₦airaland Forum

How i arrived? Lol. That's not me. That is a fundamental belief behind human morality for it to make sense. Without it, human morality do not make sense or have any basis.

That's why secular morality is quite a dilema, they don't always seem to understand why they say something is right or wrong.

And if there is no basis for a moral position, it is inherently meaningless.

I get the point,but if I may ask,what is ur basis for morality, or do u just see whatever people regard as good to be good and what they see as bad to be bad

I have a couple of questions for you;

Why do you think rape is bad?
Why is murder wrong?

For both cases I will give the same reason
They cause harm and the purpose behind the act is unjustifiable

premeditated termination of a human life is murder. A woman has every control of her body and her choice, there is an option not to get pregnant in the first place.

It is my position that nobody, absolutely nobody should have the right to kill another human.

Do you know that if you kill a pregnant woman that you are not charged with 1 count murder but 2?

It is not always an option not to get pregnant,we have instances of rape,I agree on the rest

I do not weigh any one feelings more than another's life.

No,in your previous post u said the child should not be punished for the sin of the father and I was reminding u that the woman doesn't deserve the punishment of carrying s pregnancy she didn't ask for,I know that the baby's life is important as well but I cannot choose it over the woman in this case,even if it is a human being as you say it is still a few weeks old,the welfare of a grown woman is more precious to me than a 6week old foetus

Nope. It is not murder. Murder only occurs when a human life is terminated, not when moved from one place to another.

If you think i am against someone removing the baby in her womb then that's sadly a mistake.

I'm against killing it

OK I guess we have reached a conclusion on this,I now consider it murder to terminate the life of a foetus no matter how young it is,except if a surgical procedure would definitely cause harm to the mother,if anyone does not want to keep a pregnancy they should simply have the foetus removed

Hermes019:
I get the point,but if I may ask,what is ur basis for morality, or do u just see whatever people regard as good to be good and what they see as bad to be bad

The basis of morality is hinged on a fundamental belief or assumption about the subject of moral value.

Example: Human life is sacred.
This is a fundamental belief about the subject of moral value.

The subject here is Human life

Killing is an action. If you assume killing is wrong without showing how then it is baseless.

Let me demonstrate: Mr Obi killed a goat.

Mrs Ada killed a human.

Which is wrong?

Me: Mrs Ada because human life is sacred.

If you say Mrs Ada is wrong because killing is wrong, then why is mr Obi not wrong? They both killed?

See? The difference is the subject of the action not the action itself.

So, the fundamental belief behind the subject is a determinant for the moral implications of an action.

Do you understand this basis now?

For both cases I will give the same reason
They cause harm and the purpose behind the act is unjustifiable

Why is causing harm bad?

Don't you kill chickens? Don't you cause it harm? Why is that not as bad as killing a human?

What's the difference? Your moral premise is hinged on causing harm, so why is the case of causing harm to a chicken not just as bad?

You see the problem here? You made a logical leap of saying something bad for a reason you have not shown to be bad.

That's the dilema of secular morality.

It is not always an option not to get pregnant,we have instances of rape,I agree on the rest

Principle of exception

No,in your previous post u said the child should not be punished for the sin of the father and I was reminding u that the woman doesn't deserve the punishment of carrying s pregnancy she didn't ask for,I know that the baby's life is important as well but I cannot choose it over the woman in this case,even if it is a human being as you say it is still a few weeks old,the welfare of a grown woman is more precious to me than a 6week old foetus

I said what i said. A rapist is a horrible human that deserves punishment for his/crime. But, a child cropping up from this unfortunate event is entirely innocent.

I will never weigh a grown woman's feelings more than the life of another human.

OK I guess we have reached a conclusion on this,I now consider it murder to terminate the life of a foetus no matter how young it is,except if a surgical procedure would definitely cause harm to the mother,if anyone does not want to keep a pregnancy they should simply have the foetus removed

Their business.
My argument is sorely on the moral implications.

The basis of morality is hinged on a fundamental belief or assumption about the subject of moral value.

Example: Human life is sacred.
This is a fundamental belief about the subject of moral value.

The subject here is Human life

Killing is an action. If you assume killing is wrong without showing how then it is baseless.

Let me demonstrate: Mr Obi killed a goat.

Mrs Ada killed a human.

Which is wrong?

Me: Mrs Ada because human life is sacred.

If you say Mrs Ada is wrong because killing is wrong, then why is mr Obi not wrong? They both killed?

See? The difference is the subject of the action not the action itself.

So, the fundamental belief behind the subject is a determinant for the moral implications of an action.

Do you understand this basis now?

So in essence,human beings made human life "Sacred", if we choose to consider the life of a chicken as sacred it becomes sacred, in fact we have such instances,in India,Hindus don't kill cows therefore the life of a cow is just as sacred as human life.
So what makes a life sacred or not is "the fundamental belief" attached to it
What makes this fundamental belief true,why should I agree with it ?

Why is causing harm bad?

Don't you kill chickens? Don't you cause it harm? Why is that not as bad as killing a human?

What's the difference? Your moral premise is hinged on causing harm, so why is the case of causing harm to a chicken not just as bad?

You see the problem here? You made a logical leap of saying something bad for a reason you have not shown to be bad.

That's the dilema of secular morality.

U did not read my statement,this is what I said
They cause harm and the purpose behind the act is UNJUSTIFIABLE
Why did u take only the part u wanted

I said what i said. A rapist is a horrible human that deserves punishment for his/crime. But, a child cropping up from this unfortunate event is entirely innocent.

I never said the child should bear the punishment of the rapist father,I only drew ur attention to the woman who would be subjected to more suffering if she is mandated to carry the pregnancy

I will never weigh a grown woman's feelings more than the life of another human.

Now this is an assumption,your wife and ur 1 month old baby are sick and about to die,u have the cure to their ailment but the drug can only save one of them,who would you give it to,the child or the woman ?

Their business.
My argument is sorely on the moral implications.

what is so great about the moral implication of the action ?

Hermes019:
So in essence,human beings made human life "Sacred", if we choose to consider the life of a chicken as sacred it becomes sacred, in fact we have such instances,in India,Hindus don't kill cows therefore the life of a cow is just as sacred as human life.
So what makes a life sacred or not is "the fundamental belief" attached to it

Yes.

Why do you think that if you touch someone on their hand it is ok but if you touch their private parts it becomes sexual assault and a crime?
Because of the fundamental assumption that sex is sacred therefore the organs involved in sexual acts are equally sacred.

If the whole of the human body is held in the same light, then you might as well finger someone when you want to wake them up, there is nothing special about that, it is just another part of the body that is just like every other part.

Moral basis require a fundamental belief on the subject for foundation

What makes this fundamental belief true,why should I agree with it ?

That is the beauty of intersubjectivity, it is not subjective, it doesn't require that you agree with it.

Things like government, monetary value, countries are all operating under similar belief system.

That you do not believe in the value of money doesn't change the value of money, that you don't personally believe in countries doesn't mean you can go wherever you want without going through the formalities.

U did not read my statement,this is what I said
They cause harm and the purpose behind the act is UNJUSTIFIABLE
Why did u take only the part u wanted

That bolded phrase is almost certainly meaningless. How is justifiability derived?

You need to first show the basis of your assumption on something being bad or not
You also need to show the basis on which your quantification of justifiability is based.

I don't know if you people really understand these simple philosophical problems your logical leaps give rise to.

I never said the child should bear the punishment of the rapist father,I only drew ur attention to the woman who would be subjected to more suffering if she is mandated to carry the pregnancy

And i am saying i do not regard any individual suffering more than a life. I am empathic towards suffering, i however can never equate the severity of individual human suffering to termination of human life

Now this is an assumption,your wife and ur 1 month old baby are sick and about to die,u have the cure to their ailment but the drug can only save one of them,who would you give it to,the child or the woman ?

if you have been following my argument on abortion, this is pretty simple. When a fetus threatens the life of its mother, terminating it is an act of self defense. it is totally morally excusable. Even if you kill someone in self defense, you are most likely to go free.

what is so great about the moral implication of the action ?

Because moral inhibitions shape the course of our actions.

Yes.

Why do you think that if you touch someone on their hand it is ok but if you touch their private parts it becomes sexual assault and a crime?
Because of the fundamental assumption that sex is sacred therefore the organs involved in sexual acts are equally sacred.

If the whole of the human body is held in the same light, then you might as well finger someone when you want to wake them up, there is nothing special about that, it is just another part of the body that is just like every other part.

Moral basis require a fundamental belief on the subject for foundation

That is the beauty of intersubjectivity, it is not subjective, it doesn't require that you agree with it.

Things like government, monetary value, countries are all operating under similar belief system.

That you do not believe in the value of money doesn't change the value of money, that you don't personally believe in countries doesn't mean you can go wherever you want without going through the formalities.

The point I'm trying to make is the term "morality" as is been used represents peoples views and of course in certain cases they can be wrong,I'm aware that morality is inter subjective and all that,but that position has its own flaws,in certain countries homosexuality is criminalised and as far as such countries are concerned it is "wrong", for people to be involved in homosexual relationships,do u conform to this simply because it is the " fundamental belief" they agree on,I bet ur answer is no.
There is no moral codes written anywhere in the universe,we decide what is right and what is wrong,and I agree that this is the best way to keep an organised and peaceful society but we mustn't approach morality with the mentality that an act is either right or wrong,human life may be considered sacred as you say,but taking of human life is not wrong on its own,the conditions that the act takes place decides if it is right or wrong,I do not agree that something is wrong simply because it is the fundamental belief of the people,it has to be backed up,yes I may not be able to challenge the authorities or overturn a sentence given,but I won't conform to anyones idea of what is right or wrong if it is not reasonable enough or justifiable from my perspective,all the same that is not to say I would disobey the authorities because I disagree with them

That bolded phrase is almost certainly meaningless. How is justifiability derived?

You need to first show the basis of your assumption on something being bad or not
You also need to show the basis on which your quantification of justifiability is based.

I don't know if you people really understand these simple philosophical problems your logical leaps give rise to.

U are being a bit cocky and dishonest here
You asked me a question,I gave u my answer, u responded to it but this time ur response was only based on half of what I said,and now u dismiss the rest as "meaningless",did u ask for the explanations ?

I would repeat what I said

I consider those acts to be wrong because they cause harm and the purpose for the act is unjustifiable

If a person kills another he has done harm to the person and if the purpose of the killing can not be justified before the law,or anyone concerned the person is wrong
Same with rape,the person does harm to the victim and if the purpose of the act is not justifiable before the law or anyone concerned, then the act is wrong

The second part of my response
.......and the purpose of the act is unjustifiable
Is what gives meaning to what I said,because like I previously mentioned, taking a human being's life is not wrong,what is wrong is the purpose behind the act,but of course this is where the differences lie,I might see the reason behind the act to be perfectly fine while you disagree,that is why people have different views on what is right or wrong
To your question," how is justifiability derived",well let's take the case of homosexuality for instance
Two men engage in sexual intercouse,I of course feel that they what they do is justifiable,because they are not hurting themselves in any way,a christian says that they are not justified because his/her bible condemns homosexual sex,the government abiding by the views of the general public also take the position that they are not justified.
"Justifiability" is subjective and differs among different persons but the law presides over all

Everything I just said is still meaningless right ?

And i am saying i do not regard any individual suffering more than a life. I am empathic towards suffering, i however can never equate the severity of individual human suffering to termination of human life

Do you think euthanasia is right or wrong ?

if you have been following my argument on abortion, this is pretty simple. When a fetus threatens the life of its mother, terminating it is an act of self defense. it is totally morally excusable. Even if you kill someone in self defense, you are most likely to go free.

I found your argument interesting,but why should the baby die at the expense of the mother,could it be that you are saying that "all human lives are sacred but some human lives are more sacred than others "
Why should the baby die and not the mother ?

Because moral inhibitions shape the course of our actions.

and in that instance what is the moral implication of a woman having an unwanted foetus removed instead of killed,right I guess(judging from ur previous response) ?

Hermes019:
The point I'm trying to make is that,the term "morality" as is been used represents peoples views and of course in certain cases they can be wrong,yes I'm aware that morality is inter subjective and all that,but that position has its own flaws,in certain countries homosexuality is criminalised,and yes as far as such countries are concerned it is "wrong", for people to be involved in homosexual relationships,do u conform to this simply because it is a " fundamental belief" they agree on,I bet ur answer is no.
There is no moral codes written anywhere in the universe,we decide what is right and what is wrong,and I agree that this is the best way to keep an organised and peaceful society but we mustn't approach morality with the mentality that an act is always good or always wrong,human life may be considered sacred as you say,but taking of human life is not wrong on its own,it is the conditions that the act takes place that decides if it is right or wrong,apparently in this case I do not agree with u that at any point human life is taken,it is wrong

Again, i will have to repeat myself.

Moral principles always employ the principles of necessary exceptions.

Taking human life are excusable in self defense.

The point remains, that for any moral derivation to make sense or have a basis, there must be a fundanemtal assumption on its subject.

I have demonstrated this over and over again

U are being a bit cocky and dishonest here
You asked me a question,I gave u my answer, u responded to it but this time ur response was only based on half of what I said,and now u dismiss the rest as "meaningless",did u ask for the explanations ?

I would repeat what I said

I consider those acts to be wrong because they cause harm and the purpose for the act is unjustifiable

Christ!!!

You are a making a logical leap of saying something is wrong because of something else that you have not shown to be wrong. How on earth can that be misunderstood?

You have to show how harm is wrong in order to use it as a basis to say murder is wrong.

And saying a reason is unjustifiable is ambiguous, it doesn't have any definite meaning.

What do you mean by justifiability?

How do you derive justifiability?

And on what ground is the justificable nature of an action right or wrong.

I can understand why these questions confuse you, you may not have gone further than that.

If a person kills another he has done harm to the person

So, why is harm wrong?

and if the purpose of the killing can not be justified before the law,or anyone concerned the person is wrong

Oga legality and morality are different things.

Same with rape,the person does harm to the victim

You are first assuming that harm is wrong.

Why is harm wrong?

You can go around this all day and won't bring up a basis for your moral assumptions because they simply isn't any.

and if the purpose of the act is not justifiable before the law or anyone concerned, then the act is wrong

Morality not legality is the premise.

The second part of my response
.......and the purpose of the act is unjustifiable
Is what gives meaning to what I said,because like I previously mentioned, taking a human being's life is not wrong,what is wrong is the purpose behind the act,bow of course this is are the differences lie,I might see the reason behind the act to be perfectly fine while you disagree,that us why people have different views on what is right or wrong

Again, if killing a humans is wrong then it is.

We can only apply a principle of exception where intention matters as we do for any other subject.

And exceptions do not preclude the whole.

To your question," how is justifiability derived",well let's take the case of homosexuality for instance
Two men engage in sexual intercouse,I of course feel that they what they do is justifiable,because they are not hurting themselves in any way,a christian says that they are not justified because his/her bible condemns homosexual sex,the government abiding by the views of the general public also take the position that they are not justified.

You must first assume that hurting themselves is wrong therefore unjustifiable to warrant them not hurting each other becomes justifiable.

My question is, what is the basis? Why is not hurting themselves right? On what ground is it right?

You didn't answer my question, you simply repeated an example without giving basis on how you arrived at your conclusion.

A Christian would boast of a better basis, if you ask why is this wrong?
He'd simply reply, because the creator of the world says it is.
It is a perfectly sound basis.

We can only argue that a Christian God do not exist but we can't argue against the sound follow of their moral argument.

"Justifiability" is subjective and differs among different persons but the law presides over all

In other words, it doesn't have any meaning.

Anything subject to any interpretation is meaningless

Everything I just said is still meaningless right ?

You are not quite there yet

Do you think euthanasia is right or wrong ?

Wrong. Kill yourself if you want to.

I found your argument interesting,but why should the baby die at the expense of the mother,could it be that you are saying that "all human lives are sacred but some human lives are more sacred than others "
Why should the baby die and not the mother ?

Again, self defense.

and in that instance what is the moral implication of a woman having an unwanted foetus removed instead of killed,right I guess(judging from ur previous response) ?

Upholding the principle of sacredness of human life.

hahn:
Share the link to the full story @johnnydon22

Who waits till 9 months and then decides they don't want the baby?

Here is a link to the act.

If you read the entire article you might find that op distorted the facts a bit!

ARTICLE 25-A
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT
SECTION 2599-AA. ABORTION.
§ 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

I've noted ur points Johnny and I would address ur question again,hopefully my answers wouldn't be ambigious
Again this was my response to ur question

"It is wrong to rape another person or commit murder because the person is hurt in the process and the act is unjustifiable(in the given instance)"

I woylto make my points clearer than before but u have to approach it with an open mind too else everything I am saying is in vain

Everything I say is from my own perspective, and not based on "fundamental belief", although both may agree on the same thing

The universe has no moral codes,hence humans get to determine what is right or wrong

I am of the opinion that nothing is inherently right or wrong,nothing like exceptions here,what determines if a thing is right or wrong is the condition in which it happens which involve the intentions of the individual(s) involved,however because for certain actions in most cases the conditions in which they occur make them wrong they are generally seen to be bad,killing a person is an example

My basis for saying a thing is right(under the conditions it occurs) is if its merits are higher than it's demerits,in certain cases it is difficult to access if this is so,hence it might be difficult to say if that is right ,in other cases it is easy to establish that the merits outweigh the demerits and the act is considered to be right

My basis for saying a thing is wrong(under the conditions it occurs) is if the demerits are higher than the merits,again we face the same problem,in certain cases it is difficult to tell if the demerits are higher than the merits,in other cases it is easy to establish that,hence such things are considered as wrong

When I talk about justifiability(from my perspective) this is what I mean,if the merits outweigh the demerits putting the parties involved into consideration,then the act is justifiable, but if the demerits outweigh the merits then the act is unjustifiable


Now coming to the answer I gave

In an instance where a woman is raped,a harm is done to the woman psychologically,emotionally,physically and otherwise,the harm done is the demerit,now the merit of the act is the sexual satisfaction that the rapist gets,from my own analysis,the demerits clearly outweighs the merits hence the act is unjustifiable and I consider it to be wrong
There may be a situation where the merits can outweigh the demerits and I would consider the act as right,an instance is if the woman in question is the only viable woman on earth and is not willing to mate then in other to preserve the human race a person can do the act forcefully,as gross as that may sound,if such ever happens,I would see the rape as right not wrong

In the case of murder,if an armed robber for instance shoots a person dead,again we look at the merits,I can barely see one here, and of course the demerits abound and are easy to see, hence the act is unjustifiable
In a case whereby a person is killed as a death sentence it can be argued that the merits outweigh the demerits, so even though the ultimate harm is caused to the person it can be justified for several reasons hence the act is right

So in both cases,causing harm to a person is a demerit and if the conditions of the act doesn't provide sufficient reason to see that it is for the greater good (ie the merits outweighing the demerits) then the act is wrong

Again, i will have to repeat myself.

Moral principles always employ the principles of necessary exceptions.

Taking human life are excusable in self defense.

The point remains, that for any moral derivation to make sense or have a basis, there must be a fundanemtal assumption on its subject.

I have demonstrated this over and over again




Christ!!!

You are a making a logical leap of saying something is wrong because of something else that you have not shown to be wrong. How on earth can that be misunderstood?

You have to show how harm is wrong in order to use it as a basis to say murder is wrong.

And saying a reason is unjustifiable is ambiguous, it doesn't have any definite meaning.

What do you mean by justifiability?

How do you derive justifiability?

And on what ground is the justificable nature of an action right or wrong.

I can understand why these questions confuse you, you may not have gone further than that.

So, why is harm wrong?

Oga legality and morality are different things.

You are first assuming that harm is wrong.

Why is harm wrong?

You can go around this all day and won't bring up a basis for your moral assumptions because they simply isn't any.

Morality not legality is the premise.

Again, if killing a humans is wrong then it is.

We can only apply a principle of exception where intention matters as we do for any other subject.

And exceptions do not preclude the whole.

You must first assume that hurting themselves is wrong therefore unjustifiable to warrant them not hurting each other becomes justifiable.

My question is, what is the basis? Why is not hurting themselves right? On what ground is it right?

You didn't answer my question, you simply repeated an example without giving basis on how you arrived at your conclusion.

A Christian would boast of a better basis, if you ask why is this wrong?
He'd simply reply, because the creator of the world says it is.
It is a perfectly sound basis.

We can only argue that a Christian God do not exist but we can't argue against the sound follow of their moral argument.


In other words, it doesn't have any meaning.

Anything subject to any interpretation is meaningless

You are not quite there yet

I've addressed this

Wrong. Kill yourself if you want to.

Interesting,why do u hold that position,because life is sacred ?

Again, self defense.

why must the self defense be from the perspective that the mother is the honest one, is it the baby's fault that its existence poses a threat to the mothers life,why make it suffer for a crime it did not commit,this is what u were saying earlier,that the foetus shouldn't suffer the crimes of the rapist father,why should it suffer for something it didn't wilfully do in this case,no matter how I look at it,it is obvious that u are saying that a mother's life is more important than the baby's, so again I ask do all human beings (going by your classification,which includes a day old foetus) have the same right to life ?

Upholding the principle of sacredness of human life.

fine,I guess the definiton of abortion should be tweaked

budaatum:
Here is a link to the act.

If you read the entire article you might find that op distorted the facts a bit!

ARTICLE 25-A
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT
SECTION 2599-AA. ABORTION.
§ 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

@johnnydon22