1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIt rather off-topic but I regard viability not birth as when a human being exists. So I would not think that Sorites paradox would apply.
Do you regard it as any less immoral for a mother to kill her soon-to-be-born baby (e.g., due in one day) than for a mother to kill her just-born-baby (e.g., one day old)?
If not, at what point does a moral difference emerge (e.g., due in two days vs. two days old; due in three days vs. three days old; etc.)?
If so, at what point does a moral differ ...[text shortened]... s vs. two minutes old; etc.)?
This is fertile ground for a Sorites paradox, don't you think?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou referred to the "moral mistake" of not shooting Dr. Slepian at a later time (which was the comment I responded to). That suggests to me that you are, indeed, conflating the two. To say that action X is morally permissible is not the same thing as saying that one must commit X. To make matters concrete, I hold that there are other actions that are also morally permissible for a person like Kopp (who has a gun on him) standing at the door of the operation room of an abortion clinic that do not involve firing (or even exposing) the weapon.
I'm not conflating them at all and you know it. I'm talking moral permissibility as I've already pointed out several times.
Why don't they matter? Is reducing the danger to others not a part of the moral calculus?
If you see the truth of that statement, then you aren't conflating the two senses of 'moral'; if not, you are.
Reducing the danger to others is not part of the moral calculus in this particular case for two reasons:
1. They aren't in immediate danger.
2. They aren't in potential danger due to the actions of Dr. Slepian but, rather, that of Kopp.
Originally posted by no1marauderSurely my question goes to the heart of the issue of whether it's permissible to kill already-born humans to save unborn ones--as people who are born-again are sometimes inclined to argue!
It rather off-topic but I regard viability not birth as when a human being exists.
Viability is a slender thread on which to hang human rights. Does a human being fail to exist when he or she is no longer independently viable? What about the old and infirm, or those who rely on dialysis and insulin? Even with babies, what constitutes viable depends upon conventional levels of available support. A baby with a serious bacterial infection is unviable when antibiotics are not available; does no human being therefore exist?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSemantic BS. You said his act was morally impermissable because he shot Dr. Slepian in his home but that it would have been morally permissable to shot Dr. Slepian in the operating room. Since Mr. Kopp believed his action was morally permissible, he made a "moral mistake" in your view. What is sooooooooooooooo hard to grasp about that? This is yet another case where your attempts at nitpicking are misplaced.
You referred to the "moral mistake" of not shooting Dr. Slepian at a later time (which was the comment I responded to). That suggests to me that you are, indeed, conflating the two. To say that action X is morally permissible is not the same thing as saying that one must commit X. To make matters concrete, [b/]I hold that there are other y aren't in potential danger due to the actions of Dr. Slepian but, rather, that of Kopp.
Actually, you're wrong; the "baby" IS in danger from Dr. Slepian. And if Mr. Kopp shoots Dr. Slepian in the operating room, it's in danger from Mr. Koop as well whereas if Mr. Koop shoots Dr. Slepian in his home he has removed any danger from the "baby".
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThis is off-topic and you're not using the definition of viability I do.
Surely my question goes to the heart of the issue of whether it's permissible to kill already-born humans to save unborn ones--as people who are born-again are sometimes inclined to argue!
Viability is a slender thread on which to hang human rights. Does a human being fail to exist when he or she is no longer independently viable? What about the old ...[text shortened]... infection is unviable when antibiotics are not available; does no human being therefore exist?
Originally posted by no1marauderHow is it a red herring if it is a direct counter-argument to your statement? You keep dismissing positions you don't agree with without providing any arguments whatsoever.
Red herring. In this case, the intents are the same as one can't accomplish the saving of the child without killing the would be murderer. And the vast majority of people would have no problem with this. And they wouldn't parse their thoughts in the split seconds that preceded the act of killing to determine if they were thinking "I have to save the chil ...[text shortened]... udging the moral permissibility on which thought went through their minds or was foremost.
It is fallacious reasoning to say that the intents are the same because one effect cannot be achieved without the other. I can turn off the lights in my bedroom with the intent of saving electricity or providing myself a dark room to sleep in -- that doesn't mean that by intending one I also intend the other ("intend" being used in the common sense of the term; perhaps you're thinking of a legal definition). The vast majority of people can quite easily tell the difference.
People don't parse their thoughts in the split seconds before the act of shooting -- that doesn't mean they don't think. And, in shooting, they intend something. One can quite easily glean their intent by asking them if they would've taken a lethal shot if a non-lethal one were available.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAgain your reasoning is fallacious; people can and do have multiple intents for doing the same act all the time. Pretending they don't is absurd.
How is it a red herring if it is a direct counter-argument to your statement? You keep dismissing positions you don't agree with without providing any arguments whatsoever.
It is fallacious reasoning to say that the intents are the same because one effect cannot be achieved without the other. I can turn off the lights in my bedroom with the intent ...[text shortened]... by asking them if they would've taken a lethal shot if a non-lethal one were available.
Originally posted by no1marauderI said that the baby isn't in immediate danger -- which is the gravely proportional condition that would justify an immediate action against Dr. Slepian that is possibly lethal.
Semantic BS. You said his act was morally impermissable because he shot Dr. Slepian in his home but that it would have been morally permissable to shot Dr. Slepian in the operating room. Since Mr. Kopp believed his action was morally permissible, he made a "moral mistake" in your view. What is sooooooooooooooo hard to grasp about that? This is yet anothe ...[text shortened]... as if Mr. Koop shoots Dr. Slepian in his home he has removed any danger from the "baby".
Why is every attempt at stating something clearly and making distinctions "semantic BS" to you? Does your job not involve stating terms as clearly and precisely as possible?
If I misunderstood the term 'moral mistake', I apologise. I see that you simply meant 'mistake of moral judgment' or simply 'moral misjudgment'.
Originally posted by no1marauderSure, people have multiple intents for the same act all the time - but those intents will usually be prioritised. Actions with multiple intents are usually the results of deliberation, or the multiple intents are gleaned in subsequent reflection (at the time of the act one intent would be uppermost in their minds).
Again your reasoning is fallacious; people can and do have multiple intents for doing the same act all the time. Pretending they don't is absurd.
In H1, however, I simply disagree with you (as does Nordlys - and I have yet to see anyone here who agrees with you) that killing the woman would be the intent of the act.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat my job entails is irrelevant to this discussion.
I said that the baby isn't in immediate danger -- which is the gravely proportional condition that would justify an immediate action against Dr. Slepian that is possibly lethal.
Why is every attempt at stating something clearly and making distinctions "semantic BS" to you? Does your job not involve stating terms as clearly and precisely as p ...[text shortened]... I see that you simply meant 'mistake of moral judgment' or simply 'moral misjudgment'.
I ask again why the fact that Mr. Kopp took precautions to insure that no one but Dr. Slepian was harmed is morally irrelevant. It seems to me that risk to others would be a relevant factor in the permissibility of an action.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer😴😴
Sure, people have multiple intents for the same act all the time - but those intents will usually be prioritised. Actions with multiple intents are usually the results of deliberation, or the multiple intents are gleaned in subsequent reflection (at the time of the act one intent would be uppermost in their minds).
In H1, however, I simply disagree ...[text shortened]... e anyone here who agrees with you) that killing the woman would be the intent of the act.
Killing the woman would be a necessary intention of the act of shooting her.
Originally posted by no1marauderPossible future risk to others is not a factor when considering whether to commit an action that presents immediate certain risk to one. That's why.
What my job entails is irrelevant to this discussion.
I ask again why the fact that Mr. Kopp took precautions to insure that no one but Dr. Slepian was harmed is morally irrelevant. It seems to me that risk to others would be a relevant factor in the permissibility of an action.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, you continue to pretend that it's an "either/or" situation or that the intents are easily separable. Furthermore, you insist that this separation is the critical factor in determining whether the act is morally permissible or not. It is the latter position that I am saying is far outside the thinking of most human beings.
Since this is devolving into an "I said, you said" war, why don't we see what people think? Nordlys has already expressed his reservations at your position.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo. It just isn't. You can keep repeating yourself all you like, but you're still wrong.
😴😴
Killing the woman would be a necessary intention of the act of shooting her.
Killing the woman may be a necessary effect of the act of shooting her; it doesn't mean the effect is intended. Indeed, most people would say afterwards that the death of the woman was unintended -- they didn't mean to kill her, just to save the child.