Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
So those who are severely developmentally disabled, say, should be killed as well? Because, you know, they are incapable of making a choice on their own.
If someone is pro-life, but they're immoral in every other way, would you think they're immoral? Or does the fact that they're pro-life automatically make them moral in your eyes?
When I ask this question, people never give me a clear answer.
Don't get the wrong idea and misinterpret what I'm saying/asking.
I'm not saying I'm moral because I support abortion. I'm saying I'm moral in other ways, and it just so happens I support abortion.
As far as I'm concerned, you can support abortion but still be moral if you're moral in other ways.
There are more factors than just abortion to determine your morality.
Personally I am against abortion as it is nothing short of murder.
But you can't get a "right" answer because "moral" is subjective. I don't know that there's a gold standard for "morality." Because if stopping a little beating heart isn't an awful thing, I don't know what is, but that's just my opinion. It is difficult to ascertain that some things are indeed negative in all cases, to all people.
And you're apparently incapable of staying within the context of the thread.
Exactly.
The question is:
Quote:
If someone supports abortion, does that automatically make them immoral in your eyes? What if they're moral in every other way, but they just so happen to support abortion?
I want people to give a clear answer to this question; not come up with irrelevant scenarios.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken
Personally I am against abortion as it is nothing short of murder.
But you can't get a "right" answer because "moral" is subjective. I don't know that there's a gold standard for "morality." Because if stopping a little beating heart isn't an awful thing, I don't know what is, but that's just my opinion. It is difficult to ascertain that some things are indeed negative in all cases, to all people.
It's when you start preaching everyone should share your opinion that the problems begin.
There are more factors than just abortion to determine your morality.
Obviously you can judge people "as a whole," rather than focusing on their stance on one particular issue, and I think most people are more than willing to cut people slack if their transgressions or beliefs are viewed as being only minor to moderate significance (e.g. lets say one either supports or opposes mandatory seat belts or whether one supports or opposes "illegally" jay-walk across a street if doing so is safe, or one guy thinks $32 should go to education and $18 for defense, and the other guy thinks $18 should go for education and $32 for education). I don't think your average person is necessarily going to claim the other person is evil incarnate over what many feel are less significant ideological differences.
If one guy wants to spend $3.25 cents on national defense and the other guy wants to spend $3.72, I don't think the two are necessarily going to consider each other evil, because certain ideological differences are a quantitative matter, and some are a qualitative matter. Quantitative differences tend to lead to less divisiveness than qualitative differences. For example, the guy who thinks $0 should be spent on defense, because he substantively objects to both the other guys position, there is likely to be far more division in that situation of a qualitative difference than amongst the two guys who do want to spend for defense, but simply have a somewhat modest disagreement over what the ideal amount should be.
With issues that tend to be taken more seriously (which are almost exclusively qualitative/substantive issues - not quantitative issues), they are obviously going to judge that other person more harshly, because they see the difference as being qualitatively harsher, and less of a minor difference of opinion.
When people say, "you are evil/immoral" or "you are saintly," I don't think that should be taken as a failure on the part of the person saying either of those things to recognize that every person has bad and good characteristics that can be weighed to give a sort of average. Such statements are simply semantic shortcut ways of saying, "I think that particular position you are advocating is evil/immoral," they aren't failing to recognize that the person may have many good qualities which can be taken into account. It's hyperbole at best, and semantic imprecision in what they are saying at a minimum, or a little bit of both.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 03-14-2011 at 08:38 PM..
Freedom of choice for anyone to choose how they're going to live their life as long as what they're doing is not illegal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
