Spirituality
18 Feb 07
21 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt wasn't a distortion of your position because it wasn't a representation of your stated position on this thread (which, IIRC, used grandiose terms like "dialogue" ) at all. It was a representation of your manifest intention in starting this thread. All of your hypotheticals with their juvenile barbs at the names of people who disagree with you were created with the express purpose of framing people who oppose abortion as terrorists. That is why you started the thread with the case of James Kopp, and that is why your hypotheticals are paired up the way they are.
Your post wasn't worth responding to in any other way as it was a grotesque distortion of my position.
Do you seriously want to deny this?
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, I deny it. The point of the hypos is to address the why that IF some people believe a fetus is human being from conception they treat the situations involving a child differently then they do those involving a fetus (if they do).
It wasn't a distortion of your position because it wasn't a representation of your stated position on this thread (which, IIRC, used grandiose terms like "dialogue" ) at all. It was a representation of your manifest intention in starting this thread. All of your hypotheticals with their juvenile barbs at the names of people who disagree with yo ...[text shortened]... hy your hypotheticals are paired up the way they are.
Do you seriously want to deny this?
21 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, it is. If you do an act knowing that it will have necessary consequences, you are intending that those consequences will result from the act. It is irrational to say otherwise.
[b/]When you decide to do something and you are aware that it will have necessary consequences, you are deciding that you will be the of cause those consequences.
That is not the same as saying you intend all such consequences.
... as a moral issue you are responsible for those consequences. Your attempts to make it seem like neces ...[text shortened]... u to be advocating the death penalty for people who happen to kill an attacker in self-defence.
You can't decide an act is morally permissable BEFORE you examine the necessary consequences of the act; that IS idiotic. And that it is considered morally permissible and lawful to kill an attacker in self-defense is not because it is a mere unintended consequence as PDE pretends.
22 Feb 07
Let's test LH's theory and change situation 1:
KellyTay arrives around the corner just as Woman A cuts Baby B's throat, killing the child. KT pulls out his gun and yells "Stop!" at Woman A. Woman A starts to run away; KellyTay shots and kills her.
Moral or immoral act?
PDE would say immoral, but I daresay the great majority of people would say it was morally permissible.
22 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseHal: Halitosis thinks only of one thing
Halitosis is walking down the street and spots Man A swerving his hired van and barreling towards Toddler B on the sidewalk. Being the upstanding citizen of no1ville, Halitosis thinks only of one thing -- to kill the would-be killer: Man A. He pulls out his 357 magnum and fires from the hip -- instantly killing man A. The driverless van still kills Toddler teering column broke and the breaks had failed.
Did Halitosis commit a moral or immoral act?
Strawman.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderImmoral. The Mother may have had knowledge pertaining to the child's future. For example, the woman may have known that the child would grow up to be the anti-Christ and responsible for the killing of millions upon millions sometime in the future. Kelly fired without having all of the facts and he had options to restrain the woman in some fashion. I think it's fair to say that having options and chosing the one that results in harm to others results in an immoral act.
Let's test LH's theory and change situation 1:
KellyTay arrives around the corner just as Woman A cuts Baby B's throat, killing the child. KT pulls out his gun and yells "Stop!" at Woman A. Woman A starts to run away; KellyTay shots and kills her.
Moral or immoral act?
PDE would say immoral, but I daresay the great majority of people would say it was morally permissible.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy it is "lawful" to kill an attacker is outside the purview of our discussion here -- which is a philosophical one and which should, correctly speaking, precede legislation. Laws should be based on philosophical precepts -- not the other way around.
Yes, it is. If you do an act knowing that it will have necessary consequences, you are intending that those consequences will result from the act. It is irrational to say otherwise.
You can't decide an act is morally permissable BEFORE you examine the necessary consequences of the act; that IS idiotic. And that it is considered morally permis ...[text shortened]... an attacker in self-defense is not because it is a mere unintended consequence as PDE pretends.
It seems we will not agree on whether evil effects are intended because we seem to have completely different understandings of the word 'intend'. You seem to be reading it in terms of legal or moral culpability/responsibility whereas I'm addressing it in terms of the actual mental act of the person involved.
22 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerReading is not your strong point. I said "morally permissable AND lawful". The laws regarding self-defense are the result of thousands of years of human experience and reflection; if they clash with the conclusions of your discussions with Freshman philosophy students, I'd say that the onus is on you to show that they arrived at incorrect decisions on what is morally permissable.
Why it is "lawful" to kill an attacker is outside the purview of our discussion here -- which is a philosophical one and which should, correctly speaking, precede legislation. Laws should be based on philosophical precepts -- not the other way around.
It seems we will not agree on whether evil effects are intended because we seem to have completely ibility whereas I'm addressing it in terms of the actual mental act of the person involved.
22 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen they will, like you do, believe that the killing of abortion doctors is morally permissible. But people like KellyJay and Whodey seem reluctant to say so for political reasons.
And if they don't?
no1: So shooting him at his home is morally impermissable. How about as he was about to make the first incision in the operating room?
LH: If it is a last resort and all other peaceful means of preventing the abortion have failed then, yes, I would say it is morally permissible.
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderLaws regarding slavery were also in place for thousands of years (not least notably in the very legal system you are referencing). So it's not like "thousands of years of human experience and reflection" can't be wrong.
Reading is not your strong point. I said "morally permissable AND lawful". The laws regarding self-defense are the result of thousands of years of human experience and reflection; if they clash with the conclusions of your discussions with Freshman philosophy students, I'd say that the onus is on you to show that they arrived at incorrect decisions on what is morally permissable.
Not to mention that laws permitting abortion* are much more recent and flew in the face of "thousands of years of human experience and reflection".
Since you undoubtedly hold slavery impermissible and abortion permissible, it is inconsistent of you to raise antiquity as a relevant factor in this discussion. If it seems that reading is not my strong point, then it would appear logic is not yours.
What I find interesting in your response is your presumption that the laws have arrived at correct decisions on what is morally permissible and the burden of proof is on the person disagreeing with them. This provides further evidence for my repeated claim that you seem to derive your moral compass from the Supreme Court.
As I said, what is "lawful" is irrelevant to a discussion of philosophical ethics -- unless you hold that ethics derives from laws enacted in the political system.
---
* I suppose you will correct me and say that it's judicial decisions preventing laws banning abortion -- but that's a technicality.
22 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerMore non sequiturs and fallacious arguments.
Laws regarding slavery were also in place for thousands of years (not least notably in the very legal system you are referencing). So it's not like "thousands of years of human experience and reflection" can't be wrong.
Not to mention that laws permitting abortion* are much more recent and flew in the face of "thousands of years of human experience it's judicial decisions preventing laws banning abortion -- but that's a technicality.
You need to present a coherent argument, not merely assert that "laws can be wrong". Of course they can; I didn't say otherwise. BTW, no legal system EVER, including the Hebrews of the Bible, treated a fetus as a human being.
Your ignorance on legal matters is quite stunning; do you think the US Supreme Court mandated the laws on self-defense?
Your last paragraph is more idiocy. Apparently it is your assertion that the laws people enact are totally unrelated to their conceptions of moral permissibility. I hold, though it is only tangentially related to this discussion (as usual, you have focused on one word in a post and ran your entire non-argument based on an off-hand observation) that the law of self defense codifies the accepted moral principles of Western society. Care to argue otherwise?
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll have to save this bit. It's a very economical summary of a common luciferian strategy!
I hold, though it is only tangentially related to this discussion (as usual, you have focused on one word in a post and ran your entire non-argument based on an off-hand observation) that the law of self defense codifies the accepted moral principles of Western society.
Do you guys take turns at being Punch and Judy, or what?
22 Feb 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateWhat options besides letting her escape (don't talk about disabling shots please; any shot is potentially fatal)?
Immoral. The Mother may have had knowledge pertaining to the child's future. For example, the woman may have known that the child would grow up to be the anti-Christ and responsible for the killing of millions upon millions sometime in the future. Kelly fired without having all of the facts and he had options to restrain the woman in some fashion. ...[text shortened]... t having options and chosing the one that results in harm to others results in an immoral act.
23 Feb 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's a very economical summary of a common luciferian strategy!
I'll have to save this bit. It's a very economical summary of a common luciferian strategy!
Do you guys take turns at being Punch and Judy, or what?
Really? Perhaps you noticed that the post no1 is referencing (timestamp: 1715) had two paragraphs?