The Bill to re-instate the draft now in Congress

Quote from rgelite:


We do differ on some issues, however. For example, in every person's right to own his or her own body. In that case, you have also clearly delineated the line and taken a stand based on your morality. I respect you for that. Yet my view of it is equally clear and has the benefit of having no contradictions. (I realize your point about abortion was a side issue, so I will honor your framing it so and also keep my remarks brief. I make them, not to get into another human rights debate, but merely to serve my overall point that our values hierarchies have some overlap but not total overlap.) On human rights, my conclusions are based in reality. The potential is not the actual. A fetus is not a baby/child. As it is physically part of the woman, it is her's to do with as she deems fit. No one else has a moral right to oblige her to do otherwise.

To cede that point is to cede the principle that in some cases others have the right to dispose of our lives as they see fit. I'll never buy into that. In any compromise between food and poison, in this case between an individual's right to own his or her own life and the attempt by some to co-opt that for their own religious views, it is always food that suffers. In human rights, individual rights, it is always the real, actual, individuated person that suffers from compromise.
More...

So when is the fetus then a "baby/child." Half way to pregnancy, 5 minutes till birth, once the umbilical chord is cut?

Quote from rgelite:


So too your admonition for a "willingness to serve the greater good." Again, that's pure Kant, pure Christianity.
More...
I thought that was Mills?

Quote from rgelite:



How can I say that? Simple. Because you want what you want, just like me. You chose your belief system and, derived from it, your values. Or else, you got it unthinkingly by default, handed down from generations. Either way, as an adult now it is your choice. You choose self-sacrifice as among the highest goods in your belief hierarchy (ironic, isn't it?). So one of the fundamental differences between us is that my philosophy doesn't allow me to hate my nature. I do not believe I was born into sin. I do not believe that when I act in my own rational self-interest (NOT self-indulgence) that I am morally depraved. Do I sin? Yes, but against myself. Against my dreams, my ideals, my values. And I know when I do. And I feel bad when I do. And, like you, I strive to be better when I do. And I make some of the same mistakes over again, too. Like you.

But I don't posture (I'm sorry if that's an emotive term) that I am here for "the greater good" or that I must "resist the temptation to enrich myself." I pursue my values in ways that do not harm others and I do not apolgize for being self-interested. My self interest, by the way, includes my own life in its normal lifespan and then, naturally in concentric circles of commitment, those who are family, friends, neighbors, community, nation, species, life, planet. I try my best not to ever invert the order, either.
More...

So is everyone who seems to devote their lives to a "greater good," including risking or even knowingly sacrificing their lives for important causes, just posturing or resisting their nature? Or could it be that some people are selfish freeloaders (which is why a draft would be necessary if our nation were in danger), while some others are honestly inclined to dedicate themselves to the greater good?
 
Quote from darkhorse:



The problem with making each man the measure of his own morality is that by this light we have no room to condemn the cretins among us; we can only restrain them or assert dominance by force, as one animal dominates another.
More...

I remember in philosophy class when we read from a "feminist philosopher" on ethics (defended by a couple of students), who argued that rather than trying to come up with a reasoned and logical model for our ethics, one that makes our decisions as objective and able to be measured as possible, that we should consider simply referring to our inner compassion. These voices, they claimed, would allow us to make decisions based upon our sympathy, empathy, caring, blah blah etc. I immediately pointed out that this moral relativism would result in nothing but ethical chaos, where one person's actions cannot be judged or condemned by the ethics of others. And of course I was promptly met with ad hominems and resentment by a few (and support OUTSIDE of the classroom by many). You are right Darkhorse that there must be standard for how we measure the ethics of our actions, and that moral relativism only breeds chaos.

[/B][/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top