Killing to Protect the Unborn

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You've cited scientist[s] saying there is no legal or philosophical consensus on when "human life" begins (which is true enough - but that's beside the point). Sticking purely to the science and treating human beings as any other species -- there is no debate whatsoever.

Non sequitur. Or semantics. Either way it's a waste of time.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Non sequitur.

I could cite lawyers making grandiose statements on astronomy - but that's pointless in an appeal to authority.

EDIT: And it's not "semantics". It's Zoology 101.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I could cite lawyers making grandiose statements on astronomy - but that's pointless in an appeal to authority.

EDIT: And it's not "semantics". It's Zoology 101.

No, it isn't. Stop wasting everybody's time with such senseless bickering. If you don't want to deal with the real topic of the thread, just say so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your "Principle of Double Effect" is useless if it cannot reach a decision regarding the morality of an act before the blade of the dagger goes into the child. In fact, since we can never know if 2 holds for another it's completely useless EVER.

It may be useless as a legal principle, agreed. So what? Your question was about the morality of actions, not their legal standing.

Besides, it's not that difficult as a matter of judgment - most people make PDE decisions all the time quite easily.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, it isn't. Stop wasting everybody's time with such senseless bickering.

You said you wanted "dialogue". I presumed that meant some degree of civility and respect on your part. My mistake.

How is it wasting everyone's time if I'm pointing out a rather basic scientific fact?

EDIT: I do want to deal with the main topic of the thread, but I won't do it as a hostage to anything and everything you say. If you make a factual error, I will correct it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It may be useless as a legal principle, agreed. So what? Your question was about the morality of actions, not their legal standing.

Besides, it's not that difficult as a matter of judgment - most people make PDE decisions all the time quite easily.

No they don't. They don't use PDE.

I'm not talking legality as I took pains to point out. PDE is useless in the first example given from the standpoint of the person who sees the child about to be killed as he'll sit there saying "I have insufficient information to judge what is morally right to do in these circumstances".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You said you wanted "dialogue". I presumed that meant some degree of civility and respect on your part. My mistake.

How is it wasting everyone's time if I'm pointing out a rather basic scientific fact?

EDIT: I do want to deal with the main topic of the thread, but I won't do it as a hostage to anything and everything you say. If you make a factual error, I will correct it.

Start another thread if you want to debate that - AGAIN. It's unimportant for this thread; I'm assuming for the sake of argument that a zygote is entitled to full consideration as a human being/person in the hypotheticals.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No they don't. They don't use PDE.

I'm not talking legality as I took pains to point out. PDE is useless in the first example given from the standpoint of the person who sees the child about to be killed as he'll sit there saying "I have insufficient information to judge what is morally right to do in these circumstances".

No, there is insufficient information for a bystander witnessing the shooting to judge whether the shooter's act was moral or not. Your questions put KJ, ivanhoe and myself in the position of that bystander.

Now, if you're asking whether it would be moral for me to act in the manner you prescribed, that's a totally different question and you need to rephrase accordingly. Naturally, (2) would not be a factor for me as I am aware of my conscious intentions and can judge accordingly.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, there is insufficient information for a bystander witnessing the shooting to judge whether the shooter's act was moral or not. Your questions put KJ, ivanhoe and myself in the position of that bystander.

Now, if you're asking whether it would be moral for [b]me to act in the manner you prescribed, that's a totally different question ...[text shortened]... ld not be a factor for me as I am aware of my conscious intentions and can judge accordingly.[/b]

What possible difference does it make? Something isn't moral for you but not moral for someone else. When people make moral judgments regarding others' actions they place themselves in the position of the actor and then decide whether the actions were morally justified by some standard they believe in.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What possible difference does it make? Something [is] moral for you but not moral for someone else.

The difference is that, under certain conditions, I cannot judge whether another person's acts were 'moral' ('morally licit' or 'morally permissible' would be more accurate) or not unless I know his intention(s).

When people make moral judgments regarding others' actions they place themselves in the position of the actor and then decide whether the actions were morally justified by some standard they believe in.

Not necessarily. Sometimes actions are in and of themselves immoral, one doesn't need to place oneself in the position of the actor to make a moral judgment. And people very often suspend moral judgment (as, I suspect, many people who call themselves both pro-life and pro-choice do) simply because they cannot make it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The difference is that, under certain conditions, I cannot judge whether another person's acts were 'moral' ('morally licit' or 'morally permissible' would be more accurate) or not unless I know his intention(s).

I edited the last post. But you're just showing the practical uselessness of PDE. Do we really need to know the precise intentions of the guard at Auschwitz who is pulling the lever releasing the gas to know that his action is morally wrong?

EDIT: I have no problem with "morally permissible" rather than "moral" though I think most people would find them synonymous in the context that I used "moral".

Originally posted by no1marauder
I edited the last post. But you're just showing the practical uselessness of PDE. Do we really need to know the precise intentions of the guard at Auschwitz who is pulling the lever releasing the gas to know that his action is morally wrong?

No. I didn't say we need to know the intentions in all cases. PDE has four conditions -- the failure of any one makes the action morally impermissible.

Your comment about PDE strongly suggests that you simply do not understand it. PDE is perfectly fine as a decision procedure for an actor to decide the morally permissible act in a difficult situation. It is also perfectly fine for a bystander provided he has the relevant information.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No. I didn't say we need to know the intentions in all cases.

Your comment about PDE strongly suggests that you simply do not understand it. PDE is perfectly fine as a decision procedure for an actor to decide the morally permissible act in a difficult situation. It is also perfectly fine for a bystander provided he has the relevant information.

Please don't start the arrogant crap again; I understand PDE just fine. You're showing that it is useless in practical situations.

Originally posted by no1marauder
EDIT: I have no problem with "morally permissible" rather than "moral" though I think most people would find them synonymous in the context that I used "moral".

Just because something is morally permissible does not mean it is morally optimal. The term 'moral' can be conflated to both these meanings.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please don't start the arrogant crap again; I understand PDE just fine. You're showing that it is useless in practical situations.

Just because you keep repeating "it's useless" over and over again does not make it so. PDE isn't useless in any of the hypotheticals you cited - rather it's the fact that you refuse to clarify how the hypothetical is to be used by the person answering and the fact that you refuse to provide relevant information that makes it seem useless.

If you want to see how PDE applies, clarify certain things up front:

(1) Are you asking whether there are conditions under which the actions of the person in each of those hypotheticals would be moral?
or
(2) Are you asking whether a bystander would judge said actions to be moral?