Quote :

"its never done anything wrong or bad, so it cant be as guilty as a serial killer"

It can't be as guilty as a serial killer because the killer is neither more nor less guilty than it. It doesn't sit on the real line of guiltiness, one might say. Category error.

9/18/2008 8:54:14 PM

^^Vix

i already admitted if you're going ONLY on technicalities that yes you're correct

but theres a lot more than that that goes into right and wrong...like how can you honestly value the life of a serial killer (who has taken multiple lives) more than "an innocent fetus"

^not trying to troll you here, but i dont understand how anyone with common sense could say that a serial killer is no more guilty than a fetus...is this just one of those "im pro choice and im sticking with my guns" things? seems like you're using lawyer talk to ignore right and wrong

9/18/2008 8:54:33 PM

Quote :

"^not trying to troll you here, but i dont understand how anyone with common sense could say that a serial killer is no more guilty than a fetus...is this just one of those "im pro choice and im sticking with my guns" things? seems like you're using lawyer talk to ignore right and wrong"

Not really because right and wrong aren't things that apply to things without moral standing.

It's like asking me if a rock is more guilty than a murderer. I wouldn't know how to answer the question.

9/18/2008 8:59:42 PM

you couldnt think to yourself... "well...that rock never killed multiple people"

i understand your perspective but i still think its using a technicality while ignoring that a serial killer is a heinous person and their lives should be very low on the totem pole, just because a fetus is not technically a life for another few months

i think its obviously an agree to disagree thing (like most of TSB), but do you not have a part of you that says "of course this serial killer is more worthless than this innocent baby"? really?

9/18/2008 9:01:00 PM

Quote :

"you couldnt think to yourself... "well...that rock never killed multiple people""

A rock doesn't have that sort of agency. I don't understand how you can consider something without moral standing more or less [moral term] than something with moral standing.

What's the square root of a baseball?

Quote :

" understand your perspective but i still think its using a technicality while ignoring that a serial killer is a heinous person and their lives should be very low on the totem pole"

They've forfeited some rights, for sure, like the right to freedom. I still would rather destroy a rock than one of them.

9/18/2008 9:03:07 PM

Quote :

"What's the square root of a baseball?"

please come up with an example that compares something living to something non living...your analogy is not valid to my perspective

yes a baseball is more innocent than a serial killer too

9/18/2008 9:04:11 PM

since liberals like the death of humans so much, why are they opposed to the iraq war?

9/18/2008 9:05:20 PM

It's like asking me what the respiration rate of a table is.

It's a category error. If something doesn't have any moral standing, then it can't be more or less guilty than something else. The ability to be guilty of something suggests something has moral standing.

"What's the square root of a baseball?" is a good analogy because square roots aren't defined over baseballs. If you could imagine a function mapping objects to some measure of their "guiltiness" then it'd only operate over a universe of objects with moral standing. In other words, you can't ask how guilty or innocent a speck of sand is -- it doesn't make sense to.

edit:

Squareroot(baseball) is undefined, so you can't ask me if squareroot(baseball) is greater than, equal to, or less than squareroot(100).

Guiltiness(zygote) is undefined, so you can't ask me if guiltiness(zygote) is greater than, equal to, or less than guiltiness(some particular murderer).

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 9:08 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 9:06:49 PM

why cant you come up with an analogy that compares a living thing to a non living thing, like the thread topic

not something that applies mathematics to an inanimate object

life is more than some logical argument

9/18/2008 9:08:16 PM

Okay here's one: Do you think a rock is more carefree than a graduate student?

9/18/2008 9:09:29 PM

technically a rock has no cares, so yes, a rock is more carefree than a grad student

9/18/2008 9:12:18 PM

I don't think that makes any fucking sense

A rock isn't the type of thing to have cares or worries to begin with, so no

It's neither more nor less carefree than a person

9/18/2008 9:13:45 PM

Quote :

"A rock isn't the type of thing to have cares or worries to begin with"

which would make it care free, unlike a grad student who cares about things

maybe try a different analogy

if you want to say a fetus is no less innocent than a serial killer by your rationale, ok i can buy that...but you'd also have to agree that a serial killer is definitely more guilty than a fetus

9/18/2008 9:14:55 PM

You're missing my point

How about this then: is a rock happier than a depressed person?

9/18/2008 9:17:08 PM

no...its also not sadder than a depressed person

9/18/2008 9:17:45 PM

Right, that's sort of what I'm talking about then. You can't compare a rock's happiness level to a person's because a rock isn't the sort of thing that has a happiness level.

Similarly, to me, things without mental states don't have a moral status. Things without moral statuses are neither innocent nor guilty.

9/18/2008 9:18:35 PM

so do you agree that because a fetus has no moral status, and therefore no guilt, that a serial killer by definition has more guilt than a fetus?

9/18/2008 9:19:20 PM

Quote :

"so do you agree that because a fetus has no moral status, and therefore no guilt, that a serial killer by definition has more guilt than a fetus?"

It's not that it has NO guilt, it has an undefined amount of guilt.

9/18/2008 9:24:14 PM

lets fast forward to the day the baby is born

how much guilt does a newborn baby have? i'd argue absolutely none at all...its alive, but it doesnt understand right and wrong and things like that...maybe we'll have to just agree to disagree because it seems TO ME that your argument is one of strictly logic (specifically some divide by zero type shit) and TO ME my argument is more "this fetus has never done anything wrong and will soon be an innocent baby, whereas the serial killer has killed many people and is obviously more guilty than a fetus"

9/18/2008 9:28:52 PM

Quote :

"lets fast forward to the day the baby is born how much guilt does a newborn baby have?"

It has zero guilt now because it's a moral agent -- it has an internal mental life and as such has moral weight and can be guilty or innocent.

9/18/2008 9:37:51 PM

i dont think a newborn baby is a moral agent...a 1 day old baby has no concept of right and wrong...no concept of guilt or innocence...i'd argue babies don't understand whats right or wrong until at least age 2

9/18/2008 9:39:58 PM

Quote :

"i dont think a newborn baby is a moral agent...a 1 day old baby has no concept of right and wrong...no concept of guilt or innocence...i'd argue babies don't understand whats right or wrong until at least age 2"

None of those considerations matter -- the baby has moral standing regardless of its understandings and capabilities. Why? Because it has an internal experience and things matter to it, even if it doesn't have a well formed moral theory.

9/18/2008 9:43:53 PM

Quote :

"the baby has moral standing regardless of its understandings and capabilities."

all the definitions of 'moral agent' that i recently looked up basically said the moral agent had to have the ability to understand right and wrong which a newborn cannot do

Quote :

" a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

Quote :

"Most philosophers suggest that only rational beings, people who can reason and form self-interested judgments, are capable of being moral agents"

if those definitions are correct, it would seem your argument would make it ok to kill a newborn baby?

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 9:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 9:45:44 PM

Then I've been misapplying the term and instead mean something more like "something with moral standing." In other words, something we grant weight in moral calculations.

Yeah I'm not using the right terminology -- you should replace "moral agent" everywhere in my posts above with "something with moral standing." The two are different.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 9:47:24 PM

well

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree

i would like to genuinely say that i think we've both gotten a better understanding of WHY each other feels the way we do on the subject, and that when you take the time to talk it out you can at least see where someone is coming from, however much you (and I) call them an idiot, etc all the time

9/18/2008 9:49:32 PM

I'm still confused at why you think things without moral standings can be guilty or innocent though. By what are they granted innocence?

9/18/2008 9:50:05 PM

you are all forgetting the US would have over 345 million people if we didnt have abortion...i think thats worth a few amens

9/18/2008 9:50:51 PM

^^innocence is the absence of guilt

9/18/2008 9:51:40 PM

Quote :

"drunknloaded transparent as fuck 139015 Posts user info edit post you are all forgetting the US would have over 345 million people if we didnt have abortion...i think thats worth a few amens"

DNL steals the show

9/18/2008 9:51:46 PM

welcome back dnl...apparently chit chat thought you were dead or something

9/18/2008 9:52:12 PM

ok lets just clear this up.

if you think abortion is wrong you obviously have extreme religion (Christian, muslim or jewish) beliefs .


if someone doesnt have those beliefs this argument is pointless.

late 2 cent

9/19/2008 1:15:39 AM

although i dont have too strong of an opinion on it, i think abortion is wrong and im not at all religious

if i had a young daughter that got knocked up i'm sure i would be for it

but you dont have to be religious to think its fundamentally wrong for something to be prevented the opportunity at life

so your assertion that you "obviously have extreme religious views" is obviously wrong

9/19/2008 1:18:18 AM

So... I come in here and read page 2...

Seriously arguing the moral standing (or lack thereof) of a rock?
*facepalm*

9/19/2008 1:27:26 AM

It's called discussing the end points to see where our intuitions fall

We weren't actually arguing the moral status of a rock

But you about as dumb as one, apparently

9/19/2008 2:23:50 AM

Quote :

"i think abortion is wrong "

Quote :

"if i had a young daughter that got knocked up i'm sure i would be for it"

ummmm

9/19/2008 2:28:57 AM

Quote :

"its fundamentally wrong for something to be prevented the opportunity at life"

Do you think women should be able to abort anencephalic babies?

These babies are born without most of their brain, skull, and scalp. It can be diagnosed through ultrasound early in the pregnancy. Should women have to carry these babies to term, go through the pain of labor, and watch their child die when they're born?

9/19/2008 5:04:57 AM

why yes, yes they should

that sounds swell

9/19/2008 7:25:34 AM

^^ i was not aware that the vast majority of abortions were performed for babies with no brains. wow, you've totally changed my mind!

9/19/2008 11:13:01 AM

Quote :

"^^ i was not aware that the vast majority of abortions were performed for babies with no brains. wow, you've totally changed my mind!"

Not sure exactly when the brain begins to develop but it's around week 5-6. Anybody have any stats on how many abortions are performed before this?

Also, unaware of the mental capabilities of the unborn at this point. It's relevant, and something we should figure out. If the mental capabilities could support a subjective experience (hard to answer definitively but easy to get an idea about) then that's when we shouldn't be performing abortions anymore.

But I was pretty sure most abortions occur before this point. Just saw a stat that said 52% are before week 9. Not sure what the week-by-week breakdown is, or how reliable one would be.

Edit:

Anyway it might be the case that the majority of abortions are performed on babies without a brain, as you put it.

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2008 12:40:59 PM

Seriously, this question has never come up before.
Oh well, at least we have another thread full of trolling.

9/19/2008 7:26:09 PM