Killing to Protect the Unborn

[i/]Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i]
Your verbal handstands aside, you're now contradicting yourself. Here's the conversation repeated for your convenience:

LH: [b][i/]If a shot is only potentially (but not certainly) fatal, then is the person shooting intending the fatality?[/i]

Translation: Are non-necessary (i.e. possible) consequences [b/]intended[/b]?

no1: [i/]Don't kno offhand comment" in this thread. It's the very core of what our argument is about.

Only by "translating" your posts into meanings that seem opposed to standard ones, is there any contradiction.

My position is quite simply that when does an act, he is morally responsible for the forseeable consequences that arise from it. What degree of moral culpability will be found is based on a myriad of factors. If you insist on further semantic quibbling, that's your problem. Apparently your idea is that people form a single intention when they do an act and are not responsible for anything but what they "intend". I hold that this position is irrational and contrary to practical experience.

The issue of "intent" as you present it is a semantic squabble and far from the "core issue" in this thread.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Only by "translating" your posts into meanings that seem opposed to standard ones, is there any contradiction.

My position is quite simply that when does an act, he is morally responsible for the forseeable consequences that arise from it. What degree of moral culpability will be found is based on a myriad of factors. If you insist on further as you present it is a semantic squabble and far from the "core issue" in this thread.

Are you going to answer the question or not? Does a doctor performing potentially fatal surgery on his patient intend the death of his patient?

EDIT: You're evidently not clear in your own mind as to what "intent" means and keep confusing it repeatedly with moral responsibility and/or culpability.

If you want to keep arguing that it is a side-issue, there's not much I can do about it. It is clearly at the heart of PDE and if you're not interested in ethical frameworks that don't agree with yours you shouldn't have started this thread.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you going to answer the question or not? Does a doctor performing potentially fatal surgery on his patient [b]intend the death of his patient?

EDIT: You're evidently not clear in your own mind as to what "intent" means and keep confusing it repeatedly with moral responsibility and/or culpability.

If you want to keep arguing that it is a in ethical frameworks that don't agree with yours you shouldn't have started this thread.[/b]

I'm quite clear.

First of all, that has nothing to do with the issues of this thread. The hypos given all concern the deaths of individuals that are a direct, proximate result of the action taken by the actor. They are also known by the actor to be likely consequences. The example you are citing is neither, so it is not relevant.

Second, you are confusing an actor's intent to do a thing with his intentions regarding possible consequences. They are two different things. In the examples given, the actor intends to do the act i.e. pull the trigger, plant the bomb, etc. From the act, certain consequences flow though the actor cannot be sure what they will be.

Since the issue in the thread is moral cupability, what an actor "intends" is merely a sub issue. Unsurprisingly, I have concentrated on intentions as they effect moral culability. In other words, I've stayed on-topic. Sorry about that.

I don't agree that the unstated, unknown intentions of the actor are the decisive factor in deciding whether his actions are morally permissible as you claim. I hold, as I have stated several times, that what is morally permissible is judged by objective standards, not subjective ones. Your framework for deciding what is morally permissible failed to come to any judgment on most of the hypos based on "insufficient information"; I would submit that your framework would fail in most real situations based on the problem that the information you find necessary is normally unobtainable. So of what use is it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm quite clear.

First of all, that has nothing to do with the issues of this thread. The hypos given all concern the deaths of individuals that are a direct, proximate result of the action taken by the actor. They are also known by the actor to be likely consequences. The example you are citing is neither, so it is not relevant.

Se ...[text shortened]... that the information you find necessary is normally unobtainable. So of what use is it?

Now who's playing semantic games? "Intent" vs. "intention"? LOL.

My doctor question is also related to the (possible -- let's say for the sake of hypothetical that the patient actually dies) death of an individual that is a "direct, proximate result of the action taken by the actor" and "known to be a likely consequence". It's not irrelevant simply because your majesty says so.

You're clearly confused (or perhaps you're just pretending to be confused -- I'd normally say you're smarter than that) on the question of what makes an ethical framework work or succeed. It's quite clear that PDE works for the actor in arriving at a decision in a moral dilemma because he can judge all four factors involved -- especially intent. It's not a "subjective standard" -- if he gave the same dilemma to another person with the information on all four factors, the other person would also arrive at the same conclusion (particularly on intent!).

PDE doesn't work for the bystander in many cases (not all! remember, the bystander can still judge on three of the four factors and, if any one fails, PDE says the act is immoral). So what? When I asked you to clarify whose perspective your hypotheticals were to be answered with respect to, you clearly said it was the actor's. And PDE clearly works from his/her perspective. So what's your problem?

Or maybe you're not comfortable with the idea that an act can be moral without necessarily seeming to be moral. Given your legal background, that bias is not surprising. But, once again, so what? We're not talking about what basis a law should be based off -- we're talking philosophical principles of morality.

I don't agree that the unstated, unknown intentions of the actor are the decisive factor in deciding whether his actions are morally permissible.

I don't agree with it either. Nor do I claim it. You're wasting your time with a strawman.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Now who's playing semantic games? "Intent" vs. "intention"? LOL.

My doctor question is also related to the (possible -- let's say for the sake of hypothetical that the patient actually dies) death of an individual that is a "direct, proximate result of the action taken by the actor" and "known to be a likely consequence". It's not irrelevant simply either. Nor do I claim it. You're wasting your time with a strawman.

Actually, I said the opposite. I said that the questions should be answered based on someone evaluating the actor (not necessarily a bystander). I did say that normally when making this evaluation, the one doing so tries to mentally place himself in the position of the actor. But the hypos themselves are obviously asking someone who is not the actor to make a decision on whether the actor's acts were morally permissible. Maybe you really do need to take some English courses.

You were the one who said you couldn't make a decision on the moral permissibility of most of the hypos - now you seem to be changing your "mind". If PDE cannot give an answer to the question given, then it is clearly faulty - the vast majority of persons would easily decide that 1, 3, and 5 were morally permissible using non-PDE frameworks.

EDIT: From page 7:

no1: The questions were based on someone making a moral judgment of the actor (not necessarily a bystander). However, most people when making a moral judgment of someone else's actions place themselves mentally in the position of the actor.

AND

LH: If you simply refuse to provide any clarification or additional information, I will just assume the "bystander" position and answer accordingly. In which case I have to say that I cannot determine the moral permissibility of some of these hypotheticals.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually, I said the opposite. I said that the questions should be answered based on someone evaluating the actor (not necessarily a bystander). I did say that normally when making this evaluation, the one doing so tries to mentally place himself in the position of the actor. But the hypos themselves are obviously asking someone who is not the actor to m e to say that I cannot determine the moral permissibility of some of these hypotheticals.

Perhaps you should let me know which English courses you took -- I'll certainly avoid them.

I said I couldn't make a decison as a bystander without complete information. That doesn't make PDE faulty -- I've clearly said I can make a decision as the actor. I've also clearly said that I can make a decision if the actor (or, in this case, the framer of the case) provides me the relevant information.

PDE may be "faulty" in a courtroom -- but that isn't what we're talking about here. You're perennially confused about this.

Btw, in your very next post you made it clear that you were asking whether there were conditions under which the act could be morally permissible, so I'm not "changing my mind".

If PDE cannot give an answer to the question given, then it is clearly faulty - the vast majority of persons would easily decide that 1, 3, and 5 were morally permissible using non-PDE frameworks.

Your logic there is ridiculous. A decision framework based on "Taking a human life is always morally impermissible" would also answer all of the hypotheticals you provided, as would "Odd-numbered hypotheticals are moral, even-numbered ones are immoral". So what?

And what if most people would decide that 1, 3 and 5 were morally permissible? Does that make it morally permissible? Is morality up to a vote now?

And it's simply false to say they'd be using non-PDE frameworks. Even on this very thread it's quite clear that people's judgments change if they are provided additional information as to the intent of the person (e.g. if I said that the intent of the actor in those hypotheticals was to kill the antagonist regardless of whether the baby/whatever was saved or not). So, it's evident they're using some form of PDE with assumptions filling in for the unknowns.

EDIT: If you really think people do not use PDE, try reposting two versions of your hypotheticals 1, 3 and 5 -- one where the actor is indifferent to the death of the antagonist provided the child is saved, and one where the actor is indifferent to the death/saving of the child provided the antagonist is killed. See the responses you get.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Perhaps you should let me know which English courses you took -- I'll certainly avoid them.

I said I couldn't make a decison as a bystander without complete information. That doesn't make PDE faulty -- I've clearly said I can make a decision as the actor. I've also clearly said that I can make a decision if the actor (or, in this case, the f f the child provided the antagonist is killed. See the responses you get.

I'm not talking about a courtroom, jerk and you know it. Stop pandering to some perceived bias against lawyers and stick to the topic.

If you cannot make a decision whether someone else's actions are morally permissible without information that you cannot reliably obtain, then your system for deciding what is morally permissible is flawed. Even if the actor provides you information, it may be false and you certainly have no way of knowing what he was thinking. So, unless your mind reading skills are greater than the rest of us mere mortals, your system of determining moral permissibility of other's actions is of little worth.

The absurd "systems" you hypothesize are, of course, red herrings as nobody actually uses them. They would actually give answers to these and many other moral issues so they would be superior to PDE in that way. Of course, your peculiar intellectual dyslexia fails to disintinguish between attributes which are necessary and those which are sufficient; it is necessary that a system for ascertaining moral permissibility come to conclusions in the vast majority of cases, but it is not sufficient. PDE fails that necessary condition, the arbitrary ones you created fail other necessary conditions. That's "so what".

As I've already said, I won't change the hypothethicals to give people information that they could not reasonably obtain. It was, of course, my intention that the odd numbered hypos (which are pretty realistic BTW - such situations have and do occur) would be non-controversially found to be morally permissible by the vast majority, which they clearly are. The point of the thread, after all, is to explore why certain people find acts which are in defense of human beings morally permissible while they do not find similar acts in defense of zygotes/embyros morally permissible. You've actually already declared that you would find the killing of a doctor about to perform an abortion morally permissible so long as certain fairly common conditions were met. But so far, no one else has been willing to join that position here. Why is that do you suppose? That is the real issue of the thread.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not talking about a courtroom, jerk and you know it. Stop pandering to some perceived bias against lawyers and stick to the topic.

If you cannot make a decision whether someone else's actions are morally permissible without information that you cannot reliably obtain, then your system for deciding what is morally permissible is flawed. Even ...[text shortened]... that position here. Why is that do you suppose? That is the real issue of the thread.

I'm not talking about a courtroom, jerk and you know it.

You're either thinking of a courtroom in the back of your mind, or you're an insufferable narcissist (see next paragraph). Take your pick.

If you cannot make a decision whether someone else's actions are morally permissible without information that you cannot reliably obtain, then your system for deciding what is morally permissible is flawed.

LOL! So any ethical decisioning system that does not let your royal highness sit in the high chair and play judge over other human beings is "flawed"? That's just plain "no1marauder is Lord and Master of the Universe" egotism.

First of all, you're chasing a strawman (for what seems like the 100th time in this thread). For many (if not most) cases, PDE can determine whether the act was morally permissible even without the question of intent being answered.

Second, the purpose of any ethical decision system (like PDE) is to help the actual actor in the situation decide the best course of action. That it may also help bystanders figure out whether the act was moral or not is secondary.

The absurd "systems" you hypothesize are, of course, red herrings as nobody actually uses them.

So your infallible magisterium keeps saying. As I said before, it's relatively simple to put it to the test -- I even proposed the means for you to do it. I can only conjecture as to your reasons for avoiding it.

They would actually give answers to these and many other moral issues so they would be superior to PDE in that way. Of course, your peculiar intellectual dyslexia fails to disintinguish between attributes which are necessary and those which are sufficient; it is necessary that a system for ascertaining moral permissibility come to conclusions in the vast majority of cases, but it is not sufficient. PDE fails that necessary condition, the arbitrary ones you created fail other necessary conditions. That's "so what".

Your particular intellectual dyslexia fails to distinguish between a narcissistic standard and an objective one that actually matters in moral dilemmas. So what if PDE does not allow no1marauder to decide whether LH's act was morally permissible or not in every circumstance? Who made you moral Judge over all mankind?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I'm not talking about a courtroom, jerk and you know it.

You're either thinking of a courtroom in the back of your mind, or you're an insufferable narcissist (see next paragraph). Take your pick.

[i/][b/]If you cannot make a decision whether someone else's actions are morally permissible without information that you cannot reliably o ssible or not in every circumstance? Who made you moral Judge over all mankind?[/b]

You are truly ridiculous and a brazen hypocrite. If you are sooooooooooooooooo opposed to making moral judgments of other's actions, I suggest you stop writing about the "moral impermissibility" of abortion. Who made you the moral Judge over all womenkind?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are truly ridiculous and a brazen hypocrite. If you are sooooooooooooooooo opposed to making moral judgments of other's actions, I suggest you stop writing about the "moral impermissibility" of abortion. Who made you the moral Judge over all womenkind?

Marauder, you are simply "too much" ..... you snakeface ...... 😛

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are truly ridiculous and a brazen hypocrite. If you are sooooooooooooooooo opposed to making moral judgments of other's actions, I suggest you stop writing about the "moral impermissibility" of abortion. Who made you the moral Judge over all womenkind?

I'm the hypocrite? You refuse to answer direct questions; make assertions that you refuse to back with facts or experiments -- and I'm the hypocrite?

No one said I was moral Judge over all women (or men, for that matter) -- nor do I claim the prerogative to be able to judge every single morally relevant action they take. And I certainly don't claim an ethical decisioning system is "flawed" because it won't let me do that. Unlike your royal highness.

However, I don't need to know a person's intent to judge that abortion is morally impermissible. An act can be judged morally impermissible if it fails any one of the four criteria of PDE -- and abortion (except in limited circumstances) fails on at least three (excluding intent).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm the hypocrite? You refuse to answer direct questions; make assertions that you refuse to back with facts or experiments -- and I'm the hypocrite?

No one said I was moral Judge over all women (or men, for that matter) -- nor do I claim the prerogative to be able to judge every single morally relevant action they take. And I certainly don't claim d abortion (except in limited circumstances) fails on at least three (excluding intent).

LMAO!!! What a loser. You are a hypocrite because you wrote an entire post screaming about how I am morally judging people (like who - the Army of God?) when your entire position on this issue consists of morally judging people in a position you'll never be. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Abortion produces no "bad" effect at all, so PDE isn't even relevant. But come to think of it, that's another flaw; you have to pre-suppose that an effect is "good" and "bad" before it's even applicable.

You're getting increasingly shrill and hysterical; maybe you need to go pray or something (that's undoubtedly where you get the idea that abortion has a "bad" effect). If you thought that an examination of people's views of what is moral or not is inappropriate, maybe you shouldn't have posted in this thread - clearly people's judgments were asked for. So stop your hissy fit.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO!!! What a loser. You are a hypocrite because you wrote an entire post screaming about how I am morally judging people (like who - the Army of God?) when your entire position on this issue consists of morally judging people in a position you'll never be. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Abortion produces no "bad" effect at al s thread - clearly people's judgments were asked for. So stop your hissy fit.

My post wasn't about your judging people. As I said elsewhere, take your own advice and learn to read. My post was about your presumption that you have a right to judge people in every case. And your consequent assertion that any ethical system that does not let no1marauder do that is "flawed".

EDIT: It's not a flaw of PDE that effects can be individually judged to be good or bad. The nuking of Hiroshima killed a quarter of a million people (bad effect). It also ended WWII (good effect). Presuming the moral nature of effects is not the same as presuming the moral nature of the particular action in that situation.

And abortion certainly does have an evil effect -- the death of a defenceless human life at the hands of the very people with the responsibility of protecting it. Remember that bit in the Hippocratic oath about not securing abortions?