Checking my premises
I was unsure as to whether I would title this, "Unlearning what I have learned" or "Checking my premises", because in it, I have done both. A couple of recent posts by AmericanGreatness and Eudaimonia, along with a couple of posts from 1-2 weeks ago are relevant.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?
I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.
I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).
I'm just checking my premises.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I think that you think that I am making religious-based arguments. I have not done so in this thread (or any other time in the last month or so at least), and neither has blarman made a religious argument in this thread.
The reason for the argument is that Objectivism has made the assignment of rights at birth based on that life form's ability to generate enough action on its own to sustain itself. An infant clearly cannot, and a fetus cannot either, of course. By that logic, then no rights should be assigned to that life form until MUCH later in life. You act as if I think that rights should be assigned in utero. In utero, at conception, cells exist, but they are "potential life", as ewv is quick to point out. At that point, the life form cannot have any rights. At some point in utero, the life form starts to generate some actions to sustain itself. Certainly by age four or so, humans generate enough actions to sustain themselves, other than earning cash for food, shelter, etc. At that point, it is probably reasonable to assign children some modest rights. In between, there is a gradient in the number of self-generated actions that the entity takes to sustain itself. One can reasonably argue that it is not until birth that a life form should have any rights. ewv stated multiple times that sentience cannot be used as the point for assignment of rights on the basis that it would create a contradiction. That is a reasonable statement, because prior to sentience, the life form is not capable of making conscious decisions to sustain its own life. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that the lower limit must be greater than the point of sentience.
Personally, as an engineer, I am trained to be conservative, and so I error on the side of caution and avoid the potential ethical dilemma by not participating in abortions. Thus I would not personally get involved in an abortion after the age of sentience, whatever that is. However, that says nothing regarding whether I (or blarman or any of the other Christians on this web site) regarding whether we would use force to impose those views on others. I certainly would not, and you have taken far too much offense to what has been a completely rational debate.
Is the choice of one's birth a reasonable time to start assigning rights to the new entity? Probably. It raises the least contradictions, but it certainly is not the only choice for which one can live a non-contradictory life. Living a non-contradictory life is paramount, regardless of what anyone else, including Ayn Rand, says.
Both of you have assigned a religious basis to my decision. I have not. I have rationally made decisions based on what I can live with and what I cannot live with, according to my moral code.
As to philosophercat's point regarding miscarriages, some "potential life" was not meant to be. My wife and I have gone through a couple miscarriages at 4 to 6 months of gestation. It was emotionally hard on my wife, but in the end, it was a "potential life".
We were also told by our OB doctor that we should abort our 2nd daughter because of a high probability that she would have birth defects using the same argument made by eugenicists. She is going to college next week, with no long term effects. The "pressure" exhibited by the "religious right" is far from the only such pressure. I am quite sure that our doctor's recommendation is far from an isolated incident.
Assertions of "proof" require evidence within a rational observation of existence. A major premise to be checked is whether one is positing an idea as knowledge which presumes a leap of faith in its 'logic'.
I disagree with your concept of knowledge and how we can acquire it. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. It's a characteristic in the nature of our consciousness, and cause for the necessity of using reason to identify and integrate our perceptions.
"Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?"
I completely agree with this. My wording in the previous question was to emphasize that there is knowledge, and then there is what we do with it. I was not trying to argue epistemiology. My apologies if my wording was such that it implied a conflict.
"Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism)."
And I agree that this represents another false dichotomy because it denies a third option: that work and effort may also result in knowledge. The arguments as presented attempt to pit science against religion again based on the false presumption in the former paragraph. By removing the artificial confrontation, we also eliminate the perceived necessity for opposition.
"Since man is not omniscient or infallible..."
I hold that this realization is precisely the key. We are all subject to imperfections and mistakes in judgement, etc. It is a common affliction of man that stems mainly from a lack of perfect knowledge. It is precisely when we presume to know something that we get ourselves into trouble - especially when we can not substantiate those premises with proof. On the other hand, we should not simply ignore the proof we have either, nor should we reject the assertions of those who claim to have proof. Independent verification - preferably personal verification - is the best policy, wouldn't you agree?
Your false personal attacks of "duplicity", "eugenics", "nazism", etc. are inappropriate and do not belong here, just as your repeated proselytizing of religion in antagonism to Ayn Rand's philosophy does not belong here.
I base my findings exactly the same way he does - on my observations and experiences. When someone presents a theory which contradicts what I have personally experienced and observed, I have to immediately take that point of view as being on the opposing side of the evidence I have. What I continually see from you is an attempt to discount what I have seen and experienced as if somehow that personal evidence holds no value. To me, that is as anti-scientific and biased as one can get.
You are not at all required to accept what I have seen and experienced. But you are not permitted to claim that what I have experienced and detected with my own senses is somehow subject to your interpretation or philosophical leanings. Anyone with either decency or courtesy would not only engage in civil discourse on the matter to seek the truth, but would also not be duplicitous about simultaneously demanding evidence and then discounting it when it doesn't fit their preconceptions.
Rights are not based on "utility". This is an Ayn Rand forum.
Relgioun has no business telling anyone they have no choice after sex. The choice to have sex is not the same as a choice to have children. It may or may not be. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex. That is religious dogma. This is an Ayn Rand forum.
Women who have abortions are taking responsibility for the consequences for their action. They have to go out of their way to have an abortion. That is not "trying to undo what can not be undone". It is done all the time and is effective because we understand cause and effect and know what to do to prevent the effect you demand. There are no religious duties. This is an Ayn Rand forum.
"Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason—or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses—or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality—or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty—or is he doomed to perpetual doubt? The extent of your self-confidence—and of your success—will be different, according to which set of answers you accept."
The dichotomy in your last sentence is clarified with this quote from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
.... Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?
It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?”—which then enables the special sciences to provide the answers to the “What?”
In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence." (bold emphasis added)
Engaging in any 'science' already presumes an epistemological consideration of "what".
As explained many times, philosophy -- specifically a rational epistemology -- is fundamental to the basis of scientific knowledge and all other intellectual activity. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts... The role of philosophy in science is not just how we use it.
You don't tell someone who has been falsely smeared as "eugenics", "racial cleansing", "nazis", and "The Black Holocaust" to "lighten up".
Most of the abortions were early stages of development and did not "deliver" fully intact "babies". If there were any borderline live deliveries at the opposite extreme that were improper it was not characteristic as implied by the hype. There were no "nine month old babies" as Mark Levin's demagoguery put it.
There is no evidence that they were paid more than currently legal charges for costs or that the women were pushed into abortions for "harvesting".
If there is ever a detailed, objective assessment perhaps it will be found that PP did something technically illegal buried in the whole context, but it isn't anything like the hysteria being promoted by the anti-abortion activists.
Load more comments...