Pesident Clinton

[ghosttrain]

If you try to construct a moral framework, but ignore the consequences of the operation of that framework, then your framework can never be tested.

Sure, but I don't see how I am. It's just a regular negative utilitarianism, which is well a sub-category of "consequentialism".

Can you murder a cat? No, but you can kill it.
The distinction is that murder is reserved for humans; both to commit it and to be its victim. Why? Because killing is not by itself a moral act, but murder which requires a conscious decision by a sovereign entity is a moral act.

Murder is more of a legal concept, but regardless. Sure, I agree that if we're talking about normative ethics we are discussing the actions of a conscious being understanding the consequences of the action, or sovereign entity, if you wish.
But I can't agree beyond this point. You say the victim has to be such as well. Why? I don't think so. You might disagree with that and that's okay, this is after all philosphy, not science.

Can an infant, even a 36 week old neonate be moral? No, but in time it certainly can. Can you murder an infant? Of course you can. We extend the concept of the victim of murder to include an entity that will become moral.

Sure. Heard this argument before as well. And I'm sorry but honestly this has always been for me another arbitrary line. One of the arguments I've heard is what if the infant has a disease or illness that makes it impossible to live long enough to reach the age of reason? And if you add an exception to infants because they are a "potential" sovereign entity, then you can't disagree that the fetus as well as even a sperm is a potential sovereign entity.
I don't know the answers to these questions, I'm just restating the arguments that I've heard years ago myself.

The line I have drawn is not arbitrary, but based on sovereignty.

I understand what you're saying about sovereignty, the issue is that itself can be argued to be arbitrary, just a concept created to support the idea.

There has to be balance. There has to be dampening in the universe otherwise resonances would kill us all. There has to be a line. To choose to place that line where biology allows is reasonable.

I don't disagree that there has to be a line, I'm just saying this line seems arbitrary to me and maybe humanity should think again where it should be crossed. For me it's all about minimizing suffering in the world and that's why I don't like where some lines are drawn. Doesn't mean I want to erase the lines, just want to see them in a different place.

[planters]

I am all for civil rights, but I'm also for financial responsibility.

Who's against civil rights?

Why would you say it undermines my position when I go on to explain why I don't care?

You spend a lot of time giving reasons for why you should care. Spending the time is itself an act that demonstrates that you care about the topic. To then go on and find that no matter who wins...you don't care. It seems inconsistent to me.

You say the victim has to be such as well. Why? I don't think so.

I think that much of the relevance of your later discussion hinges on this point and here I disagree with you, strongly.

I understand what you're saying about sovereignty, the issue is that itself can be argued to be arbitrary.

The problem you introduce is that existence and the consequential form that reason itself takes, is arbitrary. So, lets accept that these lines are going to be, at their core axiomatic. We are going to have to agree to shake hands on these limits.

[ghosttrain]

I think that much of the relevance of your later discussion hinges on this point and here I disagree with you, strongly.

Are there any particular reasons or is it a moral principle for you?

[james]

Who's against civil rights?

Are you serious?

I've been with my partner for over 23 years and it has only been since the Supreme Court ruling last June that we have been legally married in Ohio.

Lots of people are against civil rights!

Most of them are aligned with the conservative movement which equates to republicans.

Actually, let me rephrase that. No one is against civil rights. People are on all sides of it and there are people who are just all wrong about it.

And unfortunately it is used as a political football to get people to vote a certain way that might not fit their own best socioeconomic position in society.

Case in point; Trump. A lot of what he says is driven by pure racism and some people love it.

[TechJunkie]

Calling me brother doesn't make you seem on any less of a high horse by implying you are more experienced than me because like you've said you've "been in my place". You don't know where I'm at, don't play that game with me.


Sure you did.

Next time maybe don't bother replying at all if you don't want to make an argument. I don't care about statements, make an argument, otherwise you're wasting our time, yours and mine.

Just because something has been historically one way doesn't mean it has to be that way or can't be any other way. That's the fallacy people have used for slavery and few other things in the past. Human trafficking (aka illegal slavery) exists today, sure, but nowhere as common.

This statement alone shows you're lack of knowledge. White slavery is the second biggest underground commodity in the world, drugs being the first. Neither can ever be stopped because the demand is basic human nature. No law exists that can change human nature. Even the death penalty cannot not drop the murder rate. How's that for an argument? You may be smart, but you lack wisdom kid.

Brother is only a term I use, it doesnt really mean I accept you as my equal. And yes, I did spend 2 hours yesterday, and 2 hours today on the post. I spent the time quoting hard evidence to back my opinion. I told my girlfriend about it, because we both almost had to make an abortion decision, and I wanted to know her opinion. She's the one who reminded me that we were all clueless at one point, and maybe I should just let it go and let you find out how things work on your own. Like everyone else has had to. So I dumped the post. No BS, no games involved. Ask anyone who knows me on these laser forums, I'm over opinionated, and love to argue point to point. At this point I'm done arguing with you, thats all. I wasted my time, not yours.

Read The Cider House Rules. It makes a good point about abortion. The movie is not bad too.

[ghosttrain]

This statement alone shows you're lack of knowledge. White slavery is the second biggest underground commodity in the world...

If anything it shows how you didn't read carefully something your responded to.
Point was slavery today is less prevalent than when it was legal.
I mentioned human trafficking when we were discussing the purpose of Trump's wall, which hints I know something about it.

You may be smart, but you lack wisdom kid.

1. You don't know my gender
2. You don't know my age
3. So wtf

Brother is only a term I use, it doesnt really mean I accept you as my equal.

Okay. Kind of douche-y thing to say but fine.

And yes, I did spend 2 hours yesterday, and 2 hours today on the post. I spent the time quoting hard evidence to back my opinion. I told my girlfriend about it, because we both almost had to make an abortion decision, and I wanted to know her opinion. She's the one who reminded me that we were all clueless at one point, and maybe

If anything, my latest posts have been how clueless we are. Again, if you're going to not post something you had prepared, don't come here and tell me you had something. We are making arguments here, not listening to each others statements.

I should just let it go and let you find out how things work on your own. Like everyone else has had to.

Bullshit. And wait, you know how things work? I thought you said we are all clueless? Or did you mean everyone except you?

I wasted my time, not yours.

I'll be the judge on the latter.

Also I don't suggest others to go read a whole book on some issue, I post arguments mentioned in those books.

[dchammonds]

He is a TV personality. He knows how to read an audience and get viewers to tune in.
He had many years of practice doing just that.

Trump knows how to play his base like a fiddle, or maybe he plays the bass like a fiddle, or possibly
he just plain fiddles with his base.

He has made a mockery of the presidential election process..... and for that I love the guy!
And if you have read this far, then yes, I think there is a real possibility that he is working for Hillary.
I think it's very possible that the Clinton's are in on the deal.

I wish I had thought of that one first- a brilliant conspiracy theory!

As I said at the very beginning A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary!

[TechJunkie]

Point was ....bla...bla...bla

[ghosttrain]

Okay .

The problem you introduce is that existence and the consequential form that reason itself takes, is arbitrary. So, lets accept that these lines are going to be, at their core axiomatic. We are going to have to agree to shake hands on these limits.

I don't agree completely.
My view is just because morality doesn't exist outside of our minds (no objective morality), doesn't mean all of us can't have the same moral views (objective in this sense) given a more "complete" knowledge on the issues and possible solutions suggested for those issues and also view them without a filter (prejudice, predisposition, etc.). Because I think emotions/feelings are ultimately what guide us and form our morality and when getting rid of the selfish emotions/feelings that made sense in the past for self-preservation/procreation which are not necessary anymore in a post-nature humanity we are left with the selfless empathetic emotions and feelings and those which are selfish but not harmful to others and/or positive for both yourself and anyone else involved. If guided by those emotions, you decrease the net suffering which is the goal of negative utilitarianism.

As to why the selfish is bad and suffering is bad there's no answer, it's philosophy. The question is why you would disagree as a human. There are bunch of other moral views other than utilitarianism but to me they are either based on religion or similar which have some rules arguably created by selfish emotions (greed, fear, etc).

I just think this is less arbitrary. Just my opinion.

I wish I could word this better.

[james]

I wish I had thought of that one first- a brilliant conspiracy theory!

I honestly don't think Trump is such a bad guy. But he is an actor. He's not real. As president, I don't know how he could possibly conduct himself in an environment where people will actually say "No. You can't do that!". He can't just say "You're Fired!" to anyone he wants out of his way.

James.