Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
I guess that pig jesus was okay with it, huh?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(03-01-2024, 04:58 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(02-27-2024, 08:40 PM)epronovost Wrote: Theism cannot provide any form of objective morality, no. How can the morality of theism be objective if it's conditional on the acceptance of it's component (the existence of a god, of their moral authority and of the morality of his principles)? That's literally true of every single subjective forms of morality; believing you are fundamentally correct about the nature of morality is not the same thing as being fundamentally correct about the nature of morality. That's a basic error of logic.

You are confusing how a worldview grounds morality (ontology) with acceptance of that worldview (an epistemological concern). Acceptance is irrelevant to the question of whether it does or not. Christianity does by anchoring morality in an eternal God who's nature is the standard for good. It is hard to conceive of a more objective source than that.

Do you think Naturalism (the worldview) can account for objective morality?

Which of the following best describes you?

1. Ethical Naturalism - Asserts that moral truths exist and are objective, grounded in natural properties and facts. Ethical Naturalists believe that moral statements can be true or false based on their correspondence to these natural facts.

2. Non-Naturalism (within a naturalistic worldview) - Maintains that moral truths are objective but are not reducible to or wholly explainable by natural properties or facts. Non-Naturalists argue that moral properties, while not supernatural, are a distinct kind of fact that cannot be fully explained by natural science alone.

3. Moral Subjectivism - Holds that moral values and judgments are subjective and vary from person to person. Within a naturalistic worldview, this position might be supported by pointing to the variability of human psychology and cultural differences as evidence that moral beliefs are rooted in individual or social constructs rather than objective reality.

4. Error Theory - Claims that moral statements attempt to assert objective truths but that all such statements are false because there are no moral facts. From a naturalistic perspective, an Error Theorist might argue that, given our understanding of the natural world, the concept of objective moral values is incoherent.

5. Emotivism or Expressivism - Suggests that moral statements do not attempt to describe the world and cannot be true or false in any objective sense. Instead, they express the speaker's emotions or attitudes. For a naturalist, this view might be grounded in an understanding of morality as an expression of evolutionary or psychological tendencies rather than as statements about objective facts.

6. Constructivism (particularly a naturalized variant) - Proposes that moral truths are not discovered but constructed through rational deliberation or social processes. A naturalistic version of Constructivism might argue that moral norms are constructed to meet human needs or to facilitate social cooperation, grounded in the natural conditions of human life.

OK... First, let me say that I differentiate between morals and ethics. For definitional purposes, I consider "morals" to be religiously-based and "ethics" to be human-based. So keep that in mind.

1. Ethical Naturalism - Asserts that moral truths exist and are objective, grounded in natural properties and facts. Ethical Naturalists believe that moral statements can be true or false based on their correspondence to these natural facts.

"Natural" as in "subjective ethics". According to a culture. Not all cultures agree on ethical practices. And that doesn't make them "wrong", just "different".

2. Non-Naturalism (within a naturalistic worldview) - Maintains that moral truths are objective but are not reducible to or wholly explainable by natural properties or facts. Non-Naturalists argue that moral properties, while not supernatural, are a distinct kind of fact that cannot be fully explained by natural science alone.

As best I understand what you are saying, "non-naturalism" means that is basically non-fact-based and depends on faith in a "higher power" to guide us.

3. Moral Subjectivism - Holds that moral values and judgments are subjective and vary from person to person. Within a naturalistic worldview, this position might be supported by pointing to the variability of human psychology and cultural differences as evidence that moral beliefs are rooted in individual or social constructs rather than objective reality.

I would say "ethics", but basically "yes". Except you added "rather than objective reality" at the end and I feel rather positively-oriented toward "objective reality".

4. Error Theory - Claims that moral statements attempt to assert objective truths but that all such statements are false because there are no moral facts. From a naturalistic perspective, an Error Theorist might argue that, given our understanding of the natural world, the concept of objective moral values is incoherent.

Objective reality is coherent. But it does change as new information is discovered.

5. Emotivism or Expressivism - Suggests that moral statements do not attempt to describe the world and cannot be true or false in any objective sense. Instead, they express the speaker's emotions or attitudes. For a naturalist, this view might be grounded in an understanding of morality as an expression of evolutionary or psychological tendencies rather than as statements about objective facts.

They attempt to describe the world. In error.

6. Constructivism (particularly a naturalized variant) - Proposes that moral truths are not discovered but constructed through rational deliberation or social processes. A naturalistic version of Constructivism might argue that moral norms are constructed to meet human needs or to facilitate social cooperation, grounded in the natural conditions of human life.

I might agree with that given that you added "to meet human needs". And differentiating between "morals" and "ethics".
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • pattylt
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
You're wasting your time with the stevester, he doesn't give a shit about any of this stuff, lol.

Religions are the cultural expression of shared ethical content - rightly or wrongly. Sometimes, a distinction is made between morals and ethics in that ethics are just the rules of whatever game you happen to be playing, whereas morals are contended to be something else. I think it's a distinction that makes no difference, myself. You clearly only use it to separate those moral systems you prefer from ones you don't - and so that would be a "natural fact" - whether it's subjective or objective.

Non naturalism has nothing to do with gods. It states that morality can't be reduced to facts like the fact-of-you above. Sure, people have desires, but moral content often stands in the way of our desires, and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise - though there are all sorts of ways this could come to pass that don't vouch for any other moral or ethical system, ofc. The original purpose of non naturalism was to address things like the bloodiness of an act being it's badness - as we can conceive of bloody things we don't believe to be bad and thus bloodiness, though it is a natural fact, is not a moral fact-maker.
The following 1 user Likes Rhythmcs's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
[Image: e1dd348d0f02036247de108efeb5cdbf.jpg]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Szuchow, Alan V, pattylt
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(Yesterday, 01:16 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: You're wasting your time with the stevester, he doesn't give a shit about any of this stuff, lol.

Religions are the cultural expression of shared ethical content - rightly or wrongly.  Sometimes, a distinction is made between morals and ethics in that ethics are just the rules of whatever game you happen to be playing, whereas morals are contended to be something else.  I think it's a distinction that makes no difference, myself.  You clearly only use it to separate those moral systems you prefer from ones you don't - and so that would be a "natural fact" - whether it's subjective or objective.  

Non naturalism has nothing to do with gods.  It states that morality can't be reduced to facts like the fact-of-you above.  Sure, people have desires, but moral content often stands in the way of our desires, and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise - though there are all sorts of ways this could come to pass that don't vouch for any other moral or ethical system, ofc.  The original purpose of non naturalism was to address things like the bloodiness of an act being it's badness - as we can conceive of bloody things we don't believe to be bad and thus bloodiness, though it is a natural fact, is not a moral fact-maker.

No. Religions are the superstitions of groups of people. Ethics are. The first worships a sort of sky deity who commands. The second are group judgements about proper and successful behavior as learned by humans living together in large groups.

Yes, ethics are "the rules of the game". And I say the "rules of the game" are those by which people can live together well.

There are religious rules ethical people can agree with. Don't Murder. Don't steal. Etc. But Sabbath? Thumbsdown

I admit to some uncertainty about "non-naturalism". A negative of a thought is always tricky. "Morality" can always be traced to facts (religious text claims). Ethics vary. Some cultures have sacrificed children to get a good future harvest; most didn't.

I appreciate this discussion...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(Yesterday, 03:26 PM)Minimalist Wrote: [Image: e1dd348d0f02036247de108efeb5cdbf.jpg]

There weren't many admitted atheists in the bronze age. LOL! But loved the graphic...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Quote:Every month, Ligou Gong and his team prepare to ship hundreds of embryos from their Louisiana fertility clinic to a Texas storage facility nearly 550 miles away.

The routine requires meticulous preparation by Gong and two other embryologists with Audubon Fertility, who spend about a week logging details about each embryo before packing them into tanks that must be kept at minus-196 degrees for the eight-hour trek.

The majority of Louisiana’s fertility clinics have been shipping patients’ embryos out of state for years, with some ending up in Florida and others as far away as Nevada. The time-consuming and costly process is a result of a 1986 state law that banned the destruction of embryos created during IVF. Louisiana has been the only state with such a restriction, though the Alabama Supreme Court put clinics there on alert when it ruled last month that frozen embryos are people and anyone who destroys them could be held liable. Alabama lawmakers responded last week with legislation to protect both patients and providers doing IVF.

For years, Louisiana’s law has added logistical, emotional and financial complications to an already taxing medical process, according to IVF patients, fertility providers and reproductive rights attorneys interviewed by The Washington Post. As clinics coordinate regular bulk shipments, patients’ have limited say about the fate of their embryos.

The system provides a window into what could happen in other states that pursue laws regulating embryos’ personhood and legal rights, with Alabama’s ruling heightening concerns. While the Louisiana law was originally intended as a compromise between religious groups skeptical of IVF and the medical community, some now worry its interpretation can be stretched much further, akin to the Alabama ruling, which would pose more hurdles for those seeking reproductive care.

Louisiana’s ban on destruction of IVF embryos strips patients’ options
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • pattylt
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
[Image: h3jbf82b8zl71.jpg?auto=webp&s=8dfc61277b...8bb889ec72]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt, mordant, Szuchow
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
Btw, the Catholics are cheering the Alabama ruling so expect their added pressure in heavily Catholic areas.

Catholics hate IVF for the simple reason that they weren’t conceived “naturally”. Why does their god allow it to work in that case? But, watch! Once there’s an embryo, their Catholicism kicks in and it’s God’s precious life.

No one can untangle the religious mind…no one.
The following 3 users Like pattylt's post:
  • Dānu, Minimalist, Szuchow
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(8 hours ago)pattylt Wrote: Btw, the Catholics are cheering the Alabama ruling so expect their added pressure in heavily Catholic areas.

Catholics hate IVF for the simple reason that they weren’t conceived “naturally”.  Why does their god allow it to work in that case?  But, watch!  Once there’s an embryo, their Catholicism kicks in and it’s God’s precious life.

No one can untangle the religious mind…no one.

The one universal Christian belief is that they, whoever they are as a Christian, can speak on behalf of God. The rest is just the fruit of said folly.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • pattylt, Alan V
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
[Image: 7a40cd24db7f1133e99866aae3ceb343.jpg]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt, Szuchow
Reply

A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion
(Yesterday, 07:27 PM)Cavebear Wrote: No.  Religions are the superstitions of groups of people.  Ethics are.  The first worships a sort of sky deity who commands.  The second are group judgements about proper and successful behavior  as learned by humans living together in large groups.

Yes, ethics are "the rules of the game".  And I say the "rules of the game" are those by which people can live together well.  

There are religious rules ethical people can agree with.  Don't Murder.  Don't steal.  Etc.  But Sabbath?    Thumbsdown

I admit to some uncertainty about "non-naturalism".  A negative of a thought is always tricky.  "Morality" can always be traced to facts (religious text claims).  Ethics vary.  Some cultures have sacrificed children to get a good future harvest; most didn't.  

I appreciate this discussion...
Well, the discipline that focuses on this stuff is called metaethics, not metamorals.  So, even though I think and the language would suggest that the barrier between the two is either artificial or nonexistent or cultural, we can abandon any discussion of "morals" whatsoever without any loss in informative content.

So, the rules of the game as per non naturalism, "bad" or "wrong" cant really be reduced to any natural fact.  Sure, natural facts might align.   However, it's something like a priori knowledge.  A thing we know when we see...and which happens to be true.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)