Your Moral Compass

Sounds like the article was written as an argument against abortion.

However, it seems that not all liberals share the opinion - though it should be acceptable to the right. Those that aren't strong enough to survive obviously shouldn't. Definitely we don't want the state stepping in to give parents of disabled children adequate assistance to look after them.

If we force parents to deliver disabled children and keep them, then aren't we morally obliged to help them deal with what we have forced them to do (they cannot know when conceiving the child whether it will be healthy or not). On the other hand if we decide that we want nothing to do with these children then what is the loss to society if they die?

These are difficult moral issues to weigh but the right likes to think that they can have their cake and eat it too.
 
Fluffy said:
"These are difficult moral issues to weigh but the right likes to think that they can have their cake and eat it too."
-----------------------------------------
They're not difficult at all, if you have morals.
Fluffy it must have been tough growing up in your house, as your logic compass seems as askew as your moral compass appears to be. Do you ever think that anyone is responsible for their own actions without wanting the government to take up the slack. Me thinks your Xanadu is located somewhere in the middle of China. You would fit right in with the party hierarchy.
Another case of "Just get a toe in the door, and see where the liberals will lead you."
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Sounds like the article was written as an argument against abortion.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Part of my college education was in the Philosophy and Ethics Department. Papers such as these exist. Why? People like to play with ideas and make points. We don't know what the goal was of the authors. Similar to Fluffy it sounds to me they are trying to argue against the slippery slope of abortion by claiming indifference between pre-birth and post-birth events.

@Fade - you do realize that Ethicians and Philosophers do make outlandish statements to stimulate discussion. Their job is to express ideas. Those ideas don't have to be the one they hold true. Actually there's term for it 'Devil's Advocate'. It's where someone stakes out a negative position stimulating more conversation.
 
Fade said:
Fluffy said:
"These are difficult moral issues to weigh but the right likes to think that they can have their cake and eat it too."
-----------------------------------------
They're not difficult at all, if you have morals.
Fluffy it must have been tough growing up in your house, as your logic compass seems as askew as your moral compass appears to be. Do you ever think that anyone is responsible for their own actions without wanting the government to take up the slack. Me thinks your Xanadu is located somewhere in the middle of China. You would fit right in with the party hierarchy.
Another case of "Just get a toe in the door, and see where the liberals will lead you."
Click to expand...

well i think fluffy "stolen thunder" mcdeath has fine morals... and since you say he has none merely for asking questions about pretty specific situations in order to stimulate conversation, and u suggest that those answers are quite simple for one with ur kinda morals, although u did not elaborate, im curious... how would you resolve the case examples he cited?

1) If we force parents to deliver disabled children and keep them, then aren't we morally obliged to help them deal with what we have forced them to do (they cannot know when conceiving the child whether it will be healthy or not).

2)On the other hand if we decide that we want nothing to do with these children then what is the loss to society if they die?
 
why some people can never answer ethical questions or have any ability to:

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
H. G. Wells
 
redrumloa said:
I have been saying this since day one. This is how progressives think, they just didn't dare say it in public until now. Don't worry, Obamacare will pay to murder babies.
Click to expand...

well my mother needs heart surgery but shes soooo high risk that the surgeons dont wanna do it because if she dies, high likelihood, up goes insurance. that insurance statistic is called "mom" in my house... cry to me some more about ur fawking deathpanels that already exist... aetna, blue cross... lol...really?
 
robert l. bentham said:
well my mother needs heart surgery but shes soooo high risk that the surgeons dont wanna do it because if she dies, high likelihood, up goes insurance. that insurance statistic is called "mom" in my house... cry to me some more about ur fawking deathpanels that already exist... aetna, blue cross... lol...really?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear about your mother.

You don't really think she would have a better chance under Obamacare, do you? The whole idea behind Obamacare is that elderly and terminally ill people should receive less care, just enough to die off quietly.
 
lost my step dad to inoperable brain tumor last year i just worry about my poor sister...she shouldnt have to bury both parents in two years...
 
Sure, I can answer it; just not the way you want me to.
"We" don't force anyone to have a baby in the US! The SCOTUS saw to that, by "making a law", all by themselves, which is unconstitutional in the first place. That reminder is especially for Cecilia of how the constitution is not supposed to work. You need to actually get it down and read it sometime.


Stimulating the conversation. Well maybe.
In the advertising business we had terms for those pitches.
Finding the numbers.
Testing the waters.
Put it on the pole.
Counting the drones.
Finding the opposition.

quote
"If we force parents to deliver disabled children and keep them, then aren't we morally obliged to help them deal with what we have forced them to do (they cannot know when conceiving the child whether it will be healthy or not)."
-----------------
If that's your question, then why would they bother to even check on the health of the unborn baby What you're saying is they only want a certain kind of baby, and if it doesn't meet expectations, then they should be able to kill it off or force someone else to foot the bill for it's care. Nanny state run amuck.

quote
"2)On the other hand if we decide that we want nothing to do with these children then what is the loss to society if they die?"
----------------
Let's move that one forward about 50 years, when a doctor or scientist might be able to predict all kinds of future health problems, and ask the next Steven Hawking that question. That's right, he won't be there, you will have killed him off before he found out how to do it.

I really like Fluffy's feeble attempt with "evolutionary origins of morals."
-----------
No such thing Fluffy! If it's "evolutionary", then it's only a phase, not a moral. Only a liberal would even bother to try to equate the two. Your next step is probably, boy over girl, then blue eyes over brown, blond over brunet, etc. etc.
Those guys just ran it up the flag pole Fluffy, and you and some others here, just saluted.

But here is the real kicker in all this. You are treating the people who object to infanticide like they are the cause of the situation while ignoring the fact that you are trying to force people with moral objections to infanticide to accept it, or to foot the bill if they don't, and you see nothing wrong with that.

And robert l. bentham, if you feel that strongly about it, then I'm sure you feel the same about the other end of the spectrum, where someone has used up their good healthy years, and has become a drag on the family.
 
yes sir i do... and they should be allowed to go in their own manner, however so they choose...
 
Fade said:
But here is the real kicker in all this. You are treating the people who object to infanticide like they are the cause of the situation while ignoring the fact that you are trying to force people with moral objections to infanticide to accept it, or to foot the bill if they don't, and you see nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

i object... the people who most support infanticide are the same people who think abstinence "only" education actually works....
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Plato's question: Do actions become moral simply because they're dictated by God, or are they dictated by God because they are moral?
Click to expand...
While Christians destroyed a good share of ancient libraries they did grab Plato for their own purposes. Euthyphro is one reading that should be required of everyone. And important to note this question has existed for millenials and people haven't agreed on the answer.

Though in the Euthyphro the 'moral' is a list of good things. Not only positive morals but intellectualism, physical strength, rationality, reasonablness etc. Nor was it God (that'd be the Christian bastardization) it was gods, afterall this is a culture that is polytheistic.

The quick version of my 20+ year old paper is even starting the question resolves around the knowledge of the nature of gods. If it turns out the gods are say deistic in nature, such as the founders believed, or malevolent such as 'The Great Old Ones' the answer would be morality is clearly not dictated by gods. So it's really important to distinguish between the knowability and knowledge of a diety (espiteme) versus the belief or love of the idea of a diety (techne).

Wow Fluffy - thanks for taking me back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top