Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe V. Wade?

[daniel_m]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:




Can we agree on a definition of "good" as being what the vast majority of a society agree with, that anyone who was observing that society could agree with as "good" by definition, based on the actions of that society?

CERTAINLY!

that's my entire position! that it's people's FEELINGS towards something that make it 'good' or 'bad'!
that what we consider 'good' or 'bad', or what we choose to make legal or illegal is based on how we FEEL about it.

precisely what i've said all along!

so having said that, it should be obvious to you that the VAST MAJORITY of people, THROUGHOUT history, have MADE EXCEPTIONS to the idea that killing is bad.

that is, killing is RIGHT, killing is GOOD, when it suits our purposes. that there is nothing intrinsically bad about killing; that there's nothing in the nature of killing that would prevent us from EVER wanting to do it; that the decision on whether or not to kill is made based on what we THINK -- and what we think is usually based on what we FEEL -- would be the best course of action, what we think would be 'right'.

now, if you recall, my whole point in bringing this up was over the question of abortion. and my position was that since the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of killing is determined by how we FEEL about it, in any given case, then the FACT that there are millions of people who see no problem at all with killing a fetus, then THAT ALONE is ENOUGH to make it OK to kill it.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from daniel_m:



CERTAINLY!

that's my entire position! that it's people's FEELINGS towards something that make it 'good' or 'bad'!

precisely what i've said all along!

so having said that, it should be obvious to you that the VAST MAJORITY of people, THROUGHOUT history, have MADE EXCEPTIONS to the idea that killing is bad.

that is, killing is RIGHT, killing is GOOD, when it suits our purposes. that there is nothing intrinsically bad about killing; that there's nothing in the nature of killing that would prevent us from EVER wanting to do it; that the decision on whether or not to kill is made based on what we THINK -- and what we think is usually based on what we FEEL -- would be the best course of action, what we think would be 'right'.

now, if you recall, my whole point in bringing this up was over the question of abortion. and my position was that since the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of killing is determined by how we FEEL about it, in any given case, then the FACT that there are millions of people who see no problem at all with killing a fetus, then THAT ALONE is ENOUGH to make it OK to kill it.

Sophistry, pure sophistry.

Show me historical examples of those who killed others who willingly chose to be murdered by others....and on vast majority of scale throughout all of human existence, not isolated and deviant examples.

Show me thieves who enjoy and seek out being robbed.

Show me abusers who look for and seek out abuse.

There are execptions to most every rule.

If a particular plant causes death 90% of the time it is ingested by human beings, is it objectively considered dangerous to human life?

 

[daniel_m]

hahahaa!

give UP optional!

morality is PURELY SUBJECTIVE and there's not a damn thing you can do about it! hahahahah

get used it to buddyboy!

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from daniel_m:

hahahaa!

give UP optional!

morality is PURELY SUBJECTIVE and there's not a damn thing you can do about it! hahahahah

get used it to buddyboy!

If you consider that you are winning an argument because of your own subjective use of terminology, and that gives you satisfaction, beat off to your hearts content.

I prefer to have discussions with rational non deviant human beings anyway.

 

[daniel_m]

oh yeah... i ask you a hundred times to demonstrate to me what makes morality objective and all you can do is huff and puff and repeat to me your own moral feelings...

and then you have the nerve to say _I'M_ being irrational....

:rolleyes


ps - and just for the record, i actually happen to agree with your moral position on life. i agree life is valuable, that, normally, it's worth preserving, but i'm not gonna delude myself into thinking that there's anything inherently valuable, or good about it, or that killing is inherently 'bad'. i'll admit that it's only cos i LIKE life (my FEELINGS) that i consider it 'good'.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from daniel_m:

oh yeah... i ask you a hundred times to demonstrate to me what makes morality objective and all you can do is huff and puff and repeat to me your own moral feelings...

and then you have the nerve to say _I'M_ being irrational....

:rolleyes

Define objective, objectively. Impossible. it will always be YOUR definition. Even if we all agree with it, it is still a subjective definition, subject to change.

You play sophist and equivacator, whatever gets you off.

Has no value in real life, we all reasonable men know this.

Any reasonable man who observes the history of mankind will come to the conclusion that murder is not a preferred state over living.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from daniel_m:

oh yeah... i ask you a hundred times to demonstrate to me what makes morality objective and all you can do is huff and puff and repeat to me your own moral feelings...

and then you have the nerve to say _I'M_ being irrational....

:rolleyes


ps - and just for the record, i actually happen to agree with your moral position on life. i agree life is valuable, that, normally, it's worth preserving, but i'm not gonna delude myself into thinking that there's anything inherently valuable, or good about it, or that killing is inherently 'bad'. i'll admit that it's only cos i LIKE life (my FEELINGS) that i consider it 'good'.

Until you can define "good" objectively, this is an exercise in futility.

And that is the difference between mind games, and real life. In real life we have to define terms to function and have communications and relationships in the world. In ivory towers, mind games are a way of life.

 

[daniel_m]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:




Any reasonable man who observes the history of mankind will come to the conclusion that murder is not a preferred state over living.

murder is not a 'state' at all, so that alone makes your entire statement utterly nonsensical.

in any case, what in the world does that have to do with anything i said?

all i want is an answer to "why is killing wrong" beyond our FEELINGS about it?

you've given none.

if only people's FEELINGS -- their subjective opinions -- determine whether things are good or bad, then you have NO OBJECTIVE BASIS for telling someone who disagrees with you that he is wrong. that is plain as the sun.

an objective basis for telling someone he is wrong would be telling him that 1 and 1 doesn't make 3, it makes 2. geddit?

with morality, it's just your opinion against his.

that doesn't mean you can't convince anyone that disagrees with you on moral matters, you just have to do it by appealing the consequances of their moral position. eg, Fred, we shouldn't do XYZ because then ABCD would happen, and you wouldn't want that would you?

NOT, Fred, we shouldn't do XYX because it's WRONG! because you have no basis other than your own opinion to work from.

 

[daniel_m]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Until you can define "good" objectively, this is an exercise in futility.

HAHAHAHA

now i'm really laughing.

dude, YOU are the one CLAIMING that it is POSSIBLE for something to be objectively 'good', NOT ME!

i regard any notion of 'good', 'evil', 'right', 'wrong' as completely HUMAN constructs, with no referents in reality. 'good' doesn't exist. it's just an invention. we can only have 'likes' and 'dislikes'.

the ball's in YOUR court, not mine.


anyway, i'll leave u to muse over it. i've got major isp issues to sort out. (@^&!%#*@%^)

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from daniel_m:





murder is not a 'state' at all, so that alone makes your entire statement utterly nonsensical.

in any case, what in the world does that have to do with anything i said?

all i want is an answer to "why is killing wrong" beyond our FEELINGS about it?

you've given none.

if only people's FEELINGS -- their subjective opinions -- determine whether things are good or bad, then you have NO OBJECTIVE BASIS for telling someone who disagrees with you that he is wrong. that is plain as the sun.

an objective basis for telling someone he is wrong would be telling him that 1 and 1 doesn't make 3, it makes 2. geddit?

with morality, it's just your opinion against his.

that doesn't mean you can't convince anyone that disagrees with you on moral matters, you just have to do it by appealing the consequances of their moral position. eg, Fred, we shouldn't do XYZ because then ABCD would happen, and you wouldn't want that would you?

NOT, Fred, we shouldn't do XYX because it's WRONG! because you have no basis other than your own opinion to work from.

This is becoming a waste of time, as long as you continue to play mind games.

If you can define logically the following terms, I can respond, if not, it is useless.

Logically define:

What is good
What is bad
What is moral
Why illogical behavior and thinking is good.

Define logic without the use of logic.

If you can do this, there is some common ground to proceed in discussions of morality and moral behavior.

Normally, when discussions of moralty take place, people suspend their mind games in favor is implementing common understandings and use of terminilogy, but you don't seem to be willing to do that.

You seem to perfer mental masturbation to engaging others on a common ground of uderstanding and proceeding from that common understanding.

Hey, like I keep saying, if you want to beat it alone by yourself, if that gets you off, yank away to your heart's contenet.