Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



2/28/2016 4:17 am  #71


Re: The Abortion issue.

Mattman wrote:

I agree with several things you've said.

And even if it would be immoral in this case, could it be justifiable in terms of liberty?

I'm if you believe you should be able to kill a psychotic child coming at u with a knife why not a fetus who's infected body is infecting and killing you?

I would say that something that is immoral is by definition not justifiable, otherwise it would be moral. I think your child example is pretty moot, as I can either disarm the child, hold the arms of the child, or simply run away; all of which would be very easy to do. But, I will humor you and say that even if the minimum amount of force to save my own life involved directly killing the child (assuming I, for some odd reason, couldn't exercise one of the mentioned options) it would not be analogous to the infected child in pregnancy for the following reason:

In the case of the child trying to kill me, it is the "child" (although unwillingly) who is attacking me and threatening my existence, whereas in the pregnancy case both the child and the mother are being attacked by the pathogen. In the former the child is an unjust aggressor and in the latter the child is a current victim and me a potential victim of the same aggressor (the pathogen).  It would be like being in a quarantined space with a sick person whose deadly illness spreads through respiration. Would it be moral to directly kill the person so that they couldn't spread the pathogen to you? I would say no.

 

2/28/2016 5:15 am  #72


Re: The Abortion issue.

As far as the child analogy goes. If you are in wheel chair of course you can't do these things to defend yourself.there are obviously situation s where an adult would be way too weak to defend themselves from anyone, so I don't get your point.

"In the case of the child trying to kill me, it is the "child" (although unwillingly) who is attacking me and threatening my existence, whereas in the pregnancy case both the child and the mother are being attacked by the pathogen. In the former the child is an unjust aggressor and in the latter the child is a current victim and me a potential victim of the same aggressor (the pathogen).  It would be like being in a quarantined space with a sick person whose deadly illness spreads through respiration. Would it be moral to directly kill the person so that they couldn't spread the pathogen to you? I would say no."

How about
It's not the child who's trying to kill you it's the child's insanity, like a deadly pathogen.And in the fetus the pathogen is coming from the fetus itself, it's not just infecting the fetus out of nowhere, it's body literally created it.it does not matter whether it concerned to it or not it just is what it is.

Of course if you were trapped in a room and somebody was breathing out deadly gas that is lethal for you, and you have no ability to escape would be justiable to kill him to end the threat.That is almost common sense to be honest.

     Thread Starter
 

2/28/2016 9:47 pm  #73


Re: The Abortion issue.

Mattman wrote:

As far as the child analogy goes. If you are in wheel chair of course you can't do these things to defend yourself.there are obviously situation s where an adult would be way too weak to defend themselves from anyone, so I don't get your point...... How about It's not the child who's trying to kill you it's the child's insanity, like a deadly pathogen.And in the fetus the pathogen is coming from the fetus itself, it's not just infecting the fetus out of nowhere, it's body literally created it.it does not matter whether it concerned to it or not it just is what it is.
.

Ok fair enough, this could be a situation that might arise. Even if the mental condition of the child is the cause of the child attacking me, it is still the child who is attacking me. Whereas in the pregnancy situation it is not the child who is attacking me, instead, the pathogen is both the cause and the aggressor, whereas in the former situation the pathogen is just the cause.

A potential remedy could be to have a c-section, only if the gravity of the circumstances observed due proportionality of course, and then try to treat the child as best we can.



Mattman wrote:

Of course if you were trapped in a room and somebody was breathing out deadly gas that is lethal for you, and you have no ability to escape would be justiable to kill him to end the threat.That is almost common sense to be honest. .

Just curious, and I am not sure if someone else discussed this with you, but would you describe yourself as a moral consequentialist? If so, that is another fundamental area of disagreement between yourself and most pro-life people and especially Catholics. For us, the ends never justify the means.
 

 

2/28/2016 10:28 pm  #74


Re: The Abortion issue.

I'm not sure if I'm a consequentialist or not. I would agree that the ends usually cannot justify the means.

I think one of my main issues with natural law theory or Catholic ethics is that I feel some of their end positions clash with reality in a way that takes logical deduction to level of almost insanity. Like the lying is never moral thing-- ok, I can take lying never being moral for any reason. But then I would have to say that sometimes an immoral thing can be done. I would be happy to lie through my teeth if the Nazis came to my door and any healthy person would too.

And in terms of the abortion issue, you simply can not get all babies up to viability. So if someone is 11 weeks and has a doomed child, whose presences is causing a deadly infection it is clear that it would have to be up to that person to decide whether or not to lay back and let her and the baby in her womb die together or terminate and save herself any way possible.

I'm consider myself very anti abortion but there does become a point when logic needs to subside for love of another person.

     Thread Starter
 

2/28/2016 11:28 pm  #75


Re: The Abortion issue.

Mattman wrote:

I'm not sure if I'm a consequentialist or not. I would agree that the ends usually cannot justify the means.

I think one of my main issues with natural law theory or Catholic ethics is that I feel some of their end positions clash with reality in a way that takes logical deduction to level of almost insanity. Like the lying is never moral thing-- ok, I can take lying never being moral for any reason. But then I would have to say that sometimes an immoral thing can be done. I would be happy to lie through my teeth if the Nazis came to my door and any healthy person would too..

I see, well the thing is, in the lying example anyways, that if you lie you are committing an intrinsically evil act; what the Nazi guy does to you if you don't lie is completely out of your control and he will be morally responsible for his own actions i.e. killing you for saying you were a Jew, for example. That is the rationale behind it, that here are two completely separate actions with their own moral (immoral) ends that need to be considered separately, and each person is responsible for their own actions. This is not a case of the lesser of two evils principle, which is an authentic principle in Catholic moral theology. Also, there is that distinction I made earlier between what is moral (right) and what is understandable. From God's perspective, a lie is always objectively evil, yet under certain conditions e.g. threat of death, a person might have little or possibly even no subjective moral culpability for lying. I hope this helps.  

Mattman wrote:

And in terms of the abortion issue, you simply can not get all babies up to viability. So if someone is 11 weeks and has a doomed child, whose presences is causing a deadly infection it is clear that it would have to be up to that person to decide whether or not to lay back and let her and the baby in her womb die together or terminate and save herself any way possible.

I'm consider myself very anti abortion but there does become a point when logic needs to subside for love of another person.

If the circumstances demanded it and the proportionality was there (mother will die if the c-section isn't done immediately) then it would be morally permissible to do the c-section before viability. This would be an application of the principle of double effect. The baby will die an unintended although foreseen death, and if medical technology was advanced enough we would try our best to save both lives.

As long as the logic is founded in truth, moral and physical, then it is fully compatible with love in every instance. Love is simply willing the good of another (and to determine what is good always requires acknowledging the truth about situations and people and morality) and in the case of pregnancy we need to love them both, equally.  


 

Last edited by coffeyk87@hotmail.com (2/28/2016 11:33 pm)

 

2/29/2016 4:29 am  #76


Re: The Abortion issue.

I understand what you mean when it comes to lying. But here's the thing, when it comes down to it your saying you don't think one SHOULD lie in the nazi case? They should just tell the truth and let nature take its course? Totally agree with the moral culpability aspect....

Well with the cesarian section before viability inim a deathly situation I wouldn't call that love. Soing a c sectuon on a woman at sseven weeks in a deathly situation xan kill her eqsily.I would call that performing an unnecessary surgery for the symbolic sake of looking like you have respect for both when your simply letting them both die- and quickening that process. In a case like that loving them both would mean to literally stand back and watch them both go, rather than cut the woman open for no reason before they both die.or you could evacuate all contents of the uterus via suction as an emergency as cold as that sounds.

     Thread Starter
 

3/01/2016 2:08 pm  #77


Re: The Abortion issue.

Mattman wrote:

I understand what you mean when it comes to lying. But here's the thing, when it comes down to it your saying you don't think one SHOULD lie in the nazi case? They should just tell the truth and let nature take its course? Totally agree with the moral culpability aspect.....

One should never do what is immoral, as by definition an immoral action is something that ought not be done. If telling a lie was the right decision to make (as you seem to make it out to be) then lying would also be the moral thing to do. Besides it is not as if "nature" is taking its course. This Nazi, in this instance, has to make the volitional choice to kill you after you tell the truth, he is the one who has done a moral wrong. This is just another case of the ends (saving one's life) not justifying the means (evil act).

Perhaps it is best also to view this in the Christian context, where people don't cease existing at the point of death, where this life on earth is just a part of a journey to one's final destination. If committing one evil act obstructs one, even minimally, from achieving their final end, i.e. God, then they shouldn't do it. I am not sure what your religious sensibilities are, as to whether this part is relevant to you or not.

Mattman wrote:

Well with the cesarian section before viability inim a deathly situation I wouldn't call that love. Soing a c sectuon on a woman at sseven weeks in a deathly situation xan kill her eqsily.I would call that performing an unnecessary surgery for the symbolic sake of looking like you have respect for both when your simply letting them both die- and quickening that process. In a case like that loving them both would mean to literally stand back and watch them both go, rather than cut the woman open for no reason before they both die.or you could evacuate all contents of the uterus via suction as an emergency as cold as that sounds.

No, loving them both does not mean inaction. You save those that you can, but you don't intentionally kill anyone in the process. That is common sense.

Adhering to moral principles can sometimes seem pointless, especially if you don't appreciate the moral distinctions that those principles illuminate. For many people there is a big difference, even on an intuitive level, between killing and letting die. The principle of double effect makes use of that distinction. You are basically saying that if there is a great enough reason to commit an act that is otherwise immoral, then why not do it? It seems to me that you are a consequentialist, you just have a somewhat higher standard than most. Also, wouldn't you say that directly killing someone (even if they were going to die anyways) is a violation of their human rights?

 

3/01/2016 2:20 pm  #78


Re: The Abortion issue.

coffeyk87@hotmail.com wrote:

Also, wouldn't you say that directly killing someone (even if they were going to die anyways) is a violation of their human rights?

It most definitely is.


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

3/01/2016 9:25 pm  #79


Re: The Abortion issue.

Ok Coffey, I hear you about the never doing what is imorral thing. As far as my religion goes, I'm not sure what I beleive to be honest.

I'm not sure if I'm a consequentialist or notim whatever beleif system that thinks being too logically deductive can lead to nuttiness...like not being able to lie to Nazis to save your family!! Lol, just kidding.

I guess I beleive too much of anything can be bad, including being to logical. Compassion and love are just as important. Sometimes they clash.

I know I'm mushy.

But so in terms of Nazis again, because now you have me thinking... In the sound of music when the nuns stole the gas from the Nazis so they would chase the family, you don't think they should have done that?

     Thread Starter
 

3/01/2016 10:18 pm  #80


Re: The Abortion issue.

Mattman wrote:

Ok Coffey, I hear you about the never doing what is imorral thing. As far as my religion goes, I'm not sure what I beleive to be honest.

I'm not sure if I'm a consequentialist or notim whatever beleif system that thinks being too logically deductive can lead to nuttiness...like not being able to lie to Nazis to save your family!! Lol, just kidding.

I guess I beleive too much of anything can be bad, including being to logical. Compassion and love are just as important. Sometimes they clash.

I know I'm mushy.

But so in terms of Nazis again, because now you have me thinking... In the sound of music when the nuns stole the gas from the Nazis so they would chase the family, you don't think they should have done that?

It was nice discussing this with you Mattman, and I don't know to be honest about the car situation, I would have to watch the movie again

I was just on Ed Feser's blog and he posted that Scott (the guy who was commenting earlier on this thread) died last week from a stomach ulcer. From what I hear, he was a very bright and charitable individual, please join me in praying for the repose of his soul. God Bless.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum