tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post2734329944580157863..comments2024-03-02T12:39:23.745+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: A liberal ethicist believes babies are not personsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-82731773999043195472012-03-12T03:23:48.665+11:002012-03-12T03:23:48.665+11:00@ anonymous
"Next thing you will say is how ...@ anonymous<br /><br />"Next thing you will say is how women don't have vaginas and men don't have penises. Sheesh. It's absurd and you're hookwinked into their trap."<br /><br />That's not even a very good strawman.<br /><br />"Morality and ethics BOTH deal with universal standards and objective right and wrong. Don't fall for the muddling of language."<br /><br />You are the one muddling the language here. There would be no need for the two words if they meant precisely the same thing. <br /><br />Liberalism is largely based on a system of utilitarian ethics advoctaed by John Stuart Mill, with a bit of Kant and Hobbs thrown in for good measure.<br /><br />Individual happiness is the objective and whatever makes the most people the happiest will identify the goals to achieve that end. Since no two people are alike regarding what will make them happy, indiviual morality guides behavior and cannot be legislated. What can be legislated is an ethical sytem that permits the most happiness for the majority of the people.<br /><br />There are two guiding principles of utilitarian ethics, rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism suggests that the end (outcome) justifies the means (the act). this makes it possible to justify immoral acts as ethical. This can lead to the creation of unjust rules made to benefit the majority at the expense of the minority (rule utilitarianism).<br /><br />Thus Minerva can justify killing babies (an immoral act) in the name of a greater good (an ethical outcome). According to the utilitarian ethic, all women would not be required to kill their babies, but it would be a personal choice according to her moral beliefs. This should illustrate the difference between ethics and morals. The laws permitting this would be based upon a system of ethics, the individual would act according to a personal moral belief. A similar example could be made from a conservative point of view using a different system of ethics that would outlaw such practices. The difference between ethics and morals has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.<br /><br />TDOMTDOMhttp://thedamnedoldeman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65652047665037163092012-03-08T11:13:42.573+11:002012-03-08T11:13:42.573+11:00Are liberal ethicists fully human?Are liberal ethicists fully human?Southronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-24783873542249866082012-03-07T07:28:11.527+11:002012-03-07T07:28:11.527+11:00Anon,
Very good point. To the parents it would be...Anon,<br /><br />Very good point. To the parents it would be undoubtedly not only a murder, but a heinous crime. But if Francesca Minerva's ethics were to be accepted, then it could not be termed murder - the only crime would be one of frustrating the parents' wishes to bring the non-person to personhood.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-36440338563000438232012-03-07T06:43:06.161+11:002012-03-07T06:43:06.161+11:00It would follow then, wouldn't it, that if som...It would follow then, wouldn't it, that if somebody walked up to a pram on the street and shot the newborn inside it, he would not have committed murder, only something like property damage - unless it was the mother's doing. In either case, according to Minerva, "no harm at all" has been done to the baby because no 'actual person' was killed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-10473998999429404352012-03-06T16:55:32.068+11:002012-03-06T16:55:32.068+11:00TDOM - That is not Philosophy 101. That IS liberal...TDOM - That is not Philosophy 101. That IS liberal talk. Liberals talk all the time how "Morals are not to be encoded into law" (aka Conservatism) but that "Ethics" should be when they are the same thing. Morality and ethics BOTH deal with universal standards and objective right and wrong. Don't fall for the muddling of language. Next thing you will say is how women don't have vaginas and men don't have penises. Sheesh. It's absurd and you're hookwinked into their trap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-76069556025314934932012-03-06T16:32:36.019+11:002012-03-06T16:32:36.019+11:00Good comment Steve N.Good comment Steve N.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2857190738250462312012-03-06T16:31:32.012+11:002012-03-06T16:31:32.012+11:00TDOM,
People might own their morality on an indiv...TDOM,<br /><br />People might own their morality on an individual basis but conservatism works on a more universal or objective basis, ie that certain things are right and wrong, unacceptable acceptable etc and this is regardless of our individual perceptions.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-42842118566385070932012-03-06T08:49:16.556+11:002012-03-06T08:49:16.556+11:00By Francesca Minerva's accounting, the left th...By Francesca Minerva's accounting, the left third of the bell-curve is non-person.Steve N.http://www.yarnivore.com/francis/Holy_Tango.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-88890228057975753712012-03-06T04:41:38.940+11:002012-03-06T04:41:38.940+11:00@ Jesse 7
"I do think morals are more than s...@ Jesse 7<br /><br />"I do think morals are more than simply personal values, if that was the case we could all come up with our own morality."<br /><br />But this is precisely what we do. Each and every one of us develops our own concept of what is moral and what is not. Our personal system of morality may be based on a doce of ethics or religeous teaching, or some other value system, but it is our own.<br /><br />@anon 12:52<br /><br />This is Philosophy 101, not liberal thinking. It applies to conservative ethical systems and morality as well as liberal ones. Consider this from an article I've written on the subject: <br /><br />"Ethics may most aptly be described as codes or standards of behavior expected by a group of its members. Ethical standards may even be codified into law. Ethics may be based on the morals and values of individual members of the group. From an academic standpoint, ethics is the philosophical study of morality that produces a systematic framework for the determination of right and wrong."<br /><br />"Morality is more personal and is based upon personal belief systems. Morals may at times, be contradictory as they are less systematic... Morality is typically rigid and unchanging. It is often associated with religious doctrine. As such it may be determined by a value system associated with good and evil instead of an ethical system of right and wrong."<br /><br />In other words, ethics are systematic, rational, and logically derived standards for behavior of individual members of a group. Morals are personal standards derived from an individual sense of good and evil, may be conflicting, and are not necessarily logical or rational (though they may be).<br /><br />TDOMTDOMhttp://thedamnedoldeman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-85235163508168608302012-03-06T00:52:47.829+11:002012-03-06T00:52:47.829+11:00Incorrect TDOM. That's liberal talk. Ethics an...Incorrect TDOM. That's liberal talk. Ethics and morals are roughly the same thing, the difference is that they express in different forms the same thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-60245765523155115472012-03-05T12:19:13.324+11:002012-03-05T12:19:13.324+11:00Sorry Bob no crashes please. TDOM I do think moral...Sorry Bob no crashes please. TDOM I do think morals are more than simply personal values, if that was the case we could all come up with our own morality.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-61450912450739640312012-03-05T10:58:58.174+11:002012-03-05T10:58:58.174+11:00Bring on the crash! Any society that allows this s...Bring on the crash! Any society that allows this sort of discussion doesn't deserve to continue.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50349084050027782012012-03-05T08:11:46.085+11:002012-03-05T08:11:46.085+11:00You can't argue with these people. They have ...You can't argue with these people. They have no heart.<br /><br />These people are acting like automatons, little more than machines using computer logic to make life decisions.<br /><br />It's heart and soul and love and respect and sorrow that make us human.<br /><br />You can't argue these qualities!<br /><br />This is too crazy for me. <br /><br />Minerva, just join the NKVD and line people up who you dislike and shoot them. That's who this woman is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-65993939892120327872012-03-05T08:03:11.424+11:002012-03-05T08:03:11.424+11:00I didn't read the whole article cuz it's s...I didn't read the whole article cuz it's so disgusting.<br /><br />BUT.<br /><br />I have distinct memories of being in the hospital after birth. I remember being placed onto the blanket in the clear plastic crib thing and staring at the blue nose drop plastic thingie that the nurse with weird fingernails placed next to my head.<br /><br />I remember being INSANELY angry that the blue plastic thingy was by my head. <br /><br />Fuck off Minerva....I was 100% a person when I was in the womb and I was completely conscious with a clear opinion of my surroundings the moment I popped out.<br /><br />I used to tap my feet to the rhythm of music while in my mom's belly. Seriously. <br /><br />Furthermore, I have spoken to other people who have clear memories just days and weeks after birth. <br /><br />This woman is acting as though she is no longer human. <br /><br />Maybe she isn't?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-87184049434338043522012-03-05T05:24:47.260+11:002012-03-05T05:24:47.260+11:00Here in the US the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade de...Here in the US the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade defined the beginning of personhood as the age of viability. that is the age the fetus would be capable of surviving out of the womb. This is frequently thought to be around 20 weeks. That would mean that in order to accept Minerva's argument, the definition of personhood would have to be changed to meet her definition.<br /><br />I would assume that given Minerva's position that she does not object to the infanticide that allegedly takes place in India and China where newborn girls are rountinely killed because families want boys. I say allegedly because while I have no doubt this occurs, I don't think it's as common as some believe. It is more likely that the births of girls (esp. in China) is simply not reported due to the one child laws.<br /><br />While I haven't read Minerva's article, I would caution you not to confuse ethics and morals. There is a difference. Ethics tend to be based in philosophy and are generally applied in order to govern group behavior. Morals are a system of personal values.<br /><br />Ethics and morals may conflict. Personally, I have argued that a just society is a society that permits a woman to choose abortion as an option. At the same time, I would find that option repulsive from a moral point of view.<br /><br />By the same token, I believe that morally a man should support his children whether he lives with them or not and regardless of whether or not the children's mother permits contact. On the other hand, a just society that permits abortion for women should also permit a man to opt out of fatherhood if he chooses to do so within a reasonable time of being informed of the pregnancy or birth.<br /><br />Ethically, one could make a case for Minerva's argument, but it would be morally reprehensible.<br /><br />TDOMTDOMhttp://thedamnedoldeman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-1866601950890180232012-03-05T00:01:03.511+11:002012-03-05T00:01:03.511+11:00We need not credit Ms. Minerva with having made a ...We need not credit Ms. Minerva with having made a philosophical argument. If she had actually begun with a principle and worked out its implications, she would probably have found herself approving the murder of a class of humanity to which she was sentimentally attached. But this argument has all the appearance of reverse engineering. She began by identifying a property infants lack and then worked back to the ostensible premise of intentionality.<br /><br />I think she should have gone with teeth. A human isn't a person without teeth. It stands to reason! The defining acts of personhood are, after all, chewing and smiling.JMSmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35353780943830545672012-03-04T22:55:09.106+11:002012-03-04T22:55:09.106+11:00The Dutch have a new innovation for euthanasia at ...The Dutch have a new innovation for euthanasia at the other end of life:<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/dutch-mobile-euthanasia-units<br /><br />"A controversial system of mobile euthanasia units that will travel around the country to respond to the wishes of sick people who wish to end their lives has been launched in the Netherlands.<br /><br />The scheme, which started on Thursday , will send teams of specially trained doctors and nurses to the homes of people whose own doctors have refused to carry out patients' requests to end their lives.<br /><br />The launch of the so-called Levenseinde, or "Life End", house-call units – whose services are being offered to Dutch citizens free of charge – coincides with the opening of a clinic of the same name in The Hague, which will take patients with incurable illnesses as well as others who do not want to die at home."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35296555245608205552012-03-04T22:27:08.798+11:002012-03-04T22:27:08.798+11:00Doctors should have the right to kill newborn babi...<em>Doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers</em><br /><br />It's becoming increasingly obvious that liberals are moving towards openly embracing eugenics. Useless mouths should be liquidated. In the US they already have a situation where Planned Parenthood practises eugenics by stealth by concentrating abortion clinics in black neighbourhoods. A hugely disproportionate number of abortions are carried out on black women. <br /><br />I blogged about this a while back -<br /><br />http://anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/planned-parenthoods-racist-genocidal.htmldfordoomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306293859869179118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-32487492214753451252012-03-04T17:44:48.077+11:002012-03-04T17:44:48.077+11:00Philip K. Dick saw where this was going right afte...Philip K. Dick saw where this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pre-persons" rel="nofollow">was going</a> right after Roe v. Wade.<br /><br />The only thing is: I think he thought he was exaggerating.Twentyhttp://0x0014.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-17920219421195693702012-03-04T17:27:04.628+11:002012-03-04T17:27:04.628+11:00When people argue against euthanasia (most cases o...When people argue against euthanasia (most cases of euthanasia), infanticide and frivolous abortions (save a few exceptions where it is truly needed) THIS is what should be on the table. The Western world has internalized de facto liberal assumptions and therefore the aim should be by attacking and rejecting liberalism as a philosophy.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com