Abortion///cont.

[glassjester]

I did by illustrating it's right to protection by contrast to the embryos...by a 100X factor.

No. You appealed to popularity. You implied that most people would choose the infant.

Then you simply asserted that to save the 100 lives would be unconscionable. You provided no logical route to your conclusion.

 

[glassjester]

Perhaps you should read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[ok doser]

there you go, getting all emotional again

 

[glassjester]

there you go, getting all emotional again

I just revel in histrionics!

 

[quip]

No. You appealed to popularity. You implied that most people would choose the infant.

Then you simply asserted that to save the 100 lives would be unconscionable. You provided no logical route to your conclusion.

Its not logical to save the life of an infant over an inanimate object.

How do you generally apply morals if not by logical discernment?

 

[Town Heretic]

If indeed you need to assert dehumanization by default

I'm recognizing human nature in relation to that which is more or less obviously like it. On the negative end it's the basis for all sorts of evil, like racism or the end result of your hypothetical for many.

then you must first reconcile this with your sense of moral intuition.

Moral intuition is just putting a tuxedo on feeling, which is subject to the tendency regarding the other and the familiar. All I need do and have done in that respect is to recognize that it isn't a rational approach and to meet it with reason.

 

[glassjester]

Moral intuition is just putting a tuxedo on feeling,

:thumb:

 

[glassjester]

Its not logical to save the life of an infant over an inanimate object.

It's not logical to call a living human an object.

 

[ok doser]

Its not logical to save the life of an infant over an inanimate object.

and just what is the "inanimate object"? :freak:

 

[ok doser]

It's not logical to call a living human an object.

it's not logical to call a living creature inanimate

 

[quip]

I'm recognizing human nature in relation to that which is more or less obviously like it. On the negative end it's the basis for all sorts of evil, like racism or the end result of your hypothetical for many.

I suppose I can claim the same thing though, on the positive end where over-compensation against the negative end becomes an irrational pursuit against its own rational distinction to understand and accept.

Moral intuition is just putting a tuxedo on feeling, which is subject to the tendency regarding the other and the familiar. All I need do and have done in that respect is to recognize that it isn't a rational approach and to meet it with reason.

The only problem in donning that hat is that it clashes with the formal wear. Which will you wear to the party?

 

[glassjester]

The only problem in donning that hat is that it clashes with the formal wear. Which will you wear to the party?

Then you agree with Town Heretic, when he said...

All I need do and have done in that respect is to recognize that it isn't a rational approach

 

[quip]

It's not logical to call a living human an object.

Why not? Give me a reason.

 

[quip]

Then you agree with Town Heretic, when he said...

I agree that he's being duplicitous on the issue...conveniently so.

 

[glassjester]

Why not? Give me a reason.

It seems to be a dismissal of the value of human life. Which, I suppose, you could argue for. But then you'd be forced to do the same for the infant - which is as much a human life as the embryo.

 

[glassjester]

I agree that he's being duplicitous on the issue...conveniently so.

He's being logical. You are not.

 

[quip]

It seems to be a dismissal of the value of human life. Which, I suppose, you could argue for. But then you'd be forced to do the same for the infant - which is as much a human life as the embryo.

Is it? You're intuition doesn't seem to indicate this so, why should I now believe your rhetoric?

 

[quip]

He's being logical. You are not.

How else are we to apply our moral instinct if not by way of reasoning?
TH conveniently wants them distinct from one another.

Do you?

 

[glassjester]

Is it? You're intuition doesn't seem to indicate this so why should I believe your rhetoric?

Yes it is. Was I somehow less human when I was an embryo? It seems the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the same entity was somehow less human at another point during its continuous development.

 

[glassjester]

How else are we to apply our moral instinct if not by way of reasoning?
TH conveniently wants it both ways.

Do you?

No, Quip. It is you who wants to have his cake and eat it, too. You claim some allegiance to "cold logic," but readily abandon it the minute your subjective "intuition" moves you in the opposite direction.