BBarr:
"It is wrong to experiment upon any fetus, unless a permissible abortion will be performed on that fetus. Similarly, it is wrong for a woman to smoke while pregnant, unless she will have a permissible abortion later. If a woman smokes during the first trimester, for instance, but wants to carry the child to term, although the woman hasn't violated the rights of the fetus while smoking (the fetus has no rights), the woman will be acting a manner that will constitute the violation of the rights of the person the fetus will become. So, once the fetus qualifies as a person, it will have had its rights violated by its mother's previous action. In short first-trimester smoking doesn't violate the rights of any potential person (they don't have any), but it does violate the rights of a future, actual person. If a permissible abortion is performed, however, there will be no future person and hence first-trimester smoking wouldn't violate anybody's rights."
"It is wrong to experiment upon any fetus, unless a permissible abortion will be performed on that fetus."
BBarr,
I took this post of yours out of the "Partial Abortion" thread to a new thread because it is, of course, another issue.
First of all I want to discuss the issue whether or not an action A is morally justified, can be established by investigating whether this action A was followed by a separate action B that had to be performed later in time.
In our case the abuse of or experiments on unborn children (action A) and the following , in your eyes, permissable abortion (B).
Your reasoning in this instance seems to be rather odd. You can experiment on unborn children, non-persons à la Bbarr, but you have to kill them afterwards, of course before becoming persons à la Bbarr, otherwise you will violate the rights of an actual future person.
This is a highly original reasoning but rather tricky in my opinion.
If you kill the non-person à la Bbarr there will be no actual person in the future, therefore experiments on the unborn children in question are morally permissable. That means you can do everything you want with a non-person à la Bbarr, with painkillers of course, if you kill it after the experiment/abuse.
If I understand correctly the first action A, the experiment/abuse, is morally acceptable if this action is followed by a, in your eyes, permissable killing of the unborn child(action B).
I, being an amateur, have never heard of such construction:
Act A is morally justifiable only if it is followed by a separate (!) act B.
or
Act A is not morally justifiable if it is not followed by a separate (!) act B.
or:
Act A is not morally justifiable unless it is followed by a separate (!) act B
If seems to me rather odd, to NOT be able to establish whether or not actions, that are going on in a laboratory for instance or the smoking in the presence of the mother in our instance, are morally justifiable, UNTIL the killing of the non-persons à la Bbarr have actually taken place.
Is this a construction you created yourself or is this way of reasoning usage in philosophical reasoning ? Can you give one or some internetsites where this kind of reasoning is being used or presented, so I can study it ?
Originally posted by belgianfreakPlease don't read the thread if you think it is booooooring ..... that's what I do with threads Í find booooooring.
I'm going to start a whip around to buy you a new script.
It's obviosuly a matter you care about a lot but please stop starting thread after thread to pick the same fights because it's getting BOOOOORING
.... besides these are very important actual topics. If we were to close the threads one segment of the RHP members found boring we could indeed close nearly all threads, dealing with non-daily more complicated topics.
Joe,
Just an observation or two.
Not as critisizing but as ... what I learned by watching.
You and Bennet have great passion. What a shame that they are not the SAME passion.
Bennet wants to explore and doubt and "use up" ideas. You want to enshrine them.
Both are good and valid wants and needs.
Maybe absolute truth exists. Good for you.
Maybe all things depend on reason. Good for Bennet.
But you are both right and wrong. Just like all of life. There is no absolute and there ARE universal truths. The absolute truths are the laws of physics. It's just that none of us... and I repeat... NONE of us happen to know what absolute truth is. Why?
Because none of us understand the cause and reason and glory and poetry of the universe and God. If they are two things. Or if they are the same. Or if neither exist... or indeed can exist.
And because we are still chimps in search of a better way. I think another few thousand years are needed.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHere is a sci-fi example:
BBarr,
I took this post of yours out of the "Partial Abortion" thread to a new thread because it is, of course, another issue.
First of all I want to discuss the issue whether or not an action A is morally justified, can be established by investigating whether this action A was followed by a separate action B that had to be performed later in time ...[text shortened]... ome internetsites where this kind of reasoning is being used or presented, so I can study it ?
Act 1: Launching a world-destroying missle at Planet X, a planet peopled by persons who hate living on planet X and desire, above all else, to live on Planet Y.
Act 2: Removing all people from Planet X and taking them to Planet Y.
Now, Act 1 without Act 2 seems morally wrong. You're just blowing up a bunch of people. The addition of Act 2 makes the act morally permissible (or, if you think that blowing up an unpeopled planet is intrinsically morally wrong, then season the example to taste).
Here's another example:
Act 1: Telling the first part of a Joke that begins "Your closest friend just died..."
Act 2: Finishing the Joke (insert funny punchline here).
Act 1 without act 2 is merely deceiving someone or frightening them. You get the point, I'm sure.
Again:
Act 1: The mechanic removes the brakes from my truck.
Act 2: The mechanic replaces the old brakes with new brakes.
Act 1 without Act 2 is either criminal negligence (if he returns the truck to me without notifying me of it's brakeless status). At the least it is the violation of a promise (if he reneges on his offer to fix the brakes of the truck).
Again:
Act 1: Imprisoning a convicted criminal.
Act 2: Letting that criminal free after he's served his sentence.
Act 1 without Act 2 is unjust imprisonment.
I haven't seen this anywhere in print, but I haven't really looked for it. I doubt I'm the first one to think of this.
Anyway, my father-in-law is in town, so I doubt I'll get a chance to write much more before thursday of this week.
Originally posted by bbarrIvanH: "Is this a construction you created yourself or is this way of reasoning usage in philosophical reasoning ? Can you give one or some internetsites where this kind of reasoning is being used or presented, so I can study it ?"
Here is a sci-fi example:
Act 1: Launching a world-destroying missle at Planet X, a planet peopled by persons who hate living on planet X and desire, above all else, to live on Planet Y.
Act 2: Removing all people from Planet X and ta ...[text shortened]... chance to write much more before thursday of this week.
Bbarr: "I haven't seen this anywhere in print, but I haven't really looked for it. I doubt I'm the first one to think of this."
....... I doubt I'm the first one to think of this.
Am I allowed to conclude that I was correct in my hypothesis, namely that this construction is one of your own making ? It will help me in my search on the internet.
Originally posted by ivanhoeNow... Joe...
IvanH: "Is this a construction you created yourself or is this way of reasoning usage in philosophical reasoning ? Can you give one or some internetsites where this kind of reasoning is being used or presented, so I can study it ?"
Bb ...[text shortened]... your own making ? It will help me in my search on the internet.
Shame on you.
If you think some old dead guy can think better than Bennet...
Shame on you!
Where did we ever get the idea that our thoughts here and now are less important than old thoughts?
I happen to cherish the notion that some day... maybe only once... I will have a thought that is original and worthwhile.
So don't poo-poo original thought. Admire it.
And this in spite of my hundreds of "famous old sayings I just made up".
Originally posted by StarValleyWySVW: "So don't poo-poo original thought. Admire it."
Now... Joe...
Shame on you.
If you think some old dead guy can think better than Bennet...
Shame on you!
Where did we ever get the idea that our thoughts here and now are less important than old thoughts?
I happen to che ...[text shortened]... in spite of my hundreds of "famous old sayings I just made up".
I guess I'm more than a free-thinker you can imagine ......... lol ...
I will admire the construction if it is correct reasoning. However I have serious doubts ...
Originally posted by bbarrLet's not play any games Bbarr. Just address my post in the "Ivanhoe and Fjord" thread.
Yes. Now, let's take this slowly...
Which abortions are permissible, according to my view?
When I have the time I will be back here to address the construction of your own making you stated in this thread.
By the way ...... haven't you asked yourself how I knew this is a construction of your own making ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe use of "this kind of reasoning" suggests the query is regarding the general form of the construction and not the specific example of the construction (although that query perhaps exists for you as well). That being so, I'll venture in and lose my debates forum virginity *eek*
Can you give one or some internetsites where this kind of reasoning is being used or presented, so I can study it ?
Aspects of Bayes's Theorem, non? Admittedly not an exact match, but for me sufficient parallels exist to bring it within typical boundaries of the phrase "this kind of reasoning".
Perhaps! Perhaps not!
In any case, yes, do tell how such a construction can be that of bbarr and bbarr's only. Last time I checked I found myself (and I suspect the same may be true for many others) deploying a strongly similar approach in considering and evaluating my reactions to any number of issues that presented themselves in a given day.