist never considered truth as a function of arithmetic; and neither does science. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is not an evaluation of the truth of falsehood of my assertions. In point of fact, I have made no assertions. I only asked why, if you consider abortion to be the taking of a human life, you can turn a blind eye to it, and say that it is none of the government's business? That is why I recast the discussion to be about robbing banks. This is not about abortion or about robbing banks. It is about the objectivity of morality. You seem to endorse that. You seem to allow that some circumstances exist in which an otherwise immoral act (bank robbery; abortion) would be permitted or excused, even if not encouraged. Most people who are opposed to abortion and bank robbery take an ABSOLUTIST stance. But absolutism is a philosophical error. And so you seem to agree.
2) However, I personally am quite limited in my response, even if I wanted to do something about it.
3) The government response is independent of mine.
4) I am quite satisfied with my moral code, and it is based on a solid standard.
Moreover, you are confusing the role of government with the role of an individual in this case. What I have to say about condoning or not condoning any immoral act is not particularly relevant to the argument, because I do not have the ability (or the desire) to use force to make you or anyone else comply.
Individuals prioritize these liberties and values according to what is consistent with that particular individual's moral code. In my case, that moral code is consistent with the human-human interaction commandments amongst the Ten Commandments, because they are logical and allow one to be moral and self-consistent.
I refuse to give anything to a pan-handler. I always give money to our auxiliary priest who manages a mens shelter in downtown Milwaukee. The first is a guilt play, the second a gift of compassion. There is a difference.